Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC Fires - Where's the Inferno?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Have just come across this interesting article regarding the WTC ‘infernos’.

(Couldn’t find anything using the search function, but please delete if already discussed.)

This centres around a report produced by Kevin R. Ryan, formally of Environmental Health Laboratories Inc. – he lost his job due to this report.


Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.


www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Please read the whole article before you comment.




posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
500 degrees, really? That's impressive, I only have one.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a lot of good threads and infomation can be found here :

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Good Luck



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
a lot of good threads and infomation can be found here :

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Good Luck


Although this is an excellent source for 9/11 material, it’s a little out of the way. Does anyone use it all that much, apart from to search for old material? I mean, you can’t easily keep track of who’s posting to which thread can you.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
it's not out of the way....


I simply wanted to show it to you, as most new 9/11 threads that are posted here, rehash the same arguments / thoughts etc... and Mods end up deleting the threads..


the link I gave you is a great place to add your thoughts to existing threads..



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Was that 500 degrees in Fahrenheit, Celsius, or Masons?





posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   
I realise this subject has been flogged to death but I feel it necessary to continue flogging it until the truth (whatever that is) comes out.

The point I am trying to make with this thread is that there was supposed to be an inferno raging behind the area where the plane impacted WTC1 – an inferno that is said to have weakened the core steel columns. How then, can survivors be standing, and waving for attention, in the hole left by the plane?

It seems to me that the fire had died down and was nowhere near as hot or as intense as it needed to be for the towers to collapse. How then, did the towers collapse?

I feel this should be discussed before this thread disappears into the 9/11 archive.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   
I would of thought the explosion caused by the plane hitting and most of the gas catching on fire would bring temps of higher then 500. I mean you cook stuff in the oven for almost as high as that



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Huria86
I would of thought the explosion caused by the plane hitting and most of the gas catching on fire would bring temps of higher then 500. I mean you cook stuff in the oven for almost as high as that


I’m sure the initial explosion and fire was pretty dam hot, but was that prolonged?

I think not.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clandestine

I’m sure the initial explosion and fire was pretty dam hot, but was that prolonged?

I think not.


It would all depend on the location, wouldn’t it?

Several issues that you should keep in mind.


  1. The initial impact caused severe damage to a large percentage of the structural steel framing. It is entirely possible that even without the subsequent fires, that damage would have been enough to cause the collapses.

  2. both of the impacts breached and damaged the core areas. This allowed the fire to travel rapidly up the building. This is clearly evident in the videos of the moments before the collapse.

  3. The impact quite likely also exposed portions of the interior core columns that were not covered with sprayed fireproofing.

  4. The floor slabs in the area of the impact were ripped away. These slabs also contributed to the structural strength.

  5. As different parts of the building heated up due to fire and others cooled, the affected parts of the structure expanded or contracted.

  6. There is a difference between unrestrained expansion of steel and restrained expansion.

  7. If a structural member heats up in a fire to the point where the yield strength drops below the loading put on that structural member, the load carried by that structural member will shift to adjacent structural members.

  8. If that adjacent structural member is damaged or compromised, then it wil not be able to support that load either.

  9. Even a “normal” office fire can release enough heat to soften structural steel. That is why they apply fireproofing to steel to insulate it from the affects of high temperature.




    Flog, Flog, Flog. . . I don’t know. . . That horse looks dead to me



    [edit on 2-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
  • The initial impact caused severe damage to a large percentage of the structural steel framing. It is entirely possible that even without the subsequent fires, that damage would have been enough to cause the collapses.


  • If this is true, then the WTC would have to be the single worst failure of structural engineering ever. It would take very, very dodgy engineering for this to happen. Very unlikely.


  • both of the impacts breached and damaged the core areas. This allowed the fire to travel rapidly up the building. This is clearly evident in the videos of the moments before the collapse.


  • listen to the mp3 recording of the firefighters. They say that the fire is localized to 2 or 3 floors ONLY, and that they could control it. This was just before the building gave way.


  • The floor slabs in the area of the impact were ripped away. These slabs also contributed to the structural strength.


