It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC fireproofing

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Wow leftbehind have you missed the point or what?

Ok one more time as simply as I can....

Still photo of fire with black smoke tells you two things.
1. High carbon fuel, such as oil, plastics, rubber etc...
2. Lack of oxygen, cooling fire...
Which one does your pic represent? Answer, there is no answer because you can't tell, so using it to try to prove your point is worthless.

OK back to the WTC...

Video footage of fire. Starts out with light grey smoke. Smoke slowly turns black. This tell you two things.
1. Fuel was added to the fire.
2. The fire is oxygen starved and thus is cooling down, (also, as we see in the vids, the fires turn a dark red colour, also indicitive of a cool flame).
Which one does the vids represent?
We know no fuel was added, so the answer has to be number 2.

[edit on 5/6/2006 by ANOK]




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
No fuel was added?

What happened when the fire spread?

I hope you aren't trying to convince me that it was just burning air in those areas.

Of course fuel was added.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
To illustrate that fuel was indeed added to the fire.

Here is a picture right after impact.



When that turns into this.



And you consider the dimensions of the buildings.

Well I'd have to say a whole heck of a lot of fuel was added to those fires.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
So the office supplies made the fires inefficient because of too much fuel? While office supplies and jet fuel produce light gray smoke?

Thousands of gallons of jet fuel and office supplies burn light gray, but when fire spreads after the jet fuel is gone, suddenly the office supplies are too much and the fire becomes too fuel-laden. That's your new argument?

x.x

Because it doesn't make sense either.

LB, how thick-.ed can you possibly be?

For christs sake just admit that the smoke indicated cooling fires. That's the most straightforward and honest answer. It's not going to kill you. You've been grasping at straws for probably over 10 posts straight now.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by bsbray11
Both, but my point is that the fires WERE COOLING. I'm not arguing anything else right now.



Originally posted by bsbray11
the black smoke indicates a dying fire in this case


So right now your arguing that the fires were cooling.

But earlier you were arguing that the fires were dying.


You know damned well what I was saying. The point was never that the fires had a limited amount of time left (find me saying that if you want to play immature word games), but that they weren't putting out the same amount of heat.

Cooling, dying, less efficient, thinning, sooty, LESS HEAT, etc., etc., you're not that dense. You understand what I'm saying. You're just too hard-.ed to get on board with the rest of us here.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I see.

First they're dying, now they're cooling.

First no fuel was added, now the fuel added didn't matter.


Who's being thick .ed?

Edit: and yes I'd say that four acres of office supplies is more fuel than one acre and a jet.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by LeftBehind]

[edit on 5-6-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
What is everyone's estimate (high end and low end) of the the temps in the fires?

1. Temp during the intital impact with all the jet fuel.

2. Temp during the cooler burn of materials inside the WTC?

3. Average temp of your typical office fire with no firefighting done to it?


What is the average weight of one of the WTC floors?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
[edit on 5-6-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
First no fuel was added, now the fuel added didn't matter.


Since when does a roaming fire equate to adding fuel, especially to the point of becoming fuel-excessive just by the fire roaming, when it was burning off of the same crap the whole time from the very start?

You can call that "added fuel" if you want but please don't put asinine words in my mouth.


Edit: and yes I'd say that four acres of office supplies is more fuel than one acre and a jet.


Too bad it didn't all burn like you're suggesting.

And too bad what did burn didn't all burn at once, or all piled in a confined area for a single section of fire to become overwhelmed with fuel.


LB, good luck in life man. You're going back on ignore.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Putting words in your mouth?


Originally posted by bsbray11
· THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL FUEL ADDED BEFORE THE SMOKE WENT DARK.


No where did I put words in your mouth. There was never any need to.

Ignore me for pointing out inconsistencies in your argument. Thats the best way to find the truth.


I think this thread is about fireproofing anyway, not the health of the fires.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Left Behind,

When the explosion of jet fuel occured, creating the initial fire, it was burning richly because of what the fuel was comprised of, hydrocarbons, so the flame was enriched. This accounts for the grey smoke - an efficient fire.

However, as the jet fuel was winding down and being spent up, the fire was left to feed off the office supplies/building materials. Now without wind helping circulate oxygen, you had inefficient fires burning without the presence of jet fuel. This is due to a sooty flame of improperly combusted materials (office supplies, building materials).

