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.

 

B.L.E.V.E and the WTC 7

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
six

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Here is a theory that I am going to throw out for discussion. It concerns the possibility of B.L.E.V.E.'s at WTC 7. Six..you ask..Just what are BLEVES? Well my educated friends..let me answer this. A BLEVE is a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion ( known as Blasts Leveling Everything Very Effectivley in the fire services). It is a catastophic rupture of a vessel under its own vapor pressure. If a sealed vessel, at atmospheric pressure, is heated to the point that its contents begin to boil, those contents will give off a vapor. This vapor occupys several HUNDRED more times than that of the liquid in the container. Water, when heated to boiling, will occupy 1700 times the original volume. When enough pressure builds up, the container ruptures, with spectacular results. For example, if you take sealed container of water, and heat it to boiling, eventually it WILL explode (note...I am in no way advocating trying this at home..you can be seriously hurt). So the liquid inside does not have to be flammable. But if the liquid is flammable, the results are a fuel/air explosion with devestating results.
www.wikipedia.org...

Here is a power point presentation:
www.usmra.com...

Another reference. Look about halfway through.
www.fireworld.com...

Videos of BLEVE's
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

It is known that there were a number of diesel tanks scattered through out WTC 7. At least one of them was 6000 gallons. They located mostly on the first floor, but they were located also as high as the 7th story, or higher. The amount generally accepted is 36,000 gallons. So what you had were, bacially, a number of "bombs" scattered through out WTC 7. To achieve the wide open lobby that the designers wanted, they used a truss support system for the building. I have seen that there were 3 main trusses.

It is generally accepted that there were fires burning in WTC 7 that day. Diesel boils at 302 to 662 degrees F. Well within the range of any ordinary combustible fire. The temps thrown around are in the range of 600 to 1800 degrees F. Ahhh but six...there was fire proofing..Well it is known that some types of fire proofing can make a fire HOTTER
www.monolithic.com...

There are accounts of explosions at WTC 7. If just one of those deisel tanks exploded (BLEVE), it could have damaged enough of the truss system to significantly weaken the building. There are reports of multiple explosions. If enough of the interior truss system support was damaged or destroyed, could not the building have fallen in upon itself? That would be very similar to a CD. The tanks exploding could be the "bombs" that were heard. Here is another reference that I have found that relates to the damage a BLEVE can do to a structure.
www.hysafe.org...

So it would seem to me, IMHO, that there may just be a entirely plausible explanation for what happened at WTC 7.


[edit on 27-9-2007 by six]




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
SIX, that is by far the most plausible explanation that I have heard to date.
I knew about the diesel tanks and always figured that they burned off and contributed in some way to the eventual collapse of 7. What I hadn't taken into account was the BLEVE factor. Yes, those would be bombs of amazing capabilities and I am sold on this as the main reason for the collapse. Why has this not been studied further using models and what-not?

I need to ask, is this a new theory? I have been here for some time hanging around the 9-11 pages and I cannot recall another thread like it. I will do a quick search to see if there are more threads.

You get a WAY ABOVE from me today.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Ok, Damocles had made mention of BLEVEs in this thread here.
B.L.E.V.E.s

So, I see this is not a 'new' idea, but even still, compelling theory to say the least.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
hmm... video links are not working.

mind revising and posting again?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
It appears that Youtube has removed the videos....hmmmm
I'll look for more and post them.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Are there any estimates on the detonation velocities of these things? RDX is around 28k ft/s and it would have a hard enough time failing the massive columns in WTC7 even if it was strapped directly to the columns. Being strapped directly to a column is something we can't really assume for an exploding tank of diesel.

Maybe it would account for somebody hearing an explosion, but it wouldn't account for the entire building coming down unless we can establish what equates to demolition procedures originating from these exploding tanks, including detonating at the right velocity, in the right place, at the right time.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by bsbray11]


six

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Sorry about the links to you tube. Lets see if this one works
www.youtube.com...


six

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I have look for some measurements of the det. velocities but have not found any yet. I have run across of some of the arson links that 1 gallon of vaporized gasoline is equal to approx. 27 sticks of dynamite.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
not too sure about the det velocities as they will be different for whatever is in the container. IE natural gas will explode at a different velocity than pressurized water will.

bsb you are correct that under normal conditions a diesel bleve will not cut steel the way rdx will but its a matter of volume so to speak.

for example, to cut a big box column with sheet explosives you need about 11lbs, well a comparable sized volume of diesel heated to bleve wont do jack to it....but, a very large diesel tank might.

when i revisited this theory and reread the other thread i came to realize one thing...IF these diesel tanks bleve'd, AND the explosion was big enough to damage the structure...how did it not blow out all the windows on its and its adjacent floors?

