Re: Some video evidences of explosives in Twin Tower collapse

[B2431]

>From: (Michael Petukhov)
>Date: 1/10/2004 1:43 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
>missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:
>
>http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715
>
>Michael
>
You amaze me sometimes, petukhov, you post comments intended to annoy as many
people as possible "our stuff is better than your stuff" and come up with a
site to prove it. Then you come back with this conspiracy garbage and expect us
to swallow it.

What's worse is you do it in the wrong newsgroup.

All of this begs the question: do you actually believe the stuff you post?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "TJ"
>Date: 1/10/2004 4:51 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>Michael Petukhov off his medicine wrote:
>
>
>> just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
>> missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:
>>
>> Michael
>
>Michael, you have completey lost it! You have in the last couple of weeks
>provided proof that you are gullible and naive in the extreme. The
>newsgroups are laughing at you! Explosives in the WTC? The same idiots who
>also believe in the WTC explosives theory also believe in the 767s being
>remote controlled and fitted out with underfuselage fuel pods:
>
>http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/757attackWTClarger.jpg
>
>"The 2nd remotely controlled plane just before it crashes into the WTC.
>Notice the odd shape under the fuselage, at the level of the wings"
>
>http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/767&cont_display.jpg
>
>"Was the strange attachment on the plane actually an extra fuel tank filled
>with gasoline, for creating a big fire and huge media show? Such tanks can
>be seen on many army aircrafts, but have never been seen on a Boeing 767
>which normally has no fittings (so called "hard points") to fix such a tank
>to..."
>
>http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/ghostplane_unders.jpg
>
>"How come a plane could have taken off without anyone noticing the odd extra
>tank? How probable is it some foreign hijackers "customized" a Boeing 767 in
>this way for their purpose "
>
>http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/fuselage_tank_from_beneath.gif
>
>"And if any doubt was left, then this angle definitely shows a tank was
>fitted under the 767"
>
>TJ
>
I wouldn't want to be the load master on an aircraft like that. It looks like
the "tank" is mounted only on the right side of the fuselage.

And to think all this time I tought the WTC collapses were an illusion and the
towers are still in fact there and fully occupied by the NWO, Bilderberg Group,
Illuminati.... etc.

I notice all the 9/11 citations used by petukhov seem to be in France which
also is the only place Jerry Lewis is viewed as a great actor. Coincidence?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> I notice all the 9/11 citations used by petukhov seem to be in France
> which also is the only place Jerry Lewis is viewed as a great actor.
> Coincidence?

One of the better-selling books (hundreds of thousands of copies) in
France (The Appalling Fraud, by Thierry Meyssan) over the last couple of
years was a fairly evil conspiracy piece which claimed that the whole
9/11 event was an American plot to make Muslims look bad.

Then, of course, there was a nasty little fiction book called "Windows
on the World" by an asshole named Frederic Beigbeder which appeared to
have been written merely to slander the folks killed in the atacks.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Michael Petukhov]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Michael Petukhov)
> >Date: 1/10/2004 1:43 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
> >missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:
> >
> >http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715
> >
> >Michael
> >
> You amaze me sometimes, petukhov,

Glade to hear.

> you post comments intended to annoy as many
> people as possible

If somebody are annoied this is because they do not like to hear the true.

> "our stuff is better than your stuff"

Never said that. Cite please. Although indeed our stuff soemtimes worser
than yours, sometimes is as good as yours and sometimes its is even
better than yours. Does it annoy you?

> and come up with a
> site to prove it. Then you come back with this conspiracy garbage and expect us
> to swallow it.

I expect from you only that you read that and post a sensible comments
on the subject if any. and shut up if you do not have any. I do not
care about anyones opinions on my personal account.

>
> What's worse is you do it in the wrong newsgroup.

No it is THE RIGHT GROUP (GROUPS).

>
> All of this begs the question: do you actually believe the stuff you post?
>

Sometimes yes sometimes no. For instance for explosives in WTC
I feel that avaibale evedences are not enough to make conclusion.
As for Pentagon 757 crash I do believe that we have enough evidences
that no 757 ever crashed in Pentagon.

Michael

> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[fudog50]

This man is seriously demented, please don't encourage by responding
to hiis posts anymore.


