It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Slayer
Do we really care about what happened five years ago anymore?
Will it take another major act of terror to unify us again, assuming we are not living in a police state if another attack were to happen again?
I hope not.
it, it's the Neo-Cons and PNAC.
SKULL & BONES, THE FREEMASONS AND THE ILLUMINATI.
Originally posted by Dr Love
Sometimes I don't think that you even believe what you say and are just trying to stir the pot for other, more justifiable/understandable reasons.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
go for it!
ok I know a plastic bag will give off a bunch of it. But I have personal experience that if you burn a pile of paper, pictures, and other office items, it may burn black initially, but you would be a bit surprised.
I was younger and accidently did it in my basement (no carpet or anything, still stupid though) and alot of the stuff burned black, but the smoke pretty much filled the house, it was like fog. It was a tint darker then fog as well. Light grayish. It was very unexpected.
hmm I dont know actually. I would imagine that since it blew out on both sides, it would increase the air flow. Yes though, if you blow on a fire thats been going, the embers will increase the temperature. When you build a fire, you start with fuel and small things to burn. You add more larger things as you get it started. you DONT blow on it untill after the fire is started. if the pressure was any real significant flow, it would be more likely to put out the fire then increase it. It couldn't have been too pressurized.
I think that the pressure was low and the wind was probably the best help toward the fire. the wind combined with the pressure would probably be too much and put the fire out. For anyone that said there was no wind, that’s a bid hard to believe at 78 floors high. could be though. I don’t believe the pressure would last long either though. would it take 90 minutes for the buildings to fill?
why would you assume that? the ones that are near the walls get the most air flow. they get more oxygen, and that at least keeps the embers going which usually keeps the fire going. so long as there is materials there they would be most likely to be on fire. You would be more likely to see flames at the window, since the fire would stay lit easier. The Madrid fire was fully engulfed because the time it had to build. that was the point. It built to that size, and thats why it was such a violent fire. The damage shows how much the madrid fire was as far as fire goes. It completely burnt every floor above it. It was not misleading because everything but the steel got burned up in the fire. Thats a full force fire plain and simple.
I dont think I answered the questions well. the first question i can only answer with personal experiences of fire and that link from before about smoulder fires create think black smoke in large amounts.
second question is a good question which I dont have any answer for. I have no info on the pressure or how much air flow it would create.
third question i stand by my answer. The madrid fire ended with all the stories above completely burnt, and that shows how large that fire was in comparison to the WTC fire which was not engulfing all the floors above it and such.
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.
There appears to be no evidence of fires within the buildings' cores. It can be assumed that most of the fires were near the perimeters of the towers where broken windows around the crash zone allowed them a supply of air. The cores were an average distance of about 70 feet from the nearest walls, and had much less flammable material than the surrounding offices. The impact gash in the North Tower provided a line of sight to the core. Available photographs and videos show the gash as consistently dark, showing no signs of fire in the building's core.
Originally posted by Imperium Americana
Additionally most petroleum based fuels will burn black. This color difference is due to the higher amount of uncombusted carbon particles. In a fire such as Madrid or the WTC, you would expect to see darker smoke than say a brush fire. Carpets, office equipment, etc. all have use plastic that burn black. Of course there was paper and such and that contributed to the smoke as well. My real contention was the videos comments about the smoke and the relative heat of the fire. It was erroneous and simplistic.
Originally posted by CaptainIraq
I did the calculations myself, and they are correct. It shouldn't have fallen that fast.
show that confluent rows of what looks like explosive ejection of debris and concrete dust proceed down the sides of the towers at a constant velocity AHEAD of the collapse zone and the free falling debris. Since the debris is accelerating under gravity while the expulsions are at constant velocity, it eventually passes the expulsions.