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 fires that burned for 100 days

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 04:20 AM
link   
in a similar way to the way a land fill fire continues to burn .




posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   
From your link:


Officials say a stubbon landfill fire is out after buring for two weeks.

The city initially planned to let the fire burn itself out, but started using a chemical late in the week to put out the flames.


I suppose a fire could burn indefinitely if you let it, huh?

Any molten iron/steel to be reported?



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
From your link:


Officials say a stubbon landfill fire is out after buring for two weeks.

The city initially planned to let the fire burn itself out, but started using a chemical late in the week to put out the flames.


I suppose a fire could burn indefinitely if you let it, huh?

Any molten iron/steel to be reported?


Problem is at a landfill you have alot of material to burn, what was at the WTC to burn but hundreds of tons of steel. If you believe the official story the insulation on the steel was mostly burned off in the initail explosion.

Their were several reports by demo and excavation teams of molten steel in several of WTC bulding basements.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
I believe alot of the firefighters jobs were threatened after 9/11 if they didn't
"play along".But hey ,this is just my opinion.


Another one that throws the FDNY into the everlasting list of those who are "in on it".


Originally posted by untouchable
My entire family consists of firefighters. So I asked them what they thought of this entire situation and what would cause a thermal hotspot for a hundred days or more. They ALL said that it had to be some type of fuel that was attached to the steel columns of the building which collapsed into the center. They also said that there are only two types of fuel known to man that could cause these types of temperatures. They are Thermite and Thermate.

I did some further research to back up the Thermite and Thermate conjecture.It turns out that several scientists have examined steel debris from Ground Zero and have proven conclusively that Thermate was used to cut the steel beams. Please look this up.

And do you know that most firefighters in Canada won't even talk about 9/11 because they are afraid of reprisals by the American government. Sickening


I'm curious as to the extent of training Firefighters get in thermate? I come from many generations of firefighters. My Dad is Captain of the fire department for his city. My brother is also a firefighter and was a grief counselor at Groud Zero. Both of them said they had minimal knowledge of thermite. They did however know about the fires at groud zero. (remember my brother was there) They both read the reports as it was quite the discussion at fire departments around the world for months. Although they are "only" firemen, they said the reports that were released made sence to them.

What further research have you done in regards to thermite and thermate ? Where is your proof? Alex Jones is the only one that claims this.
Please list your "several scientists have examined steel debris from Ground Zero and have proven conclusively that Thermate was used to cut the steel beams."

Where oh where did you hear Candian Firemen were afraid to talk about 911?? Oh my God I can't WAIT until you provide some proof to back up that claim.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
From your link:


Officials say a stubbon landfill fire is out after buring for two weeks.

The city initially planned to let the fire burn itself out, but started using a chemical late in the week to put out the flames.


I suppose a fire could burn indefinitely if you let it, huh?

Any molten iron/steel to be reported?


Landfill fires are VERY common. Has anyone ever driven by an old landfill at night and watched the methane vents shoot flames into the air?

Landfill fires are caused by the decomposition of garbage producing methane gas that gets access to oxygen. The presence of bacteria, solid waste, and water react to produce increased heat (delta t), methane gas, and carbon dioxide gas, other gases and degraded organic material.

With the correct conditions present, spontaneous combustion can occur in household trash or at construction debris facilities. This type of combustion will produce excessive amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) and other trace toxic gases due to incomplete oxidation.


Considering most landfill fires are underground, I believe most fires are allowed to burn themselves out if possible. They usually just "grout" the area to try to contain the fire into one area or the use of heavy equipment. Depending on how far below the surface the fires are.

What I found interesting was that there in an old landfill in California called Hunterspoint Landfill. This landfill had a fire start and burned for 7 weeks.
www.hunterspointnavalshipyard.org...

What does this have to do with 911? Well, I think that if given the right combination, fires CAN burn for a long time. Was there molten metal in the landfill fires? I doubt they get that hot, but I am curious to find out what temperatures the fires get at the construction debris landfills. If I do find out, I will post my findings.

Just some more info on temperatures at a typical landfill:


The mechanics of spontaneous combustion in refuse are not well understood. Wood starts to burn with open flame once temperatures rise above 315 degrees C. Pyrolysis, the process of chemical oxidation of wood, can start at temperatures of 95 degrees C.. The reaction reaches an exothermic (heat producing) and self-sustaining state at temperatures as low as 149 degrees C. Temperatures approaching the 149 degrees ignition point are seldom reached in properly operated landfills where refuse decomposition is occurring under anaerobic conditions. Anaerobic bacteria thrive at temperatures that seldom exceed 60 degrees C. Aerobic bacteria generally thrive at temperatures below 75 degrees C. and typically die was the temperatures climb above 80 degrees C.

www.landfillfire.com...