So in essence, the fire did cool, because the initial flame was enriched and burned efficient, a result in which you get a high temperature flame. Look at a Bunsen Burner, when you have the right fuel/air ratio, you get a blue flame (the hottest flame).
However, with the World Trade Center, the latter flame was sooty, therefore not burning rich, which in essence means the flame cooled down to a sooty flame.

Is that clear enough?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Some interesting information on the WTC fireproofing.



Roger Morse, Morse Associates: My name’s Roger Morse. I’m an architect. My practice is centered largely around forensic investigations of buildings. As part of that work, I investigated the fireproofing in hundreds of buildings, maybe in thousands of locations. One of the things that I was called upon to do was to look at the fireproofing in the World Trade Center. I did that over about a ten year period of time, starting in the early 1990s, and the last time I was in the building was in June of 2001. There were problems with the fireproofing in the World Trade Center.

I thought that NIST ought to know of those problems, so that was why that I’m here today, that – please understand that the problems that existed in the World Trade Center towers are not unique to the World Trade Center towers. These are generic sort of problems, they exist in many high rise buildings all over the United States, certainly, and it’s to my knowledge, into Europe.

This is a slide of the fireproofing on a long span joists. This is the end of the long span joist. The red color that you see toward the bottom is the red lead primer that’s on the joist. You can see that the fireproofing in this location is extremely thin. It’s certainly not the three-quarters of an inch that was indicated in the ASCE report.


media.corporate-ir.net...







Something to think about.

Anyone care to guess what happens in a building with defective fireproofing when is burns?


Mod Edit: Long Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27/3/2006 by Umbrax]


it doesnt matter what the fireproofing was like coz NISt admited that the fores didnt get hotter than 250 degrees. fireproofing protects a building steel from burning for a long time and really hot. the fires only burned for a short time and they werent really hot .even if there was no fireproofing then the buildings still shouldnt have fallen in freefall like they did.
and what was the fireproofing in wtc7?? do u have pics of bad fireproofing in wtc7? why did it collapse in freefall too??



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Conspiracy theorists have a very simple way of looking at things.

Black smoke, therefore fire is dying.

That’s an idiotic statement to make. To the fuel complex inside those buildings was multifaceted: the fires were ignited by jet fuel and obviously moved on to consuming other materials thereafter (different types of wood, synthetic materials, etc). Darker smoke is indicative of inefficient combustion, but not necessarily temperature or “strength” of the fire:





This picture, taken 7 minutes before the North Tower collapsed, demonstrates a couple of things:



- Clearly, the fire is well-developed and has spread across many floors.
- The outer columns are bowing inward.

How does the leaning of both towers leading up to their collapse (documented by witnesses) and the bowing of the outer columns recorded in this image 7 minutes before the collapse fit in with a controlled demolition?


[edit on 6-6-2006 by vor75]

[edit on 6-6-2006 by vor75]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So the office supplies made the fires inefficient because of too much fuel? While office supplies and jet fuel produce light gray smoke?


I guess you've never been in an office ... if you had you might notice the plastic computers, plastic desks, plastic charis, plastic plants, plastic binders, plastic everything ...

I'm sure the mass of synthetic material far outweighed that of paper and envelopes, even back in 2001.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Vor75, welcome to the discussion.

Have you not read my last post. I indicated that the fire was cooling due to its transition of efficieny to inefficieny. Why do you bring up the issue of black smoking = dying fire. The black smoke here was used as an INDICATOR that it was because the grey smoke prior from the Jet fuel/air mixture was burning efficiently, but when it turned black, that's due to an inefficient flame, not enough oxygen.

How many times do I have to type this out?

In this particular case, you see the black smoke indicated the cooling effect because it transitioned from a efficient fire to a non efficient fire, the temperature of the fire.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Momento

it doesnt matter what the fireproofing was like coz NISt admited that the fores didnt get hotter than 250 degrees.


No. That is absolutely incorrect and a total, blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

In fact, even a simpleton can see just how utterly stupid and nonsensical that claim is. The fires didn’t get hotter than 250° C? On what Planet?

Even an ordinary candle flame readily exceeds 1000° C




Originally posted by Momento
fireproofing protects a building steel from burning for a long time and really hot.


If it was properly specified and applied, the fireproofing is rated at either 2 hours or 4 hours depending on the specific building codes.

