Chemistry/Physics Behind the Attacks

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by bsbray11
Irrelevant because bare naked steel could've easily withstood the heat within those buildings. And it did.


Um, then please explain why they spray fireproofing insulation on the steel beams in the first place?


Probably a safety precaution, just like the towers being designed to carry much more weight than they would ever actually have to (and this is actually required by NYC building code).

Also understand that most major high rise fires are a lot worse, as in they last longer, spread across a good number of floors, etc. The fires at the WTC really weren't that bad in comparison. Just a safety precaution; engineers probably didn't know exactly what the results of major fire would be on the WTC. Fortunate that there never were such major fires in the buildings.




posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How do you figure that? If there is a fire burning on say, the 74rth floor, how would the concrete shield the trusses supporting the 75th floor?

The superheated combustion gasses would be trapped along the top few feet under the slab.


Oh, ok. Just show me the evidence that such "superheated combustion gasses" existed and were indeed exploding all over the trusses the whole time.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by craig732
Nice find Howard. I think everyone who believes anything other than airplanes and fire brought down the WTC should go and speak with the firefighters and cops that were there that day.


Yeah, you might want to read what they say in fact.

THANK YOU!
Let us compare that to a board with 3 or 4 fire fighters who weren't
at ground zero and are talking about melted steel which we all know
is impossible to achieve with jet fuel.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by count zeroTHANK YOU!
Let us compare that to a board with 3 or 4 fire fighters who weren't
at ground zero and are talking about melted steel which we all know
is impossible to achieve with jet fuel.





Firehouse Magazine article


Also, there is this post on the firehouse forum


I was standing next to that building (WTC 7) when it collapsed, my fault totally. Warnings had been given due to the structure being compromised and transits trained on it showed it was failing. Due to the wind direction I was unaware that I had placed myself at it's base.

There was no demolition. I know that, I was standing there. No explosions, nothing! It failed. Has it happened before? No. Has it happened now? Yes.



You state:


melted steel which we all know
is impossible to achieve with jet fuel.


Prove it.

In your own words, please, no links.

Copy and paste if you absolutely have to, but I want you or someone else to provide an explanation of how it is impossible to melt steel with jet fuel.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by count zeroTHANK YOU!
Let us compare that to a board with 3 or 4 fire fighters who weren't
at ground zero and are talking about melted steel which we all know
is impossible to achieve with jet fuel.





Firehouse Magazine article
Hydrocarbon fires burn at around 800 C in optimum conditions.
Steel melts at 1500 C.
What is the question here?
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Please provide it.


Also, there is this post on the firehouse forum


I was standing next to that building (WTC 7) when it collapsed, my fault totally. Warnings had been given due to the structure being compromised and transits trained on it showed it was failing. Due to the wind direction I was unaware that I had placed myself at it's base.

There was no demolition. I know that, I was standing there. No explosions, nothing! It failed. Has it happened before? No. Has it happened now? Yes.



You state:


melted steel which we all know
is impossible to achieve with jet fuel.


Prove it.

In your own words, please, no links.

Copy and paste if you absolutely have to, but I want you or someone else to provide an explanation of how it is impossible to melt steel with jet fuel.










posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by count zero

Hydrocarbon fires burn at around 800 C in optimum conditions.
Steel melts at 1500 C.
What is the question here?
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Please provide it.


No. You are making the claim. It is up to YOU to provide the proof of your claim.

Prove that hydrocarbon fires only produce 800 C.

Provide some mathematics.

I'll even give you a hint. How many joules are released when something burns.

How is that translatable to temperature?

What effect does the initial temperature of the reactants have on the final temperature of the combustion product?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Prove it.

In your own words, please, no links.

Copy and paste if you absolutely have to, but I want you or someone else to provide an explanation of how it is impossible to melt steel with jet fuel.


Under normal atmospheric conditions, it is physically impossible for a hydrocarbon fire, consisting of jet fuel and plastics, to reach temperatures required to melt any kind of steel. Period.

Some steel melts at around 1370 C. A hydrocarbon fire will most likely not reach above 800 C without special atmospheric conditions.

So, tell us, Howard, how 800 C melts a material that requires about 1370 C.

Who the hell even tries to sell this bullcrap anymore? You've like back-peddled over four years to even try to sell this line of garbage. Nobody buys it anymore.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No. You are making the claim. It is up to YOU to provide the proof of your claim.

Prove that hydrocarbon fires only produce 800 C.


God, Howard.

Prove that the sky is blue!

We are under no obligation here to prove the obvious, especially to someone like you.

Notice also how you are never so critical of NIST's claims, which often make incredible assumptions that cannot be supported, but yet you will contest that hydrocarbon fires won't surpass 800 C under normal conditions!