[edit on 6-1-2007 by CameronFox] More info added

[edit on 6-1-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Problem is at a landfill you have alot of material to burn, what was at the WTC to burn but hundreds of tons of steel. If you believe the official story the insulation on the steel was mostly burned off in the initail explosion.

Their were several reports by demo and excavation teams of molten steel in several of WTC bulding basements.


Just steel?


"The debris pile acted like a chemical factory. It cooked together the components of the buildings and their contents, including enormous numbers of computers, and gave off gases of toxic metals, acids and organics for at least six weeks."
When the trade center towers burned and collapsed, tons of concrete, glass, furniture, carpets, insulation, computers and paper were reduced to enormous, oxygen-poor debris piles that slowly burned until Dec. 19, 2001.


delta.ucdavis.edu...

Not to say there wasn't molten "steel" at the site, but has this been proven? Seems no one can agree on this point either.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

what was at the WTC to burn but hundreds of tons of steel. If you believe the official story the insulation on the steel was mostly burned off in the initail explosion.


So Ultima1 are you saying there was nothing in the WTC?

I was under the impression that they were office buildings which contained furniture, carpets, computers etc etc. Would non of that burn?

The fact that fires burn underground is well known.

In the UK there are areas of land that have soil with a very high organic matter in the form of peat. Fires that start as grass fires on this land can spread underground and smoulder for months.
Thats just burning dirt!!

peat fires


You get the same on old coal mine waste heaps.

Heyope tyre tip in Powys Wales was burning for 14 years underground.

Heyope tyre tip

What I'm trying to say is, that if you have fuel and oxygen then fires will continue to burn underground. Its not that unusual.

cheers

beagle

[edit on 6-1-2007 by the smoking beagle]

[edit on 6-1-2007 by the smoking beagle]



[edit on 6-1-2007 by the smoking beagle]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Problem is at a landfill you have alot of material to burn, what was at the WTC to burn but hundreds of tons of steel.


what ??????

what about the entire contents of a 75 storey office building [ using WTC 1 as an exaple ]

paper , fyrniture , carpets , office equipment etc etc



If you believe the official story the insulation on the steel was mostly burned off in the initail explosion.


irrelevant red herring ........... why are you attempting to ignore 75 unburned floors ?


Their were several reports by demo and excavation teams of molten steel in several of WTC bulding basements.


cite ?



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11



Officials say a stubbon landfill fire is out after buring for two weeks.

The city initially planned to let the fire burn itself out, but started using a chemical late in the week to put out the flames.


I suppose a fire could burn indefinitely if you let it, huh?


unless extinguished , many fires will burn till their fuel ix exhausted .....

if you have infintite fuel .......... you will have an indefinite fire



Any molten iron/steel to be reported?


ok , what , according to you sustained combustion ?



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by the smoking beagle
I was under the impression that they were office buildings which contained furniture, carpets, computers etc etc. Would non of that burn?

The fact that fires burn underground is well known.


What I'm trying to say is, that if you have fuel and oxygen then fires will continue to burn underground. Its not that unusual.

cheers

beagle

[edit on 6-1-2007 by the smoking beagle]

[edit on 6-1-2007 by the smoking beagle]



[edit on 6-1-2007 by the smoking beagle]


But didn't the official story say that the furniture and carpet was burned up on several floors in the first hour from jet fuel ? Our are you questioning the official story too ?

So your trying to tell me that fire burned over 1500 degrees according to 1 fire chief from just some carpetting and furniture, and maybe you can explain how air get in under tons of debris to fuel the fire for several weeks.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Ultima...read the entire thread. There are explinations as to how the fires continued to smolder. Read my post on page one if you'd like.

Don't spin the Ape's story now! The furniture...carpet..etc. on the IMPACTED floors burned up...

scroll up to my previous post to the link I supplied.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I don't know what material you guys are talking about burning up down there, unless the convenient idea is that it was all burned up before anyone could find it.

Remember that the steel was the only debris of any size left after the collapses, except below ground, where I think there was a good amount of gravel (from concrete) and larger piece of unbroken concrete in certain places.

