Some video evidences of explosives in Twin Tower collapse

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

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

(B2431) wrote in news:20040112005015.26088.00002571
:
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
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

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

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.

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
(B2431) wrote in news:20040112005015.26088.00002571
@mb-m15.aol.com:
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
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?

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.

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

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

On 14 Jan 2004 19:42:29 GMT, 362436 (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