If you aren't a paid agent, then you're damned well close enough and might as well go sign up for payment. If you have any value here it all, it's keeping us on our toes at being able to think and reason and deny the intellectual filth you constantly defecate all over these pages.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Under normal atmospheric conditions, it is physically impossible for a hydrocarbon fire, consisting of jet fuel and plastics, to reach temperatures required to melt any kind of steel. Period.

Some steel melts at around 1370 C. A hydrocarbon fire will most likely not reach above 800 C without special atmospheric conditions.


That is not proof. That is your claim.

Provide the chemistry and math to prove your claim.

How about this for a "special atmospheric condition."

Let's start with a large supply of fuel.

Add in adequate oxygen to burn that fuel.

Now, lets insulate the combustion in a large pile of debris so that the heat released by the combustion is trapped long enough to preheat the fuel and the air feeding the fire. Let's assume that these are reactants are preheated to 750 C prior to the combustion reaction.

Would the maximum temperature of the subsequent combustion still be only 800 C?





[edit on 14-2-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by count zero

Hydrocarbon fires burn at around 800 C in optimum conditions.
Steel melts at 1500 C.
What is the question here?
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Please provide it.


No. You are making the claim. It is up to YOU to provide the proof of your claim.

Prove that hydrocarbon fires only produce 800 C.

Provide some mathematics.

I'll even give you a hint. How many joules are released when something burns.

How is that translatable to temperature?

What effect does the initial temperature of the reactants have on the final temperature of the combustion product?


WRONG!
It is you that are making the unfounded claims.
What is the commonly accepted melting point of steel?
education.jlab.org...
First link on google. 1510 C
www.tcforensic.com.au...
Second Link on Google. "melt point of steel 1100°-1650°"


Hydrocarbon Fire Max is listed at around 1100 C by NIST in 2002
fire.nist.gov...

"There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [14] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [15] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C. "

Please reference the quote "over 4 hr"

www.doctorfire.com...
Again this in reference to peak temperature, not overall consistent temp.
I would appreciate any references to articles that show overall temps.
I could be wrong, and this article I found seems to say so but then again
this data could be Bravo Sierra.
I am asking for relevant proof not challenges against what I have
learned. I would like to see some scientific tests on the max temp
of burning jet fuel but they seem difficult to find.
"If you can't prove it why should I" is a weak argument. If you know my
suppositions to be false why can't you provide evidence?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

How about this for a "special atmospheric condition."

Let's start with a large supply of fuel.

Add in adequate oxygen to burn that fuel.

Now, lets insulate the combustion in a large pile of debris so that the heat released by the combustion is trapped long enough to preheat the fuel and the air feeding the fire. Let's assume that these are reactants are preheated to 750 C prior to the combustion reaction.

Would the maximum temperature of the subsequent combustion still be only 800 C?





[edit on 14-2-2006 by HowardRoark]

Okay, so you are stating that the fire has a large supply of oxygen,
yet at the same time it is insulated in a "large pile of debris"?
What are you talking about? I am talking about an area of a building
that is very high up in the air and exposed to an atmosphere that is very
windy, yet you are saying it is insulated?
Wait are we talking about the high temperatures recorded in the rubble
after the collapse? If so, how was there so much oxygen left over and
"bubbled" in the rubble (good song title) to continuously feed this
extremely high temperature fire for days, if not weeks. Where is the
oxygen coming from? Some miraculous vacuum that sucks oxygen from
above the wreckage to fuel this fire which burns for days despite tons
of water being sprayed over it? Where is the critical thinking?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
The ATSM fire curve assumes that the reactants are at a constant temperature (i.e. 20 C).

What happens when the reactants are not at a constant temperature, but are preheated by the fire?

The debris pile was a good insulator.

Remember that the fires at ground zero burned for weeks afterward.

The ASTM fire curve test doesn't last for weeks.

How many Joules does 100 lbs of jet fuel release?

How can that be translated into temperature?

How does a blast furnace work?




[edit on 14-2-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by count zero

Okay, so you are stating that the fire has a large supply of oxygen,
yet at the same time it is insulated in a "large pile of debris"?
What are you talking about? I am talking about an area of a building
that is very high up in the air and exposed to an atmosphere that is very
windy, yet you are saying it is insulated?


I am talking about the post collapse fires.

They burned for weeks.

There was plenty of air, yet the debris served as a good insulator.

Kind of like an underground coal fire.



Originally posted by count zero
Wait are we talking about the high temperatures recorded in the rubble
after the collapse? If so, how was there so much oxygen left over and
"bubbled" in the rubble (good song title) to continuously feed this
extremely high temperature fire for days, if not weeks. Where is the
oxygen coming from?


Air movement, generally. There would have been sufficient interstitial spaces to feed the fires, although I wouldn't discount the possibility of a welding rig buried and damaged in the rubble leaking oxygen.
(they pulled out a fair amount of them, typical for that size complex, when they dug it all out. )


Originally posted by count zero
Some miraculous vacuum that sucks oxygen from
above the wreckage to fuel this fire which burns for days despite tons
of water being sprayed over it? Where is the critical thinking?


