Wtc 1 & 2 Fireballs, directional blasts Options

[Ricochet]

The Naudet video shows after the North Tower strike the fireball erupts outward away from the facade toward the camera , diametrically oppossed to the direction of whatever entered the building. The second hit shows a blast moving out the opposite side. You can't have it both ways. WTF.

[dMz]

Somebody's going to request sources here Ricochet (and my video embedding has been a little "spotty" lately). (Or is it on the archived Naudet stuff I'm sure I have on one of my external drives)?

[Ricochet]

I've seen the blasts a thousand times in my mind, always thinking something is wrong. Construct 2 identical brick walls, take 2 identical trucks, say for instance 1973 Chevy pick-ups and run them at full throttle flat out to impact the walls. Logically the results would be identical crashes with or without explosions, there would be no reason to repeat the experiment as the results should be consistant. Then why would 2 airplanes (Boeing 767's) hitting 2 towers (built to the same specs) result in 2 opposite fireballs? Source out the 2 stikes at Youtube (and please embed, as I am a technotwit) and post side by each and watch amazed at the difference!

[dMz]

Honestly Rico, I'd rather rebuild a Quadra-"bucket" [EDIT: carburetor] for a 1973 Chevy pickup... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Perhaps the "Canadian Cutie" Leslie will bail us both out here. [Crossing fingerx (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ]

[lunk]

I suspect that both fireballs were thermobaric explosions, probably planted, not launched. A 2-part explosion, a flammable substance is dispersed into the air, then ignited. Very similar in appearance, I imagine, to a plane, loaded with fuel, and hitting something, with it's fuel dispersing and bursting into flames, a moment later. Very visually dramatic, but there may be some differences, I think.

...I wonder, with all the footage of the fireballs, if it is possible, to do a colour count or spectrum analysis of the fireballs, and see if it is different in colours from those found in a, jet fuel, fireball.

Comparrison photos could be taken with the same cameras, with the same settings, at distance, of actual jet fuel exploding, to see if they are the same, ...or not.

...if it was or wasn't jet fuel that caused those fireballs.

[Ricochet]

Honestly Rico, I'd rather rebuild a Quadra-"bucket" [EDIT: carburetor] for a 1973 Chevy pickup...

Been there done that, Edelbrock carb, aluminum heads and intake with water cooled exhaust manifold off an interceptor, never tried the brick wall thing (yet).

[dMz]

I suspect that both fireballs were thermobaric explosions, probably planted, not launched. A 2-part explosion, a flammable substance is dispersed into the air, then ignited. Very similar in appearance, I imagine, to a plane, loaded with fuel, and hitting something, with it's fuel dispersing and bursting into flames, a moment later. Very visually dramatic, but there may be some differences, I think.

I think that lunk is describing something very close to a BLEVE.

Bleve Blast2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FdXTq9LXOY



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLEVE

[dMz]

...I wonder, with all the footage of the fireballs, if it is possible, to do a colour count or spectrum analysis of the fireballs, and see if it is different in colours from those found in a, jet fuel, fireball.

Comparrison photos could be taken with the same cameras, with the same settings, at distance, of actual jet fuel exploding, to see if they are the same, ...or not.

ImageJ is a very good, free program that does histogram analysis.

http://www.nist.gov/lispix/imlab/histo/hist1.html

http://www.nist.gov/lispix/imlab/labs.html

It is courtesy of the US Government (so I guess that I helped pay for it).

http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/download.html

[tnemelckram]

A fuel air explosive. Let's not go there. It gives the OCT a chance to bring "fuel" back into it.

[lunk]

It's just that the twin towers were designed specifically to withstand the force of aircraft hitting it, an aircraft must have fuel to fly, so this means that the buildings could not collapse from aircraft with its' obviously contained fuel, that it would have needed to have on-board, to hit the towers in the first place.

Therefore, something else caused the collapse.
But that was after long after the fireballs.
It sort of makes the initial hits from the planes and the corresponding fireballs, unnecessary in the demise of the buildings.

So why were they there?
To give a plausible explanation,
to cover up the deliberate demolition of the WTC?

If this is so, then the planes hitting the building and the fireballs, were, a sort of, dramatization.

Now, if you want to, for sure, make something look very dramatic, and you knew that planes may not be enough...

I think, that if thermo-barics were used, they were not meant to, and didn't, compromise the structure of the buildings, just aesthetically guaranteed the predominance of the fireballs.

imo, lunk

(edit) ya, I had to edit it.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jan 11 2009, 09:14 PM

[tnemelckram]

Hi Lunk!

If this is so, then the planes hitting the building and the fireballs, were, a sort of, dramatization.