On 11 Jan 2004 01:02:58 -0800, (Michael
Petukhov) wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message >...
>> >From: (Michael Petukhov)
>> >Date: 1/10/2004 1:43 PM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
>> >missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:
>> >
>> >http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715
>> >
>> >Michael
>> >
>> You amaze me sometimes, petukhov,
>
>Glade to hear.
>
>> you post comments intended to annoy as many
>> people as possible
>
>If somebody are annoied this is because they do not like to hear the true.
>
>> "our stuff is better than your stuff"
>
>Never said that. Cite please. Although indeed our stuff soemtimes worser
>than yours, sometimes is as good as yours and sometimes its is even
>better than yours. Does it annoy you?
>
>> and come up with a
>> site to prove it. Then you come back with this conspiracy garbage and expect us
>> to swallow it.
>
>I expect from you only that you read that and post a sensible comments
>on the subject if any. and shut up if you do not have any. I do not
>care about anyones opinions on my personal account.
>
>>
>> What's worse is you do it in the wrong newsgroup.
>
>No it is THE RIGHT GROUP (GROUPS).
>
>>
>> All of this begs the question: do you actually believe the stuff you post?
>>
>
>Sometimes yes sometimes no. For instance for explosives in WTC
>I feel that avaibale evedences are not enough to make conclusion.
>As for Pentagon 757 crash I do believe that we have enough evidences
>that no 757 ever crashed in Pentagon.
>
>Michael
>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Wiser]

"tim gueguen" > wrote:
>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> kirill > wrote:
>>
>> > The video evidence speaks for itself. All
>that absurdly improbable
>> > symmetry in the collapse. Also the complete
>absence of any support
>> > for the pancake collapse theory.
>>
>> This whole "explosives took the building down"
>theory is interesting in
>> a psychotic fashion.
>>
>> So... the US government used planes (either
>remote-controlled or stolen
>> and piloted by suicidal CIA types), crashed
>them into some buildings,
>> and *then*, after some time, set off some
>explosives in several places
>> in order to knock the buildings down and blame
>it on Al-Qaeda... instead
>> of taking the much easier tack of just putting
>explosives into the
>> buildings and setting them off, while blaming
>it on Al-Qaeda, which had
>> tried it before.
>>
>Its amazing how many conspiracy theories are
>like that, requiring the
>supposed perpetrators to concoct ridiculously
>elaborate schemes when much
>more simple ones would lead to the same results.
>
>tim gueguen 101867
>
>
That's the nature of conpspracy theorists: the more complicated the conspiracy,
the more likely no one will believe them. The simple explanations don't make
sense to such people: Not with JFK's assassination, nor with Princess Di's
death, not with 9-11, and the Mars rover (already the "it's a hoax" crowd
is springing up, like with Pathfinder in '97).

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"TJ" > wrote:
>
>Michael Petukhov off his medicine wrote:
>
>
>> just to have a break in hot and very productive
>discussions of Pentagon
>> missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:
>>
>> Michael
>
>Michael, you have completey lost it! You have
>in the last couple of weeks
>provided proof that you are gullible and naive
>in the extreme. The
>newsgroups are laughing at you! Explosives in
>the WTC? The same idiots who
>also believe in the WTC explosives theory also
>believe in the 767s being
>remote controlled and fitted out with underfuselage
>fuel pods:
>
>http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/757attackWTClarger.jpg
>
>"The 2nd remotely controlled plane just before
>it crashes into the WTC.
>Notice the odd shape under the fuselage, at
>the level of the wings"
>
>http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/767&cont_display.jpg
>
>"Was the strange attachment on the plane actually
>an extra fuel tank filled
>with gasoline, for creating a big fire and huge
>media show? Such tanks can
>be seen on many army aircrafts, but have never
>been seen on a Boeing 767
>which normally has no fittings (so called "hard
>points") to fix such a tank
>to..."
>
>http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/ghostplane_unders.jpg
>
>"How come a plane could have taken off without
>anyone noticing the odd extra
>tank? How probable is it some foreign hijackers
>"customized" a Boeing 767 in
>this way for their purpose "
>
>http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/fuselage_tank_from_beneath.gif
>
>"And if any doubt was left, then this angle
>definitely shows a tank was
>fitted under the 767"
>
>TJ
>
>
>
Anyone notice that these sites are all from France? Where some diphead
wrote a book claiming that 9-11 was a Pentagon/CIA plot? He ought to come
over here and meet with families of victims and some of those who survived
the Pentagon and WTC. Assuming that he doesn't get lynched in the process
of making his asinine case....

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Michael Petukhov]

fudog50 > wrote in message >...
> This man is seriously demented, please don't encourage by responding
> to hiis posts anymore.

Scared? Good.

