Explosions in comparision pt1.

As some cannot seem to work out my very simplistically approached way of explaining why there was more than just a Jet exploding in WTC2 The South Tower, I have re-planned and done it this way, notice the explosion at the Pentagon is no more than the height of the building above it ie:- x 2 Pentagon height - 5x2=10 storeys.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/86b80756546a.jpg[/atsimg]

There, can you see it now?, the East face of that explosion is at least 150 metres = 24 storeys = 12 times larger than the Pentagon explosion.

Debunk that.

Dear oh dear, there must be some obtuse reason this explosion was x12 bigger than the Pentagon one, which did not have to explode from the inside out thus losing a lot of it`s force punching through the steel.

Still not one reply, why is that?

Thats an interesting comparison. How did you arrive at the final scale? Did you count pixels? Thats I measured the hole in the pentagon. I came up with aprox. the same as the experts, 16-20 feet.

While your comaprison is not 'exact', it certainly illustrates the point that these explosions were fundamentally different.

Originally posted by jprophet420
Thats an interesting comparison. How did you arrive at the final scale? Did you count pixels? Thats I measured the hole in the pentagon. I came up with aprox. the same as the experts, 16-20 feet.

While your comaprison is not 'exact', it certainly illustrates the point that these explosions were fundamentally different.

Sure bud np, yep I used pixels as a guide, but 1st I got the single measurement needed to adjust and compensate everything with, we know the Pentagon is 5 storeys above ground (2 below not important), so with that in mind I got as tight in as possible to the explosion so as to get the input needed, as you know the focal point in that picture is a very acute angle, once I got this
....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a7ee9cef087.jpg[/atsimg]

I then opened up paint and gauged the measurement, we know the towers are 110 storeys so it`s a simple case of dividing the Pentagon height at point of explosion say it`s a 100 pixels by the amount of storeys - 5 = 20 pixels per storey, then adjust and resize a picture of the towers until each storey = 20 pixels and there you have it, it may not be 100% exact but it is a very accurate estimate, either way it`s not that far out to make the WTC explosion x12 the size of the Pentagon.

Footnote:- The lack of debunking on this subject pretty much sums up the authenticity of this approach as a damn good source of evidence, feel free to look at any of my threads/posts regarding this matter, and you will find no debunking, if this was regarded as a un-accurate way of putting forward a point, they would have picked up on it .

/cheers

EDIT: P.S.

P.S. I forgot to mention, I also mention that the Pentagon explosion peaks at just over x2 the height = roughly 10 storeys whilst over at WTC the explosion easily covers 30 storeys in height and around 50 storeys in width, this can clearly be seen in the lower picture, it is at least roof top level and a good few storeys beneath impact level.

There is no way on earth that directly after 1st explosion 2nd explosion was caused by Jet fuel.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Seventh]

EDIT: P.S. P.S.

P.S.

I did get the amount of storeys wide wrong in my 1st post it should read 150 metres = 41 storeys, my apologies .

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Seventh]

I am certainly not an expert, but from my short wiki search south tower was hit by 767-200ER that has almost twice the range of 757 that hit pentagon. Thus should carry more fuel.
Could be this?

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
I am certainly not an expert, but from my short wiki search south tower was hit by 767-200ER that has almost twice the range of 757 that hit pentagon. Thus should carry more fuel.
Could be this?

I don't know the capacity either but I would quess it is not SIX times the capacity. Weed will pop up on this one any second.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Donny 4 million]

S&F for you bro... nice find and analysis.

you should check out the Impact Study thread I posted a while ago... I made some similiar findings and a discovery you might find interesting that somewhat corroborates yours. Not to mention my findings went for the most part unchallenged.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Orion7911
S&F for you bro... nice find and analysis.

you should check out the Impact Study thread I posted a while ago... I made some similiar findings and a discovery you might find interesting that somewhat corroborates yours. Not to mention my findings went for the most part unchallenged.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks very much, and when I have time I most definitely check your thread out, my time is being fully taken up atm on a very intense Pentagon thread i`m about to release part one, there will be around 5 parts, each takes an extensive amount of counter research I do not want one single point of thread to be exposed as not being able to prove (not saying it contains fake info, but all I release is 100% backed up, a great pity I have had to remove a lot of stuff from it because of this point).

/cheers

Someone asked about the difference in the fuel quantity between the B757 and B767.

True, the B767 does have more capacity, but for essentially equal stage lengths and planned flight times (I.E., from East Coast to West Coast) the amounts required are approximately the same.