Now, if you want to, for sure, make something look very dramatic, and you knew that planes may not be enough...

I think, that if thermo-barics were used, they were not meant to, and didn't, compromise the structure of the buildings, just aesthetically guaranteed the predominance of the fireballs.

imo, lunk

I agree with you. It had to be dramatic and the thermo barics are one likely way to do that.

The problem is politics. The OCT'ers aren't smart enough to understand what you say and I agree with. Any mention of something powered by a vapor or gas release just leads them to the simplistic "jet fuel" argument as sure as rattling the Alpo bag brings the dog to his dish.

I like to keep it simple. All you have to do is watch a replay of the Towers falling. That's a controlled demolition. Your eyes are not lying to you, just like, to get back to the dog, all you have to do is look to know that a dog is not a cat.

We have a luxury with the WTC. Not only can we say what in the OCT didn't happen, we can also say what happened instead. Just look at it. Unfortunately, we are not so lucky with the Pentagon. It's pretty clear what didn't happen, but it's not clear what
happened instead. I say take advantage and keep it simple.

[lunk]

I say take advantage and keep it simple.

Yes, I should know better.
What may seem, clear as a bell, to me,
could easily be, information overload,
for anyone, just starting, to questioning things.

I guess that if something crashed into another thing,
the fuel would go forward with the explosion,
not backwards.

imo, lunk

[tnemelckram]

Hi Again Link!

Yes, I should know better - the same goes for me with the Pentagon. Pilots keeps it simple - the FDR that says that the plane was 300 feet above the Pentagon couldn't have been found down in the Pentagon. CIT keeps it simple - eyewitnesses counter the OCT. Craig and I had a friendly argument because I had all kinds of ideas on how to make the Pentagon thing more complicated. We ended up seeing each others' points, but I've decided as a result that it's best to go slow with my ideas and that it's better to present a simple united front to the World instead of a bunch of loose cannons rolling around the deck.

I think your right that if something crashed into another thing,
the fuel would go forward with the explosion, not backwards. That's what appears to happen in the crashes. Exactly what the something extra was is hard to say, but it was certainly designed to destroy the buildings in a controlled manner.

[lunk]

I remember that day, I just happened to turn on the TV, and the regular programming was interrupted, with a live helicopter picture of a tower on fire.

If I remember correctly,
the reason I happened to turned on the TV,
that particular morning, was to watch Pinky and the Brain.
...try to take over the world.

I don't watch TV much anymore.

I remember that they said on CBC, "We're getting reports of a second plane..." before they showed any footage of this happening, though, and I thought that a little strange, at the time.
Like the fireball, something just didn't seem right, but then it was all explained as to what I was supposed to have seen.
I heard about the collapse of a third building that day, and thought nothing of it, until lunk-years later, I stumbled on a video of Building 7, and realized that demolished the whole official story.

...yes, back to the fireballs...

imo, lunk

[SwingDangler]

The Naudet video shows after the North Tower strike the fireball erupts outward away from the facade toward the camera , diametrically oppossed to the direction of whatever entered the building. The second hit shows a blast moving out the opposite side. You can't have it both ways. WTF.

Keep in mind when it comes to the characteristics of the fireball:

1. Two different impacts, speeds, fuel loads,and angles . One was straight into the building, the other nearly missed.

2. Open floor design at the impact areas.


IMHO, the impacts ie. jet fuel were literally smoke and mirrors for the demolition of the building. The benefits not in order of importance:

1. Stock fraud.

2. No investigation needed into the security measures at the complex.

3. Arab hijackers...airline hijackings a favorite form of terrorism throughout history, more believable.

4. Fire as an excuse for the global collapse.

5. Shift of blame to airlines and not the security at the complex or its owners.

6. Easy to hide the hijackings in the midst of the exercises and drills of the day.

7. Multiple attacks constituting dual claims by Lucky Larry.

8. The Hollywoodization of the attacks for world wide distribution.

9. Easy identification of the perpetrators/hijackers. How are you going to identify someone who rigged a building w/out an investigation into the security of the complex versus names on a passenger list?

10. No need to chemically test for explosives or investigate material remains for explosives.

Feel free to add more...

[amazed!]

Ricochet

If I may attempt to answer your question at #3

We don't know that the strikes on the buildings were exactly the same, and some circumstantial evidence suggests they were not.

Not any "good" videos of the first aircraft strike, but plenty of #2.

#2 was banking as it struck, and it was way off center and nearly missed the building.

I could be wrong, but my impression is that #1 was more symmetrical on center of the building.

If true, those differences might explain the differences in the fireballs.