Anyone care to venture a guess??

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from freedom2fascism. Show freedom2fascism's posts

    Anyone care to venture a guess??

    Here are two screen shots captured from a video of the airliner striking WTC2

    Can you guess how much time has elapsed between Photo One and Photo Two?



    This is not a trick question. I promise. C'mon... would I kid you?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Anyone care to venture a guess??

    How would we know?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from shumirules. Show shumirules's posts

    Re: Anyone care to venture a guess??

    YAWN!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Anyone care to venture a guess??

    The contents of the building is burning in the second photo. There isn't any visible fire showing from the outside. 
     
    I think that the Towers were classified as a moderate fire load. So I would say that it's between 3 and 5 minutes.

    When the plane crash into the building the force of the crash and the explosion destroyed all the sidewall panels, these sidewall panels had a fire retarding rating of let's say 20 minutes, it also knocked out the sprinkler system and it caused the fire insulation to come off the steel beam members in the core of the building causing these steel member to be exposed to high heat which in turned caused these member to warp which caused the weight of the building above the original fire floor to fail which in turned  caused the pancaking of  all floor to crash on top of each other.

    The building came down because of the light weight construction in which the building was built of.

    If I am not mistaken, the Empire State Building was struck by a B29 back in the 40's above the 60th floor but that building stood because of the heavier weight material used to build it .

    For the sake of argument I think the World Trade Towers weighed 15 pound per square foot and the Empire Sate Building weighed upward of 35 pounds per square foot. The extra weight of the Empire State Building protected the building construction weight bearing members better than that of the World Trade Towers.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from shumirules. Show shumirules's posts

    Re: Anyone care to venture a guess??

    In Response to Re: Anyone care to venture a guess??:
    [QUOTE]The contents of the building is burning in the second photo. There isn't any visible fire showing from the outside.    I think that the Towers were classified as a moderate fire load. So I would say that it's between 3 and 5 minutes. When the plane crash into the building the force of the crash and the explosion destroyed all the sidewall panels, these sidewall panels had a fire retarding rating of let's say 20 minutes, it also knocked out the sprinkler system and it caused the fire insulation to come off the steel beam members in the core of the building causing these steel member to be exposed to high heat which in turned caused these member to warp which caused the weight of the building above the original fire floor to fail which in turned  caused the pancaking of  all floor to crash on top of each other. The building came down because of the light weight construction in which the building was built of. If I am not mistaken, the Empire State Building was struck by a B29 back in the 40's above the 60th floor but that building stood because of the heavier weight material used to build it . For the sake of argument I think the World Trade Towers weighed 15 pound per square foot and the Empire Sate Building weighed upward of 35 pounds per square foot. The extra weight of the Empire State Building protected the building construction weight bearing members better than that of the World Trade Towers.
    Posted by Sistersledge[/QUOTE]

    The Empire State building was hit by a B29 flying at about 180 mph.
    The WTC building were hit by planes flying over 500mph.
    The B29 did not carry jet fuel.
    757's and 767's do.
    757's and 767's carry much more fuel.
    They are much bigger and heavier they B29s.

    You are very right when you mention how the ESB was built totally different then the WTC building.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Anyone care to venture a guess??

    Shumirules, I remember seeing an article about the ESB being hit.

    I couldn't remember the particulars.

    Thanks for the information though.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from shumirules. Show shumirules's posts

    Re: Anyone care to venture a guess??

    In Response to Re: Anyone care to venture a guess??:
    [QUOTE]Shumirules, I remember seeing an article about the ESB being hit. I couldn't remember the particulars. Thanks for the information though.
    Posted by Sistersledge[/QUOTE]

    No problem I am still waiting to find out what the big difference in these pictures is.  lol
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from GrimsGhost. Show GrimsGhost's posts

    Re: Anyone care to venture a guess??