Being slightly heavier, the B767 will tend to burn at a slightly higher rate, therefore you'll see higher numbers in planned fuel loads. Say, 5,000 to 10,000 pounds more (about 750-1500 gallons). I'm sure the data on ACTUAL Dispatch fuel loads of all four airplanes is available....I haven't searched that yet.

IMO, analyzing the sizes of the various fireballs is going to be inconclusive, as there are likely additional factors at play, there.

I find it stretching credulity though, to think that the ability to predict EXACTLY where the Saudis were going to hit, and time some sort of "pre-planted" explosion. Just is too fantastic to have worked so well.

BTW, about analyzing the fireballs --- using selected still frames isn't a very representative method, either.

I invite everyone to watch the following video. Not often do we see a large jet crash, and capture the result on film. This B-52 at an airshow likely did NOT have as much fuel as the B757s or B767s from 9/11.

Eight engines are thirstier than two, yes...but for the purposes of the air demonstration, it certainly wasn't going to be in the air for six hours, and would want to be fairly light for better performance.



Now, you have a video to analyze, and compare the fireball sizes.

Here are some of the specs of the B-52, for airplane size comparisons:

...Length: 159 ft 4 in (48.5 m)
Wingspan: 185 ft 0 in (56.4 m)
Height: 40 ft 8 in (12.4 m)
Wing area: 4,000 sq ft (370 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 63A219.3 mod root, NACA 65A209.5 tip
Empty weight: 185,000 lb (83,250 kg)
Loaded weight: 265,000 lb (120,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 488,000 lb (220,000 kg)
Powerplant: 8× Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3/103 turbofans, 17,000 lbf (76 kN) each
Fuel capacity: 47,975 U.S. gal (39,948 imp gal; 181,610 L)...

Wiki


Here's another, an SU-27....Russian-built fighter, certainly much smaller than a passenger jet or the B-52, and lots less fuel too. So, here for more comparisons:





I cannot say why each looks different. Open air crashes on land, crashes into different structures, different fuel splashing, atomization and distribution patterns???

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
I am certainly not an expert, but from my short wiki search south tower was hit by 767-200ER that has almost twice the range of 757 that hit pentagon. Thus should carry more fuel.
Could be this?

Damn I wish you guys would do one piece of research sometimes, a plane no matter what will take on board enough fuel for the journey plus an x amount of emergency time.....

1. A-B fuel ( consist of t/o, climb, cruise and descend fuel )
2. approach fuel.....depends on type
3. contingency fuel... 'X'% ( depends on operator )....for engine wear and tear etc etc etc
4. holding fuel...normally 30 minutes duration ( if your plane consumes 1000 pounds/hr, then it'll be 500 pound )
5. diversion fuel ( 1+2 )
6. taxy and start up fuel

if you fly to a destination where there's no fuel available, then you might have to carry extra.... A-B+6 fuel plus B-C (back to your departure airfield, which consist of 1-6). cater for extra if you think the weather might turn bad or if you expect long delay by ATCs

remember.....heavy aircraft burns more fuel. so, if you load too much fuel in the tanks, you might ended burning more and won't be very economically.

reply to post by Seventh


I told you i am not an expert. So this is continuation of bad research .
Fuel amounts vary according to distance and other stuff, you are totally correct.
So i fix my mistake.
Fuel on 175 - +/- 10000 gallons according to Wiki.
Fuel on 77 - 36200 pounds according to
www.911myths.com...
(what happened to simple metric system???? pounds,gallons....)
Conversion from pounds to gallons (from net since one as i found is weight, another volume?) is by factor of 8.
36200/8 = around 4500 gallons.
Again, not only not an expert but also i have no clue about pounds/gallons.
So if i mixed up - sorry.
But it appears that there is twice as less fuel on flight 77 and aircraft itself is about 60 tons (empty) against about 80 tons on 767.
Since relations between mass and impact are not linear, again i GUESS that it is due to this. More fuel, more weight ---> probably bigger explosion.

reply to post by weedwhacker


The explosion at WTC2 had to punch it`s way out through steel bud where is the high explosive content in kerosene to help it do that with such magnitude?, also the one you showed us has nothing to lose it`s force of explosion against, also great point there is look how quick it died down.

/cheers

P.S.

Looking for similar crashes over the net to compare with is such a fruitless task, I gave up ages ago, it`s nigh on impossible .