Firefighter testimony:


You have two 110 story office buildings.
You don't find a desk.
You don't find a chair.
You don't find a telephone, a computer.
The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad,
and it was about this big:
(makes a shape with his hand about 4 inches in diameter)
The building collapsed to dust.


911research.wtc7.net...


But suddenly we have "75 floors" (sic) of unburned furniture to use as fuel for these fires, that melted metals and lasted for months, putting off white smoke? You can't logically say that. There is no evidence of it, and rather, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.


You guys can spit out all these words all night, trying to justify to yourselves what happened, and still, if you were to try to actually test these simplistic theories, this is what you're going to find:

Masses of fuel, when burned, are called fuel-rich fires. They produce black, sooty smoke, because the burn is inefficient, not all the fuel is consumed before it can combust, and unconsumed hydrocarbons or etc. escape in the smoke. This is what happens when you really have huge masses of fuel that are on fire. They don't just smolder and smolder and smolder for months, putting off an oddly white smoke.

The smoke at Ground Zero, however, was white, just like the white smoke that filled the mech room in Pecoraro's testimony, and just like the white smoke that rose from the basements before each collapse. In all likelihood this was not actually "smoke", but some kind of oxide from a high-temperature chemical reaction on a mass scale, such as aluminum oxide from a thermite reaction, or oxidizing aluminum particles in general, as there was a lot of aluminum on the outsides of those buildings. I would not at all be surprised if it was some other material, though, that I'm unfamiliar with.

Also, you don't dig a hole in the ground, through a bunch of crap in, set it on fire, and expect it to melt steel, even if it does manage to burn for weeks on its own (especially when you aren't even trying to fit it). Furnaces melt steel, as an example of something that WILL do this. Furnaces need hot air pumped into them from below, among many other things, including an abundance of a certain type of fuel, a confined space in which to burn to keep heat trapped in, etc., or else they just won't work. If I'm not mistaken, they also use high pressures, but I'm not sure on that one.



Any molten iron/steel to be reported?

ok , what , according to you sustained combustion ?


Would you even give the time of day to that, Cameron?

Ignorant Ape, the towers were made of 110 stories each and only about 3 or 4 MAX had any appreciable fire on them, and I'm being generous. 3 or 4 from 110 is not 75, though it doesn't really matter, because I see no floors' worth of furniture or etc., and never have, in any GZ photos. Check the witness testimony above, and feel free to verify it yourself in any photos whatsoever of Ground Zero and the excavations that took place there.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But didn't the official story say that the furniture and carpet was burned up on several floors in the first hour from jet fuel ? Our are you questioning the official story too ?

So your trying to tell me that fire burned over 1500 degrees according to 1 fire chief from just some carpetting and furniture, and maybe you can explain how air get in under tons of debris to fuel the fire for several weeks.


Thanks for taking the time to reply Ultima1,
Did you have a look at the links I posted ?
They show that fires can burn underground because, they're reports of underground fires!

How does the air get there?
Its drawn in by the fire through fissures and cracks, replacing the used air.
Check out Centralia in your own state of PA. Been burning for years.


Now with a big pile of rubble like WTC, you have plenty of spaces between the bits of rubble.

Whats in those spaces?

Well, the one thing that doesnt occur naturally on Earth is a vacuum.

So I would say there is a very good chance that those spaces contained air, what do you think?

As the oxygen is used up , more is drawn in to replace it.

The only time this wont happen is if you can seal the whole thing up

Say drop a giant bell jar over it!

Have a read of this
WTC debris fires

In it, its said that the fires had a 17 day head start because, the authorities wanted to mke sure they got any survivors out before they started flooding the site with water.

The other thing thats mentioned is the idea of flooding the site with inert gas, to starve the fires of oxygen. This is thought not to be practical because the debris are said to be too large and porus.

So if inert gas wont stay in the debris and will leak out, then it seems logical to assume oxygen can enter the debris.

Or maybe you disagree?

Do you surmise that all the air was expelled from the rubble by the collapse and therefore combustion could only be sustained by the addition of an oxydizing agent?

Could this oxidizing agent be the iron oxide present in thermite?

From what I can see the debris at GZ were a sodding great heap of rubbish that was burning quite well on its own.

Now Ive put forward my view on the debris fire, whats yours?


All the best

Beagle



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Hi there BSBray,thanks for taking the time out to make a comprehensive reply.