Like I said, underground fires are notoriously hard to put out. One coal fire in Pennsylvania has been burning for over forty years.

hydrocarbon fires are also hard to put out. Look at a typical tire fire



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The ATSM fire curve assumes that the reactants are at a constant temperature (i.e. 20 C).

What happens when the reactants are not at a constant temperature, but are preheated by the fire?

The debris pile was a good insulator.

Remember that the fires at ground zero burned for weeks afterward.

The ASTM fire curve test doesn't last for weeks.

How many Joules does 100 lbs of jet fuel release?

How can that be translated into temperature?

How does a blast furnace work?




[edit on 14-2-2006 by HowardRoark]

How does molten metal reach the basement of the WTC?
You would thing the pancaking effect would send such
molten metal flying (as in the rest of the debris), or extinguish it
(as in pouring sand on embers/ conrete dust analagous to
sand.. I think so) Your silly debunking theories focus on only
one little bit of the whole picture. When there are so many
things in question, just one piece does not destroy the whole.
Big ones.

How were hijackers with box cutters able to overcome
and ex-Isralei Special Forces officer (trained in dealing
with terrorists and hijackings) in order to take over
the plane. (Don't ask me do your f-ing research)

Why have no steel buildings that have collapsed (although
they have only collapsed partially) ever pulverized themselves?
Exception being demolition.

How could a passport, and ATM card of passengers on
flights that hit the WTCs survive, yet not the "virtually
indestructible" black boxes?

How is it possible that the FAA happened to not contact
NORAD with the hijackings until it was too late?

Why were FAA employee interviews taken immediately
after 9/11 destroyed by an FAA superior?

Why is it that a 707 would not collapse these towers,
according to the original safety reports of these buildings,
but an aircraft of essentially the same weight could?

Why is it that no other modern steel buildings have ever collapsed
due to fire and structural damage?

Why is it that when the Secret Service knew that America was
"under attack" they allowed the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
to remain in an unsecured location?

Why is it that the airplane that struck the Pentagon decided to spiral around the area to strike the least occupied area of the structure,
ignoring the area of central command (i.e. where D. Rumsfeld was)


I could go on and on.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by count zero
I could go on and on.


So I take it that your attempt to sidetrack the discussion with the typical conspiracy believers laundry list, means that you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions regarding the maximum temperature possible?

Or are going to concede that it is possible for the steel to have reached temperatures in excess of 1000 C in the rubble pile from the fires that burned for weeks after the collapses.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That is not proof. That is your claim.

Provide the chemistry and math to prove your claim.

How about this for a "special atmospheric condition."

Let's start with a large supply of fuel.

Add in adequate oxygen to burn that fuel.

Now, lets insulate the combustion in a large pile of debris so that the heat released by the combustion is trapped long enough to preheat the fuel and the air feeding the fire. Let's assume that these are reactants are preheated to 750 C prior to the combustion reaction.

Would the maximum temperature of the subsequent combustion still be only 800 C?


I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be. Are you going anywhere with this?

If you think those hydrocarbon fires differed from all the rest that the Earth has seen, then back it up.

And with something other than speculation.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Or are going to concede that it is possible for the steel to have reached temperatures in excess of 1000 C in the rubble pile from the fires that burned for weeks after the collapses.


What would he even be conceding to, Howard? You haven't put forth crap to back up anything you've suggested with those rhetorical questions. I would just give up man. Seriously. You aren't even making any sense anymore. You're going in the face of a lot of old science stuff with your claims on the fire temps, and I'm not seeing anything from you to convince me that knowledge so common is also wrong.

The underground coal fire crap is old, and isn't comparable to the post-collapse "fires" at the WTC, but why rehash this? You're just going to post it again in the future as if there's absolutely nothing wrong with the stupid thing. Just like everything else you post.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
It sounds to me like you don’t really understand how thermodynamics works. How the energy of a chemical reaction is converted to temperature.

The claim that it is impossible for temperatures of a jet fuel fire, or for any other hydrocarbon fire to exceed 800 °C is just plain wrong.

Any fire in an enclosed area will quickly surpass that temperature.

Even the ASTM fire tests exceed that temperature.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

BTW, It doesn't look like the firemen gave you the answers you were looking for, did they?



By your own definition Howard, these firemen aren't structural engineers, so how does what they say have any relevance to anything? Oh, because he asked if anyone was there who could have heard the explosions? How many said they were there? One as far as I read. All the others are just towing the official line.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Forgot to add something else. Ok...let's assume that Howard is correct and the temperatures were enough to melt the steel. Would the temperatures be enough to vaporize the steel? NIST found that some of the steel had been vaporized. Would these magical underground stoves been able to vaporize steel?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join