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by Seventh

 

I told you i am not an expert. So this is continuation of bad research

.
Fuel amounts vary according to distance and other stuff, you are totally correct.
So i fix my mistake.
Fuel on 175 - +/- 10000 gallons according to Wiki.
Fuel on 77 - 36200 pounds according to
www.911myths.com...
(what happened to simple metric system???? pounds,gallons....)
Conversion from pounds to gallons (from net since one as i found is weight, another volume?) is by factor of 8.
36200/8 = around 4500 gallons.
Again, not only not an expert but also i have no clue about pounds/gallons.
So if i mixed up - sorry.
But it appears that there is twice as less fuel on flight 77 and aircraft itself is about 60 tons (empty) against about 80 tons on 767.
Since relations between mass and impact are not linear, again i GUESS that it is due to this. More fuel, more weight ---> probably bigger explosion.

I am going to add another aspect to this post when I get time it will help point out a whole heap better .

/cheers.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

(what happened to simple metric system???? pounds,gallons....)
Conversion from pounds to gallons (from net since one as i found is weight, another volume?) is by factor of 8.

I guess you haven't read my other post.

(what happened to simple metric system???? pounds,gallons....)

In the United States we use the Imperial system. Canada, Europe, etc they use Litres and kilograms.

Conversion from pounds to gallons (from net since one as i found is weight, another volume?) is by factor of 8.

You need to re-calculate.

Jet-A (fuel used in commercial jets) weighs on average 6.7 Pounds/Gallon. "Average", because it depends on the fuel density, which changes with temperature. It can be as much as 6.85 Pounds/Gal when cold, or down to 6.5 Pounds/Gal in Tropical temperatures.

Okay here is an update showing both the Jet and the cubed amount of fuel that was estimated to be left at point of impact 36 cubic metres, this little cube not only made that gigantic explosion but is also responsible for collapsing the WTC Towers 1 and 2.....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ee4b02802111.jpg[/atsimg]

Draw your own conclusions..

The way you have superimposed a Jet against the fireball really brings home your point. Keep up the good work Seventh.

If I could just go on a slight tangent here, Have you ever researched the Buncefield Oil Depot explosions and fires ? Might be a lot of unearthed jewels to explore. Here are some links.

Some interesting comments and images from the blaze.
buncefield-oil-fire-hemel-hempstead.wingedfeet.co.uk...

It was estimated that this would be the largest 'single-seat' fire in the world ever to be fought by a fire brigade.
The seat of the fire, and the worst damaged section, was "HOSL West", used by Total and Texaco to store a variety of fuels

Official Buncefield Investigation Homepage
www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk...

The Official Final Report - issued in December 2008, 3 yrs after the fire.
www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk...

Buncefield Oil Fires(UK) against 911's WTC 7
www.youtube.com...


Unlike the towers - dont you love how there was no molten pools of metal at Buncefield even after burning for 3 days, the distorted metal is the result of cold firefighting liquids sprayed onto hot sufaces.

reply to post by CannotGoHome


Thanks CGH , I remember that fire Hemel is not that far from where I live, well hopefully I can carry on with some input for this thread now, there is another potential eye opener I have lined up, and when I get the time to post it I will, as far as meting steel etc goes it`s hard when you are up against the demon that is Bush science.

/cheers.

I agree with weedwhacker.
The fireballs are dependent on many different factors and trying to compare with just still frames is going to end up inconclusive. Now the common misconception with the WTC steel is that it was just a solid wall of steel, that is immovable and super strong. That is a common fallacy that is repeated time and again.

The exterior columns were column trees, which were 30ft by 10ft sections, three columns across that were held together by three steel plate sections. They fit together with 1" bolts on each end of the column, four to an end. When the planes impacted, the bolts are what gave way, allowing the aircraft to dislodge the column tree sections and enter the building. The resulting fireball explodes out from all the windows on the sides where the fuel and aircraft travel through. Plenty of spaces for the fireball and smoke to exit through.

The Pentagon on the other hand did no have hundreds of windows or open spaces to allow for more "fireball" to come out of. It crashed into and exploded inside and outside the concrete building. The fireball, rather than being outside, also traveled inside the Pentagon, which is possibly way we didnt see as large a fireball as at WTC.

On fuel loads and such, here is an Airbus A320 crash into a forest. Notice how large the fireball is here too?

reply to post by GenRadek


Oh come on General you`re an intelligent guy, just look at the scaled inserts I added for comparison, and sidestep irony time...Over at the Pentagon we have some form of Jet managing to penetrate 3 rings of an anti missile structure, and when I finally get around to it, the engine that was ejected from WTC2 and the hole position meant it had to have travelled through the outer skin, centre core, outer skin, now you cannot tell me that this event is possible with the way it is supposed to have happened?.

Also on the exit side (North iirc) take a look at how many floors have already been severed from the exterior plates, just get the picture, open paint or something and sting a line across them, right side drop down, left side go up, tell me how the hell that happened?.

/cheers.