Not sure if I'm included as one of your "word spitters", I'll just check.

No, the key board seems pretty dry this end


You say that there was nothing in the basement of the WTC,

"except below ground, where I think there was a good amount of gravel (from concrete) and larger piece of unbroken concrete in certain places."

so what happened to the cars in the garages?

Last time I looked cars seemed to burn quite well.

Theres fuel in the tank, upholstery, carpet, plastic dashboard, tyres etc. All a bit flammable really.

But you say they werent there, so they couldnt have been fuel for the debris fires then.

Now then you also state

" the towers were made of 110 stories each and only about 3 or 4 MAX had any appreciable fire on them, and I'm being generous. 3 or 4 from 110 is not 75, though it doesn't really matter, because I see no floors' worth of furniture or etc., and never have, in any GZ photos. "

So according to you the two WTC towers contained NO office furniture, fittings or equipment.

What were all those people doing there every day?

Couldnt have been working, 'cos theres nothing to work with.

Its a bit of mystery why they turned up day after day to empty offices, not even a water cooler to stand around.

It must have been very boring.

Never mind theres always the spectacular views of Manhatten, or travelling up and down all day in the lifts.

Any way, NO office furniture means NO fuel for the debris fires then.

So thats alright then.

Now, onto the smoke. You say:

"Masses of fuel, when burned, are called fuel-rich fires. They produce black, sooty smoke, because the burn is inefficient, not all the fuel is consumed before it can combust, and unconsumed hydrocarbons or etc. escape in the smoke. This is what happens when you really have huge masses of fuel that are on fire. They don't just smolder and smolder and smolder for months, putting off an oddly white smoke."

Have a look at these pictures of an underground fire at Centalia PA

Centralia, no smoke without fire !

The smoke is coming from a "fuel rich" coal fire, but the smoke is white.

Odd eh?

Its been smouldering for 40 years.

You appear to be a bit of an expert on smoke and fires, whats the explanation ?


Youve certainly got me thinking about the debris fires.

No fuel, no oxygen supply.

No normal explanation for a fire then?

Whats the answer?

Look forward to your reply.

All the best

Beagle

Pip Pip!!!



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by the smoking beagle
so what happened to the cars in the garages?


They could burn, sure. But for months, melting metals and producing white smoke? Not unless you have another theory to complement this one. Simply naming combustibles that were present doesn't put much to rest here, does it?


Theres fuel in the tank, upholstery, carpet, plastic dashboard, tyres etc. All a bit flammable really.


And which tend to produce thick, sooty smoke, right? Especially plastics and rubber. Where is it?


But you say they werent there


I did not say this, or anything like it.


So according to you the two WTC towers contained NO office furniture, fittings or equipment.


Once again, I did not say this, or anything like it.

What I said is that the furniture and etc. was all utterly pulverized, just as the 4"- and 5"-thick concrete slabs on each floor and most of the trusses. Refer to the firefighter's testimony above.



The smoke is coming from a "fuel rich" coal fire, but the smoke is white.

Odd eh?


No. If you missed the explanation I gave earlier, sooty smoke comes from inefficient burns. This is what will happen when you have tons of plastic and carpet other materials that don't burn so well, though they will burn (provided that they exist in some form that will burn, rather than being scattered through the air as a fine dust). Feel free to verify this on your own; also feel free to provide sources for the coal stash or etc. under the WTC, as that's quite different than mounds of plastics and various furniture and etc.


Youve certainly got me thinking about the debris fires.

No fuel, no oxygen supply.

No normal explanation for a fire then?


I've already stated that I personally doubt it was actually smoke, so, sure. Look up what aluminum oxide looks like, and compare, as an example. It doesn't need oxygen from the air to form.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by the smoking beagle
In it, its said that the fires had a 17 day head start because, the authorities wanted to mke sure they got any survivors out before they started flooding the site with water.

The other thing thats mentioned is the idea of flooding the site with inert gas, to starve the fires of oxygen. This is thought not to be practical because the debris are said to be too large and porus.

So if inert gas wont stay in the debris and will leak out, then it seems logical to assume oxygen can enter the debris.

Or maybe you disagree?

Do you surmise that all the air was expelled from the rubble by the collapse and therefore combustion could only be sustained by the addition of an oxydizing agent?

Could this oxidizing agent be the iron oxide present in thermite?

From what I can see the debris at GZ were a sodding great heap of rubbish that was burning quite well on its own.