    In Response to Re: Anyone care to venture a guess??:
    [QUOTE]The contents of the building is burning in the second photo. There isn't any visible fire showing from the outside.    I think that the Towers were classified as a moderate fire load. So I would say that it's between 3 and 5 minutes. When the plane crash into the building the force of the crash and the explosion destroyed all the sidewall panels, these sidewall panels had a fire retarding rating of let's say 20 minutes, it also knocked out the sprinkler system and it caused the fire insulation to come off the steel beam members in the core of the building causing these steel member to be exposed to high heat which in turned caused these member to warp which caused the weight of the building above the original fire floor to fail which in turned  caused the pancaking of  all floor to crash on top of each other. The building came down because of the light weight construction in which the building was built of. If I am not mistaken, the Empire State Building was struck by a B29 back in the 40's above the 60th floor but that building stood because of the heavier weight material used to build it . For the sake of argument I think the World Trade Towers weighed 15 pound per square foot and the Empire Sate Building weighed upward of 35 pounds per square foot. The extra weight of the Empire State Building protected the building construction weight bearing members better than that of the World Trade Towers.
    Posted by Sistersledge[/QUOTE]

    Whoops… my login has somehow become unusable, so reverting to an older screen name, for now…

     

     

    The contents of the building is burning in the second photo. There isn't any visible fire showing from the outside.

    Exactly, and that’s the point of this post. Building contents fires were what were visible at this moment.

    I think that the Towers were classified as a moderate fire load. So I would say that it's between 3 and 5 minutes.

    Actually, these two photos are only 15 seconds apart from each other.

    The massive external fireball actually completely dissipated in less than 15 seconds, leaving nothing but the office contents to support the fires going forward. All of the jet fuel, or almost all, was ignited outside of the building in a mid air fireball, as the fuel was essentially atomized into droplets mixed with oxygen rich air.

    The whole purpose of this post is to prove to those that cling to the “thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning caused them to collapse” story line, that here is proof that all that fuel never even made it inside.

    So the fires in both Towers were fueled only by rugs, desks, papers and the like. And unlike the outside fuel-air explosion, inside the Towers became oxygen starved. The point here is, average office contents burning in an oxygen deprived space could not produce high enough temperatures on a concentrated area long enough to weaken the steel sufficiently to provide for catastrophic failure, even if every bit of the fireproofing had been completely eliminated.

    The massive vertical beams were so thick and dense that it would take sustained blowtorch-like temperatures, focused on one area for a protracted period to cause substantial weakness. The beams also were excellent conductors of heat, and would have wicked away heat throughout the cool areas, making it even more difficult to reach a terminal temperature.

    When the plane crash into the building the force of the crash and the explosion destroyed all the sidewall panels, these sidewall panels had a fire retarding rating of let's say 20 minutes, it also knocked out the sprinkler system and it caused the fire insulation to come off the steel beam members in the core of the building causing these steel member to be exposed to high heat which in turned caused these member to warp which caused the weight of the building above the original fire floor to fail which in turned  caused the pancaking of  all floor to crash on top of each other.

    The fires were constantly moving due to the lack of a real large source of fuel in any one area. We are talking about desks, chairs, carpet, filing cabs full of paper, and plastic office equipment. Once these items were consumed, the fire would extinguish in that area, and would have spread towards any adjacent space that contained combustible material. Remember, the floors were concrete, the ceilings were concrete, and the lightweight and non-structural walls were made of metal studs with an asbestos compound sheetrock. A rapidly moving fire cannot elevate the temperature of such a massive heat sink like the Towers core beams to anywhere near the temperature of even mild weakness, much less the melting of the steel that was reported by numerous first responders under the pile

    And the pancake theory, which was the first theory put forward by NIST, has been retracted due to the fact it did not account for the failure of the 47 massive core beams. So now they say the beams failed and that caused the rest to fall, however there is no logical way the fires we know were available could ever cause this rapid and complete collapse.

    Here's NIST's oginal "Pancake theory" as depicted on NOVA. After much derision, NIST scrambled back to the old drawing board to discover the property called "thermal expansion" as the culprit. (stuff gets hot, stuff expands, stuff falls down)


    The building came down because of the light weight construction in which the building was built of.

    This was a gravity collapse. The only force that was in play in this scenario was weight. The lighter construction should have helped the structure survive, not promote its collapse.

    If I am not mistaken, the Empire State Building was struck by a B29 back in the 40's above the 60th floor but that building stood because of the heavier weight material used to build it .

    You are correct – but it was a B-25 in 1945. It did not even whimper. But there any many other examples of steel framed buildings that became fully engulfed in fire, some for over eight hours, and not one of them collapsed. In all of modern history, the only steel framed high rises to ever collapse were the THREE on 9/11, 2 hit by planes and one hit by minor debris.




     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share