Originally posted by never_tell
criminals abound at the top of business and government... might as well get used to it...

No thanks. I will not get used to my country being run into the ground by crooks.

Just a simple question. Do you vote? If you do, why? If we are just to turn around and take it?

While doing some research I found this interesting tidbit of information:
While conducting hydrocarbon fire tests for tunnels in Norway , Those that were conducting the tests achieved temps of 2480 degrees F (1360 degress C.) This was off of just 396.25 gallons (1500 liters) of gasoline. Since jet fuel has a higher ingnition temp it will burn hotter than gasoline. So if gasoline can achive temps hot enough to melt (or at least significantly weaken) steel.....JP4 can also since it burns hotter. Plus the structrual members has their fire retardent stripped away in the intial impact, that just made them even more suseptable to failure. [url=www.ita-aites.org/cms/fileadmin/filemounts/ovion/doc/safety/prague/HI&AL.pdf]

Also found that nozzle temps of a jet engine can reach 2700 F ( 1482.22 degrees C ) at afterburn stage indicating to me that jet fuel can burn at least 1000 F ( 537.77 degrees C ) degrees hotter than the 1500 F ( 815.55 degrees C ) degrees stated.

In the fire service we are taught to expect failure of steel members after the temps have reached 1000 degrees F (538 degrees C). Steel at that temp has also been shown to elongate 4 inches or more, Now granted these are structural members as opposed to steel truss roofing, but any steel subjected to the intence heat from the jet fuel and ordinary combustibles present in the building, that is missing it fire retardent coating, lasting for almost a hour, carrying the loads that they were carrying, failure seems like a likelyhood to me.

I hope the link worked..I have not attempted such a feat before...lol


[edit on 10-8-2007 by six]

[edit on 10-8-2007 by six]

Originally posted by six
Also found that nozzle temps of a jet engine can reach 2700 F ( 1482.22 degrees C ) at afterburn stage indicating to me that jet fuel can burn at least 1000 F ( 537.77 degrees C ) degrees hotter than the 1500 F ( 815.55 degrees C ) degrees stated.

So, why don't these nozzles melt then. Maybe look into the difference between heat and temperature. If you don't know why I say this, then you might just find your answer.

In the fire service we are taught to expect failure of steel members after the temps have reached 1000 degrees F (538 degrees C).

Are you also taught that steel buildings collapse globally? Didn't think so.

Steel at that temp has also been shown to elongate 4 inches or more, Now granted these are structural members as opposed to steel truss roofing, but any steel subjected to the intence heat from the jet fuel and ordinary combustibles present in the building, that is missing it fire retardent coating, lasting for almost a hour, carrying the loads that they were carrying, failure seems like a likelyhood to me.

Long sentence. Global failure in near freefall time does NOT seem likely to me.

Nozzles dont melt because of the alloys that they are made of...obviously not steel. Structral steel not designed for such intense heat. Two different purposes.

Globally, before 9/11, how many other structures had a fully loaded 767 purposfully flown into them?.....None....So there is not alot of data or first hand experience prior to 9/11 to show just how a building will or would react.

The purpose for the post on nozzle temps was to show that the temps required to melt ..or at least significantly weaken the steel to failure,were possible with JP4

[edit on 10-8-2007 by six]

BTW,

Heat: Is a form of energy that is tranferred by heat

Temperature: Measurement of heat

Originally posted by six
The purpose for the post on nozzle temps was to show that the temps required to melt ..or at least significantly weaken the steel to failure,were possible with JP4

There is a difference between engine nozzle heat and an ambient air fire due to jet fuel. One is designed to fly a plane the other looses heat due to ambient air, the huge heat sink of the steel being continuously welded etc. etc.

Also, you might want to look into a study done by Edinburgh University, I believe, all about how steel behaves in fires. It was done in the 80's. It basically tells us that the official report is full of it. Fireproofing or not. Airplane damage or not. I'd go with an independant report rather my corrupt government's fully biased one anyday.

Has the flashes seen in the topic video been discussed?

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
Has the flashes seen in the topic video been discussed?

I'm considered a CTer but a think some of those flashes are from sunlight reflecting off broken glass. it's hard to say one way or the other IMO.

Originally posted by OutoftheSky
Has the flashes seen in the topic video been discussed?

I've seen discussions on them, sometimes they're called "Ross flahes" just because a guy named Gordon Ross has brought them up and made points of them on his website and on different forums. What he thinks, and I wouldn't at all be surprised, is that rapid incendiary-like charges were set in places along the perimeter corners and in other places on the perimeter structure to ensure failures there. I think he also suspects that the perimeter corners were all "unzipped" before the collapse wave arrived. That's about the most I've heard in regards to those flashes.

Light reflecting off of aluminum panels is another possibility I guess, but there is a very specific angle that has to be produced by the panel for the sun to be reflected at the viewer, and it also can't be done in shade, where the light is only diffused. It's bound to happen with all the rotating aluminum panels in direct sunlight, falling through the air, but I'm not sure how noticeable it would be or how this would explain any flashes seen coming from shaded areas.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
but I'm not sure how noticeable it would be or how this would explain any flashes seen coming from shaded areas.

I agree with what you say. Just that light reflecting off glass can be pretty noticable. What I mean is if the sun is reflecting off the intact windows and hits the panels/glass in the right way. Probably not too much but I could see it.

There's a spot where I walk to work. It's in the shade, but the sun reflects off of one building so strong that you can actually feel the heat from it in the shade. Just saying.