Michael
>
>
> On 11 Jan 2004 01:02:58 -0800, (Michael
> Petukhov) wrote:
>
> (B2431) wrote in message >...
> >> >From: (Michael Petukhov)
> >> >Date: 1/10/2004 1:43 PM Central Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
> >> >missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:
> >> >
> >> >http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715
> >> >
> >> >Michael
> >> >
> >> You amaze me sometimes, petukhov,
> >
> >Glade to hear.
> >
> >> you post comments intended to annoy as many
> >> people as possible
> >
> >If somebody are annoied this is because they do not like to hear the true.
> >
> >> "our stuff is better than your stuff"
> >
> >Never said that. Cite please. Although indeed our stuff soemtimes worser
> >than yours, sometimes is as good as yours and sometimes its is even
> >better than yours. Does it annoy you?
> >
> >> and come up with a
> >> site to prove it. Then you come back with this conspiracy garbage and expect us
> >> to swallow it.
> >
> >I expect from you only that you read that and post a sensible comments
> >on the subject if any. and shut up if you do not have any. I do not
> >care about anyones opinions on my personal account.
> >
> >>
> >> What's worse is you do it in the wrong newsgroup.
> >
> >No it is THE RIGHT GROUP (GROUPS).
> >
> >>
> >> All of this begs the question: do you actually believe the stuff you post?
> >>
> >
> >Sometimes yes sometimes no. For instance for explosives in WTC
> >I feel that avaibale evedences are not enough to make conclusion.
> >As for Pentagon 757 crash I do believe that we have enough evidences
> >that no 757 ever crashed in Pentagon.
> >
> >Michael
> >
> >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:31:30 -0500, kirill > wrote:

>
>
>Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
>>
>> Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and oxygen.
>
>Sure. The jet fuel just flowed down to the right floor and then exploded. LOL.
>
>> These folks really need to learn how those building were built before
>> they start coming up with these dumb theories.
>
>The video evidence speaks for itself. All that absurdly improbable symmetry
>in the collapse. Also the complete absence of any support for the pancake collapse
>theory.
>
>>
>> Michael Petukhov wrote:
>>
>> >just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon
>> >missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:
>> >
>> >http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715
>> >
>> >Michael
>> >
>> >
To anyone who is even slightly familiar with the construction of the towers
the symmetry of the collapse was quite predictable, given the damage
they sustained. These conspio-whacko theories are simply ridiculous.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:22 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Mark and Kim Smith > wrote in
:
>
>> Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and
>> oxygen. These folks really need to learn how those building
>> were built before they start coming up with these dumb theories.
>
> Is it likely to assume that the fuel burned up in the explosion
> when the airplane impacted?
>
>
> Regards...
>


No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.

Al Minyard

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:31:30 -0500, kirill
> > wrote:

>>> >just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions
>>> >of Pentagon missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:
>>> >
>>> >http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715
>>> >
>>> >Michael
>>> >
>>> >
> To anyone who is even slightly familiar with the construction of
> the towers the symmetry of the collapse was quite predictable,
> given the damage they sustained. These conspio-whacko theories
> are simply ridiculous.

I agree, but the secrecy, misinformation and almost complete
absence of any thorough fullscale investigation into the attacks
and the physics behind collapse of the buildings to me is
disturbing, and seems precisely why conspiricy theories are
allowed to flourish.



Regards...

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:22 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:
>
>>Mark and Kim Smith > wrote in
:
>>
>>> Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and
>>> oxygen. These folks really need to learn how those building
>>> were built before they start coming up with these dumb
>>> theories.
>>
>> Is it likely to assume that the fuel burned up in the explosion
>> when the airplane impacted?
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>>
>
>
> No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
> the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.

Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?



Regards...

[B2431]

>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>Date: 1/11/2004 9:27 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:22 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Mark and Kim Smith > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and
>>>> oxygen. These folks really need to learn how those building
>>>> were built before they start coming up with these dumb
>>>> theories.
>>>
>>> Is it likely to assume that the fuel burned up in the explosion
>>> when the airplane impacted?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards...
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
>> the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.
>
> Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
> fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
> most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?
>
>
>
> Regards...
>
That fireball was nothing compared to the fireball that would have been
generated if all the fuel burned at once.

Bear in mind the fuel inside burned for a long time.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in

>
> Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
> fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
> most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?
>

The fuel on the aircraft perhaps but the trouble is there was large
fuel load in the building in the form of furniture, carpets, paper
computers etc. The fireball ignited all of that fuel simultaneously
and the impact destroyed fireproof partitions and knocked
the fireprrofing off the floor struts. It was the heat from the subsequent
fire that cause those struts to fail. Once they had done so the bracing
between the outer wall and inner core that was essential to the
strength of the building was lost and outer skin failed in buckling.
The damager inner core was unable to tale the extra stress and also
failed.