Now Ive put forward my view on the debris fire, whats yours?


All the best

Beagle



Who is talking about underground fires, the large majority of the fires were in the debris field on top of the ground. The only fire talked about underground was in the basement of building 6 in the 911 commission report which talks about molten metals.

The floors from the twin towers were pancaked on top of each other so for 1 the firniture was all crushed, 2 thier would have been very litte room for air to get in.

Why don't you check out some photos and see that the debris field is almost all steel and very compressed.

i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by the smoking beagle
Hi there BSBray,thanks for taking the time out to make a comprehensive reply.

Not sure if I'm included as one of your "word spitters", I'll just check.

No, the key board seems pretty dry this end


You say that there was nothing in the basement of the WTC,

"except below ground, where I think there was a good amount of gravel (from concrete) and larger piece of unbroken concrete in certain places."

so what happened to the cars in the garages?

Last time I looked cars seemed to burn quite well.

Theres fuel in the tank, upholstery, carpet, plastic dashboard, tyres etc. All a bit flammable really.

But you say they werent there, so they couldnt have been fuel for the debris fires then.

Now then you also state

" the towers were made of 110 stories each and only about 3 or 4 MAX had any appreciable fire on them, and I'm being generous. 3 or 4 from 110 is not 75, though it doesn't really matter, because I see no floors' worth of furniture or etc., and never have, in any GZ photos. "

So according to you the two WTC towers contained NO office furniture, fittings or equipment.

What were all those people doing there every day?

Couldnt have been working, 'cos theres nothing to work with.

Its a bit of mystery why they turned up day after day to empty offices, not even a water cooler to stand around.

It must have been very boring.

Never mind theres always the spectacular views of Manhatten, or travelling up and down all day in the lifts.

Any way, NO office furniture means NO fuel for the debris fires then.

So thats alright then.

Now, onto the smoke. You say:

"Masses of fuel, when burned, are called fuel-rich fires. They produce black, sooty smoke, because the burn is inefficient, not all the fuel is consumed before it can combust, and unconsumed hydrocarbons or etc. escape in the smoke. This is what happens when you really have huge masses of fuel that are on fire. They don't just smolder and smolder and smolder for months, putting off an oddly white smoke."

Have a look at these pictures of an underground fire at Centalia PA

Centralia, no smoke without fire !

The smoke is coming from a "fuel rich" coal fire, but the smoke is white.

Odd eh?

Its been smouldering for 40 years.

You appear to be a bit of an expert on smoke and fires, whats the explanation ?


Youve certainly got me thinking about the debris fires.

No fuel, no oxygen supply.

No normal explanation for a fire then?

Whats the answer?

Look forward to your reply.

All the best

Beagle

Pip Pip!!!
Would this explain the bone fragments found on rooftops,or the steel beams sticking out of neighboring buildings?Alot of bodies were never recovered from the WTC sites because there was none,just body parts.How can this be if the buildings just fell from weakened steel trusses.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
Would this explain the bone fragments found on rooftops,or the steel beams sticking out of neighboring buildings?Alot of bodies were never recovered from the WTC sites because there was none,just body parts.How can this be if the buildings just fell from weakened steel trusses.


What are you talking about? Has ANYONE in this forum EVERY claimed that the buildings fell "Just from weakened steel trusses"

And you still believe the FDNY was in on it?



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Alot of bodies were never recovered from the WTC sites because there was none,just body parts.


Actually, many bodies with just so much as body parts were identified.

About a thousand were not identified at all because NOTHING was found of them: they were utterly destroyed in the same way as the concrete, floor pans, furniture, etc. One source described these victims as "vaporized".


How can this be if the buildings just fell from weakened steel trusses.


You tell me. The plane impacts didn't do that, if that's the suggestion, unless all 1000 people were crowded around where the jets hit, and I think you would realize that fire also would not do this.

The floors and etc. were also turning to dust right from the start, because you can see it pouring out of the sides of the buildings in rows, floor by floor, as they fall. Similar material was ejected by the expulsions that raced ahead of the actual collapse wave, by as much as 50 floors in at least one case.

Failing trusses won't do that either. Neither will buckled perimeter columns. Neither will [insert b.s. adjective here] core columns.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   

And you still believe the FDNY was in on it?
I never said they were in on it,I meerly stated I believed their jobs may have been threatened if they didn't support the official story that is all.Don't you think the government is capable of something like this?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join