  • incorrect. As a student of engineering, I was taught in first year structural that floor slabs in a building are classified as extra-structural fixtures. They should have no bearing, in a well designed building, on the building's overall structural integrity.


  • As different parts of the building heated up due to fire and others cooled, the affected parts of the structure expanded or contracted.


  • This is really grasping at straws. The coefficient of expansion of steel is indeed relatively high compared to other materials, but no where near enough to cause such drastic changes at so low a temperature. The steel would have melted LONG before it warped enough to sufficiently damage the structural integrity of the building. Railway tracks are spaced at a few centimeters apart for every mile or so of track. This shows you how little steel will expand in this case.


  • There is a difference between unrestrained expansion of steel and restrained expansion.


  • Expansion is not an exponential function. It is in fact somewhat logarithmic. If the heat doubles, the expansion will not double.




    posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 03:11 PM
    link   



  • Even a “normal” office fire can release enough heat to soften structural steel. That is why they apply fireproofing to steel to insulate it from the affects of high temperature.




  • Most of office furnishings etc are made flame retardant. They will not burn at low level heat sources. This is the law, not just in the UK, but also in the US. I know this for a fact because i actually test these things for flame retardency. I work as a textile flammability analyst for recognized governing boards.

    Most office furnishings have self extinguishing chemical impregnated at source when manufactured.

    Take a look at the WTC. How many pieces of furnishings can you see at the impact hole that were unburnt?

    This leads me to say that any furnishings did not add to the heat source that " warped" the steel structure.



    posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 03:20 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Bikereddie
    Most of office furnishings etc are made flame retardant. They will not burn at low level heat sources. This is the law, not just in the UK, but also in the US. I know this for a fact because i actually test these things for flame retardency. I work as a textile flammability analyst for recognized governing boards.

    Most office furnishings have self extinguishing chemical impregnated at source when manufactured.

    Take a look at the WTC. How many pieces of furnishings can you see at the impact hole that were unburnt?

    This leads me to say that any furnishings did not add to the heat source that " warped" the steel structure.


    Flame retardent does not equal fire proof.

    Once the fire started (thanks to 5,000 gallons of jet fuel) ann the flame retardant in the world would not stop it from burning. Besides for the furniture, you are forgetting about computer hardware and office paper.

    cubicle fire test.




    [edit on 2-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



    posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 03:48 PM
    link   


    Flame retardent does not equal fire proof.

    Once the fire started (thanks to 5,000 gallons of jet fuel) ann the flame retardant in the world would not stop it from burning. Besides for the furniture, you are forgetting about computer hardware and office paper.

    cubicle fire test.




    [edit on 2-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

    I did not say that the furnishings would not burn. I did say that they are tested for fire retardency. IE, impregnated at source with retardant.

    Take another look at the WTC, how much unburnt paper did you see floating down to earth? The place was covered in it.

    By the way, the link you posted was dead.



    posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 04:02 PM
    link   
    From what I have seen, the WTC destruction seems to be the first case of a high-rise building collapsing due to fire ever (unless someone can provide evidence disproving this statement). This link summarises some of the USAs worst skyscraper fires:

    911research.wtc7.net...

    The one thing stopping me from jumping to the conclusion that the towers did not collapse due to fire, is the fact that thousands of gallons of jet fuel were present...

    Has everyone in this thread seen 'In Plane Site'? Worth watching if you consider bombs to be involved in the WTC collapse. Keep an open mind though, its presented in a very biased way.



    posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 04:31 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by General Zapata

    Originally posted by HowardRoark
  • The initial impact caused severe damage to a large percentage of the structural steel framing. It is entirely possible that even without the subsequent fires, that damage would have been enough to cause the collapses.


  • If this is true, then the WTC would have to be the single worst failure of structural engineering ever. It would take very, very dodgy engineering for this to happen. Very unlikely.


    Actually, that could have been the very case. Although the Designers supposedly designed the building to withstand the impact from an airliner, you have to wonder what sort of assumptions they made regarding that impact. In any case, the damage wrought by the impacts was extensive. And was certainly not something that could have been reasonably foreseen. Hindsight is always 20/20.