The problem was, the fireproofing wasn’t properly specified, was in poor condition to begin with, and has little or no shock or impact resistance.



Originally posted by Momento
the fires only burned for a short time and they werent really hot .


Wrong. The fires released a tremendous amount of heat energy into the building. The myth that the fires were not hot is just that, a myth, totally devoid of any scientific basis.



Originally posted by Momento
even if there was no fireproofing then the buildings still shouldnt have fallen in freefall like they did.


Why? The initiation of the collapse and the progress of the collapse are two separate issues.


Originally posted by Momento
and what was the fireproofing in wtc7?? do u have pics of bad fireproofing in wtc7? why did it collapse in freefall too??


The collapse of WTC 7 took over 15 seconds, a lot longer than free fall.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
The post was not directed at you in particular, as others have made that claim about the smoke colour.

As I said, I completely disagree that black smoke indicates cooling. It seems more likely that the shift in smoke colour indicates a shift in fuel complex.

There are too many variables (e.g. types of fuel) to say for sure what is happening to the temperature of the fires based simply on smoke colour.



Originally posted by Masisoar
Vor75, welcome to the discussion.

Have you not read my last post. I indicated that the fire was cooling due to its transition of efficieny to inefficieny. Why do you bring up the issue of black smoking = dying fire. The black smoke here was used as an INDICATOR that it was because the grey smoke prior from the Jet fuel/air mixture was burning efficiently, but when it turned black, that's due to an inefficient flame, not enough oxygen.

How many times do I have to type this out?

In this particular case, you see the black smoke indicated the cooling effect because it transitioned from a efficient fire to a non efficient fire, the temperature of the fire.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75

Originally posted by bsbray11
So the office supplies made the fires inefficient because of too much fuel? While office supplies and jet fuel produce light gray smoke?


I guess you've never been in an office ... if you had you might notice the plastic computers, plastic desks, plastic charis, plastic plants, plastic binders, plastic everything ...

I'm sure the mass of synthetic material far outweighed that of paper and envelopes, even back in 2001.


Ok? So what's your point? You still have office materials + jet fuel = light smoke, while, according to the newest asinine theory, office materials alone = excessively fuel-laden.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
Conspiracy theorists have a very simple way of looking at things.

Black smoke, therefore fire is dying.


This is called a straw-man, and it's a disinfo tactic.



- Clearly, the fire is well-developed and has spread across many floors.


Actually, the fires stayed on the floors of impact besides a couple exceptions of fires beginning way above the impacts (that you can note in your pics by pockets of light smoke way up the building).

Never did the fires on the impacted floors spread immediately above or below.


- The outer columns are bowing inward.


I can't see this at all in that pic, but even if I could, you would have to show sufficient buckling, not just any buckling.

It would take a damned lot of perimeter columns to buckle, if not more than all of them, to lead to a single floor collapsing. This is because buckling doesn't take away all of a column's ability to withstand loads, and yet it would've taken an average of 75% column failure between the perimeter and core columns according to NIST figures for one of the upper floors of WTC1 to completely fail.

So if that's an average of 75% column failure total, you can imagine what the equivalent to that would be in perimeter columns alone, and even then, not completely failed but only buckled. As long as the core supported at least 50% of the gravity loads of one of those floors, all of the perimeter columns could have completely failed and the floor would have remained standing because of the core. And remember that this is based on the numbers that government agencies have given us.

So how many buckled columns can you show us? And how much would it even matter?


How does the leaning of both towers leading up to their collapse (documented by witnesses) and the bowing of the outer columns recorded in this image 7 minutes before the collapse fit in with a controlled demolition?


The "bowing columns" would be pretty irrelevant, but the leaning would've been the result of support loss from thermite and sulfur cutting through columns before the vertical collapse began. Watch videos, and you'll see just that: leaning, and then vertical collapse.

Check out this Google video of molten metal from WTC2. Notice that it pours out glowing yellow, which would've been impossible for the fires to do. Aluminum melts between 600 and 700 C, but then it only appears silvery gray, and not bright yellow. Molten metal only at very high temperatures glows yellow. Open-atmosphere hydrocarbon fires do that?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The collapse of WTC 7 took over 15 seconds, a lot longer than free fall.


Can you back up that assertion?

video.google.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join