if a tank that size bleve'd and blew, the bulk of the damage would come from the overpressure wave, you'd essentially have a thermobaric on your hands. it would overpressurize the area around the tank and overinflate it and everything in its path would get pushed in the opposite direction. remember the old films of nukes going off, with the old wooden shack gettting flattened? thats an overpressure wave and thats what would have happened inside that building to a much smaller degree.

eventually that overpressure wave WOULD have popped the sides of the building like a balloon cuz the pressure wouldnt be able to go up the elevators or down the stairs fast enough, this wave would have hit the windows at at least a few thousand feet per second and the windows would have had an increase in PSI that they werent designed for...and they would have popped. en masse. depending of course on where they were. (am i incorrect that they wernt all in teh basement?)

any of the tanks in the basement of course negate that window popping theory.

tanks blowing in the basement would have done a LOT of structural damage though and while the beams and columns may not have been clean cut, chances are they would have been damaged severely if they stood at all.

i know there are videos that demonstrate FAB's going off in open air doing little or no damage to steel girders but in an enclosed environment the damage sustained would have been different and i cant really speculate more than i have as to waht would have happened.

but, what i am pretty sure of is that if one or all of those tanks bleve'd, we woudnt be speculating cuz everyone from NYC to New Jersey would have heard them go off. the sound would have been comparable to several hundred lbs of TNT going off and would be pretty unmistakeable. even that video of the firefighters on the payphone wouldnt really explain this thing going off. we're talking ground shaking and everyone within a few hundred meters havnig their ears ringing for a few hours.

that steam pipe that popped in NYC a few months ago would have been a firecracker in comparison IMO.

its a very interesting theory, and is really worth looking into, but doesnt fit the evidence IMO. thats jsut me...

though i still think that a lot of the smaller explosions that were heard through the day could have come as a result of gas buildup in enclosed rooms from failed gas maines etc, or similar more mundane explainations.

in the end i guess i still cant say why the buiding fell but i still see no REAL evidence for High Explosives beign used.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


that would be more in the RE factor than the det velocity, but youre on the right track.


six

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Here is a reference I have found concerning measurements for fuel/air explosives. Now they dont have diesel listed, But some of their measurement in the experiments had psi has high as 325 psi @ 6053 ft/sec for a small explosion. This is on just 26.6 cubic feet of a gas in a polypropalyne bag. This does not account for the shrapnel that would be created just from the tank.

www.deepblue.lib.umich.edu...


six

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


If the tanks were not full that could account for the smaller explosions. I have not been able to find much on the size of the tanks.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
very true, however could an explosion too small to be noticed do enough damage to threaten the building?

personally im not sure but id lean towards no...but it depends on the area of the space they were in, what structural components were near etc.

like is said, its still a great theory worth discussing, im just leaning towards no personally.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
This does not account for the shrapnel that would be created just from the tank.



one of my hazmat instructors told us of shrapnel from one of those 500g propane tanks found nearly a mile away after it bleve'd, thers some real power in these things going off to be sure.


six

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 

No..Not too small to be noticed. But big enough to do the damage the would bring about the collapse. And maybe not just one, but several explosions. bsbray and griff can say better, but I have always been taught that when one truss fails, the others are not far behind, kind of like dominos.


six

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 

I agree with the pressure wave blowing out windows because it has no place to go. But if there was damage already to the building. with a big enough hole to allow the pressure to escape. I have tried to find to what specs the rooms containing the tanks were designed to..but have had no luck.
Edit to add: What about the intial design of the building with a large open atrium? Could that eat up some of the pressure wave after the intial damage to the structure?



[edit on 27-9-2007 by six]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
like is said, its still a great theory worth discussing, im just leaning towards no personally.


My question is this. You say that this theory is worth discussing but have said before that a thermobaric bomb is not. Can you explain? Because esentially, they are the same. Not to try and see into your mind but could it be that one doesn't involve a pre-planned destruction by factions of our government? Just curious.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
There was a total of 43,000 gal in fuel tanks around WTC 7 to power
backup generators for Salomon Brothers, NY City OEM office and others
Tanks containing 6000 to 12000 gal of diesel fuel were emplaced
below grade (under ground) were fed to smaller "day" tanks of 275 gal
(about size of household tank) through pipes. The generators were
on mechanical floors from 5-7. Many believe that the debris strikes
on the south face of the building severed one or more of the feed pipes
spilling diesel fuel in the building to feed the fires.

Interesting theory, but since the bulk of the fuel was stored outside the
building probably not possible.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Oh BTW. I thought all (or most) of the diesel tanks were found unharmed. Am I missing something?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Many believe that the debris strikes
on the south face of the building severed one or more of the feed pipes
spilling diesel fuel in the building to feed the fires.


I'm not knocking you but "how convenient". Diesel fuel in all 3 buldings now. The official lie just gets better and better IMO.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join