  • both of the impacts breached and damaged the core areas. This allowed the fire to travel rapidly up the building. This is clearly evident in the videos of the moments before the collapse.


  • listen to the mp3 recording of the firefighters. They say that the fire is localized to 2 or 3 floors ONLY, and that they could control it. This was just before the building gave way.


    No, they had just reached the bottom of the fire floors. It looked controllable, because the fire front had moved on. Look at the videos just before the collapse. There were fires burning on floors well above the impact points.




  • The floor slabs in the area of the impact were ripped away. These slabs also contributed to the structural strength.


  • incorrect. As a student of engineering, I was taught in first year structural that floor slabs in a building are classified as extra-structural fixtures. They should have no bearing, in a well designed building, on the building's overall structural integrity.


    If the building was a standard beam and column construction with either diagonal wind bracing or a masonry core, that would have been the case. The WTC towers were not typical buildings. The floor slabs played an integral part in stiffening the structure. Google it if you don’t believe me.



  • As different parts of the building heated up due to fire and others cooled, the affected parts of the structure expanded or contracted.


  • This is really grasping at straws. The coefficient of expansion of steel is indeed relatively high compared to other materials, but no where near enough to cause such drastic changes at so low a temperature. The steel would have melted LONG before it warped enough to sufficiently damage the structural integrity of the building. Railway tracks are spaced at a few centimeters apart for every mile or so of track. This shows you how little steel will expand in this case.


    Expansion of steel framed structures under fire conditions have been extensively studied.

    Also, there is a difference between a steel column heated by a fire and a rail track in the sun.



  • There is a difference between unrestrained expansion of steel and restrained expansion.


  • Expansion is not an exponential function. It is in fact somewhat logarithmic. If the heat doubles, the expansion will not double.



    That makes no sense.





    [edit on 2-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



    posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 04:38 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Bikereddie
    Take another look at the WTC, how much unburnt paper did you see floating down to earth? The place was covered in it.


    If we assume that ten floors burned, that is still less than 10 % of the total for the building. So yes, I would expect to see a lot of unburned paper floating around. I wouldn’t expect to see a lot of burned paper floating around, because if it was burned, it would be ash.



    By the way, the link you posted was dead.


    It works for me. Try some of these

    If that does not work just google: Marsh Mclennan cubicle fire test



    [edit on 2-2-2005 by HowardRoark]



    posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 04:44 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by jimi
    From what I have seen, the WTC destruction seems to be the first case of a high-rise building collapsing due to fire ever (unless someone can provide evidence disproving this statement). This link summarises some of the USAs worst skyscraper fires:

    911research.wtc7.net...



    Keep in mind that none of those buildings also had an airplane cut or damage a significant number of the structural elements as well.

    In addition, those were all different structural designs from the WTC towers. This is an important point. Even WTC 7 was a unique structural design due to the substation under it.



    posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 04:56 PM
    link   
    I refuse to believe that a 747 full of fuel crashing into a building is only going to produce 500 degrees.

    FIRE itself is hotter than that, if we're talking Fahrenheit. I think the world record for humans standing heat is like 654 degrees F, which is not even fire, but is like the air in a fully cranked oven.



    posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 10:02 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by HowardRoark
    [quotes]Also, there is a difference between a steel column heated by a fire and a rail track in the sun.


    not when you are only considering expansion due to heat. There is only one kind of heat.



  • There is a difference between unrestrained expansion of steel and restrained expansion.


  • Expansion is not an exponential function. It is in fact somewhat logarithmic. If the heat doubles, the expansion will not double.



    That makes no sense.


    I thought you meant restrained as in, resistance to expansion. I merely pointed out that if you were to graph heat along the x axis, and the expansion along the y axis, it wouldn't be a straight line, let alone an exponential or power series. It would be logarithmic, that is, flattens out at heat increases to some asymptote at some number y1.






    top topics



     
    0
    <<   2 >>

    log in

    join