This sequence can be clearly seen in the video footage.

Keith

[[email protected]]

(R ESTEY) wrote:

>Having attended lectures by FDNY personnel at the scene and subsequent recovery
>work and talked to many participants (I'm a firefighter in Northen NJ) on 911
>retain a total comtempt for wacko conspiracy ravings.
>
>Just my $.02

Thank you sir...sounds quite reasonable...
--

-Gord.

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

(B2431) wrote in news:20040112005015.26088.00002571
@mb-m15.aol.com:
>>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>>Date: 1/11/2004 9:27 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >

>>> No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
>>> the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.
>>
>> Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
>> fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
>> most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>>
> That fireball was nothing compared to the fireball that would have
> been generated if all the fuel burned at once.
>
> Bear in mind the fuel inside burned for a long time.

Well, according to sources I've read most of the fuel burnt up
or evaporated in less than a minute. A few minutes at most.

To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough
unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because
there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before
and none has ever caused any collapse.


Regards...

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in
:
> Alan Minyard > wrote in
> :
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:31:30 -0500, kirill
>> > wrote:
>
>>>> >just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions
>>>> >of Pentagon missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:
>>>> >
>>>> >http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715
>>>> >
>>>> >Michael
>>>> >
>>>> >
>> To anyone who is even slightly familiar with the construction of
>> the towers the symmetry of the collapse was quite predictable,
>> given the damage they sustained. These conspio-whacko theories
>> are simply ridiculous.
>
> I agree, but the secrecy, misinformation and almost complete
> absence of any thorough fullscale investigation into the attacks
> and the physics behind collapse of the buildings to me is
> disturbing, and seems precisely why conspiricy theories are
> allowed to flourish.

After reading through much of the updates on the current
NIST investigation I need to retract part of that statement.
A new technical progress report based on substantial scrutiny
of the disaster is out in a short while, it will surely
address many of the conspiracy allegations with new and much
more solid data.

http://wtc.nist.gov/


Regards...

[Pete]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote
>
> To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough
> unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because
> there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before
> and none has ever caused any collapse.

None have ever been hit by an aircraft of that size, with that much fuel on
board before.

Pete

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

> To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough
> unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because
> there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before
> and none has ever caused any collapse.

Nothing like this, especially with a start of a few thousand pounds of a
major accelerant *plus* major physical damage to the building as the
fire started.

The closest we've seen was the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building,
and that was an order of magnitude less serious to begin with.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...

>
> To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough
> unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because
> there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before
> and none has ever caused any collapse.
>

None of the those fires involved major damage to
the structure before the fire and had several flloors
burning simultaneoulsy.

The WTC could have survided either the impact
or the fire, what it couldnt handle was both.

Keith

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:27:11 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:22 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Mark and Kim Smith > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and
>>>> oxygen. These folks really need to learn how those building
>>>> were built before they start coming up with these dumb
>>>> theories.
>>>
>>> Is it likely to assume that the fuel burned up in the explosion
>>> when the airplane impacted?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards...
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
>> the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.
>
> Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
> fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
> most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?
>
>
>
> Regards...

No, the "huge fireball" would have consumed a large amount of
jet fuel, but not all of it. It is nearly impossible to get "complete"
combustion under those circumstances.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:37:33 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

(B2431) wrote in news:20040112005015.26088.00002571
:
>>>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>>>Date: 1/11/2004 9:27 PM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>
>>>> No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
>>>> the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.
>>>
>>> Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
>>> fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
>>> most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards...
>>>
>> That fireball was nothing compared to the fireball that would have
>> been generated if all the fuel burned at once.
>>
>> Bear in mind the fuel inside burned for a long time.
>
>Well, according to sources I've read most of the fuel burnt up
>or evaporated in less than a minute. A few minutes at most.
>
>To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough
>unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because
>there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before
>and none has ever caused any collapse.
>
>
>Regards...

Incorrect, their have been several collapses in high-rise
fires, and remember that these buildings were struck
by jumbo jets. That has never happened to a high-rise
before.

Al Minyard

[mah]

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> The closest we've seen was the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building,
> and that was an order of magnitude less serious to begin with.
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

About 20 years ago an A-7 hit a hotel / apartment building broadside in
Indianapols. was there secondary fire and colapse from that event?

