ChristianTroy Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Have you ever heard about operation northwoods? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods does it sound familiar? another interesting coincidence is that there is a claim on Wikipedia that the Pilot Charles Burlingame was eventually working for the Pentagon! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Burlingame I know Wikipedia es a very reputable network! On other sites they claim that Bulringame was a developer of Northwoods but those sites I don't want to quote! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 My numbers could be slightly off, but I know the "burner temperature of a PW4000 motor is 2500 or so degrees F. The fuel has to be vaporized to ignite, jet fuel burns rather poorly in open air, but yes, it does burn. It is also under pressure, which helps it to burn. The jet engine when it is "running" is "self-sustained"...from what I remember for the gas turbine school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 claiming steel is weakening at 1200 degress Fahrenheit... scientists say steel looses half it's strength at 1750 degrees Fahrenheit, It would explain the collapse of maximum 10 storeys The heat from the fire was only part of the equation. The structure was designed to withstand such an airplane impact, which it did though now weakened. Now you add the fire which was not factored into the building design requirements. Each floor of the WTC was strong enough to support the weight of 3 floors, provided the weight was added gradually. But of course if a floor drops it hits very hard (f=ma). I don't see anything strange in the way it collapsed. Because of its design, once it starts, there is absolutely no way to stop the chain reaction from going all the way to the bottom. And the pull of gravity will tend to keep floors dropping straight down versus off in a direction. I don't blame the intelligence job leading up to the event letting us down either. How many major attacks have we had advance intelligence and botched it? Pearl harbor, the tet offensive, the battle of the bulge come to mind. But the problem is there is so incredibly much intelligence out there that you just aren't necessarily able to piece it all together right in foresight. And some intelligence is wrong and can contradict and cancel out good intelligence. But in hindsight you look really stupid for missing the obvious. That's what it looks like here to me. For me, it is everything that has happened after 9/11 that I have serious distrust about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Those 84 % confirm the old truth - a country has the leaders it deserves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 I remember this event but you can read about it here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 My numbers could be slightly off' date=' but I know the "burner temperature of a PW4000 motor is 2500 or so degrees F. The fuel has to be vaporized to ignite, jet fuel burns rather poorly in open air, but yes, it does burn.[/quote']It is also under pressure, which helps it to burn. The jet engine when it is "running" is "self-sustained"...from what I remember for the gas turbine school. Yes, basically, the fuel is "Blown" in under pressure, through a nozzle (actually severel) atomized, and added to that which is already burning. And yes, it is a self sustaining "event" The "intake, compression, ignition, power and exhaust" all take place more less similtainiously. Unlike a recipricationg engine where they occur at various intervals. The idea is, Jet fuel doesn't burn as well unless it is pressurized/atomized...still burns, just not as well. I read someplace, forget where, that the 8600 gallons would have burned off very quickly after the initial explosion. If you look at the way the planes hit the WTC, the one that was well videoed, the entire plane just flys right into the building, and is compleately consumed by the building, notice the wings didn't shear off, as one poster suggested could have happened at the pentagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianTroy Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 But of course if a floor drops it hits very hard (f=ma). I don't see anything strange in the way it collapsed. Because of its design, once it starts, there is absolutely no way to stop the chain reaction from going all the way to the bottom. And the pull of gravity will tend to keep floors dropping straight down versus off in a direction. Yes you proof exactly my point everytime it hits the next level there is a resistance that means free fall speed is impossible! It is! Free fall speed is not only characteristic by the time it is characteristic how it picks up speed! If the version would be true the building would look like a pancake. floor over floor over floor! In this cased the concrete pulverized! Let's even assume this happenend naturally there is still no explanation why the core did collapse! Not even in the official reports they mention the core! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Well, also, it is possible, part of the building was weakened in one area, and would have toppled off to one side, thus leaving the lower floors inteact...also, figure how did both WTC towers go in exactly the same fashion? you would think one might have toppled off to the side...and still, no logical explanation for Building #7... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianTroy Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Neo, one more! The steel was covered with fireproof asbetos! You say they designed the building that it would withstand the impact of the plane but forgot to put burning cerosine into the design? I really don't think so! Still, they pulled WTC7 intentionally, how and why! Explanation please! Why did Mayor Guiliani say in an interview 20 minutes before the first tower collpased that the buildings will fall! Please don't tell me it was to expect because it is the first steel framed building that ever collapsed in history. Americans usually never know what happens outside their country, the Windsor Building in Madrid was burning 24 hours and it was still strong enough to support a crane on top of the building http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095 24 hours heavy burn or 1 hour merely black smoke! you decide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.