MAH

[Chad Irby]

In article >, mah > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > The closest we've seen was the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building,
> > and that was an order of magnitude less serious to begin with.
>
> About 20 years ago an A-7 hit a hotel / apartment building broadside in
> Indianapols. was there secondary fire and colapse from that event?

Not as such. Of course, the A-7 was going slower, had already bounced
off of one building, and had a small fraction of the fuel. The hotel
was only seven stories tall, and was steel-reinforced concrete and
masonry, not structural steel (and about 1/20 the height).

Very different scenarios.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ragnar]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> (B2431) wrote in news:20040112005015.26088.00002571
> @mb-m15.aol.com:
> >>From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> >>Date: 1/11/2004 9:27 PM Central Standard Time
> >>Message-id: >
>
> >>> No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
> >>> the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.
> >>
> >> Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
> >> fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
> >> most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards...
> >>
> > That fireball was nothing compared to the fireball that would have
> > been generated if all the fuel burned at once.
> >
> > Bear in mind the fuel inside burned for a long time.
>
> Well, according to sources I've read most of the fuel burnt up
> or evaporated in less than a minute. A few minutes at most.
>
> To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough
> unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because
> there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before
> and none has ever caused any collapse.

And how many of those fires were caused by the violent introduction of
thousands of gallons of flaming jet fuel? And while you're looking that up,
please tell us how many of the other building fires were in buildings built
like the Twin Towers?

[Laurence Doering]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 03:27:11 GMT, Bjørnar Bolsøy > wrote:
> Alan Minyard > wrote in
> :
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:22 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Mark and Kim Smith > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and
>>>> oxygen. These folks really need to learn how those building
>>>> were built before they start coming up with these dumb
>>>> theories.
>>>
>>> Is it likely to assume that the fuel burned up in the explosion
>>> when the airplane impacted?
>>
>> No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
>> the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.
>
> Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
> fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
> most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?

No. It suggests that enough fuel to create a fireball several
hundred feet in diameter burned up outside the south tower.

FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study [1]
estimates that the amount of fuel consumed in the fireball
was between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons. The 767 that hit the
south tower was carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel, so
that leaves between 7,000 and 9,000 gallons of fuel to help
start the fires in the building.

The FEMA report assumes the fireballs generated by the impact
of AA 11 on the north tower were similar in size, and that a
similar amount of fuel remained after the impact. No estimate
was made because there is no detailed video footage of the
fireballs from the first impact.

The bottom line is that a lot of fuel was consumed in the
post-impact fireballs, but there was a whole lot more left
over.

The FEMA study estimates that most of the fuel that remained
on the impact floors of the towers was consumed in the first
five minutes or so after impact, fully involving almost the
entire contents of several floors of each tower in the fires.


ljd

[1] The FEMA study is available in PDF form at

<http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm>

The discussion of the initial impact and development
of the fires is in chapter 2, pp 2-21 and 2-22.

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 18:29:24 -0600, mah > wrote:

>Chad Irby wrote:
>>
>> The closest we've seen was the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building,
>> and that was an order of magnitude less serious to begin with.
>>
>> --
>> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>>
>> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
>> Slam on brakes accordingly.
>
>About 20 years ago an A-7 hit a hotel / apartment building broadside in
>Indianapols. was there secondary fire and colapse from that event?
>
>MAH

That hotel was not a high rise. IIRC it was seven stories tall and the a/c
took down portions of five, but since the a/c was so much smaller
the building remained, for the most part, structurally intact.

Al Minyard

[Ron]

>>About 20 years ago an A-7 hit a hotel / apartment building broadside in
>>Indianapols. was there secondary fire and colapse from that event?
>>
>>MAH
>
>That hotel was not a high rise. IIRC it was seven stories tall and the a/c
>took down portions of five, but since the a/c was so much smaller
>the building remained, for the most part, structurally intact.
>
>Al Minyard

Wasnt that pilot attached to Tonopah TR, and the 4450th at that time?






Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Alan Minyard]

On 14 Jan 2004 19:42:29 GMT, (Ron) wrote:

>>>About 20 years ago an A-7 hit a hotel / apartment building broadside in
>>>Indianapols. was there secondary fire and colapse from that event?
>>>
>>>MAH
>>
>>That hotel was not a high rise. IIRC it was seven stories tall and the a/c
>>took down portions of five, but since the a/c was so much smaller
>>the building remained, for the most part, structurally intact.
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>Wasnt that pilot attached to Tonopah TR, and the 4450th at that time?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Ron
>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

I think so, but I do not have my sources at hand. I will get them the
next time I am in the area and double check.

Al Minyard