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.

 

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 54
13
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Once again, black smoke does not automatically mean oxygen starved fire. Plastics and other items produce black smoke as they burn.

Here are some examples of fires that do not look like they are oxygen starved or burning cool to me and there is black smoke.

www.theage.com.au...

www.abc.net.au...

There are a few hundred more examples.


Very true and it's a fact supported by people with expert knowledge in the field of firefighting that the WTC fires were not at all oxygen starved as claimed - they were actually well ventilated by means of the gaping holes in the outer wall, blown out windows (lots of them) and the exposed core shafts.

We've probably gone a bit beyond the thread topic here but considering it's a virtual certainty (beyond any reasonable doubt) the planes did pass through the outer walls to deliver the load of fuel inside the buildings and cause those fires...

The earlier reasonable estimate of ~30% of the fuel going into the initial explosion and fireball leaves us with something approaching as much as 7000 gallons of jet fuel to account for (hardly a puddle). It's absolutely certain that the initial fuel-air explosion could propagate up & down the the elevator shafts and examination of the building plans reveals freight car #50 shaft extends all the way to the lowest level (yes I did read the plans). So we now have a very plausible explanation for the basement explosion as well which doesn't require death rays, HE truck bombs, antimatter triggered fusion bombs or thermite.

Next thing I'll hear 'what about the 50 ton press which was just .. GONE?'
Well - that was indeed a 50 ton hydraulic press but why are we being led to believe it was the size of a locomotive when it was actually capable of being loaded onto a pickup and weighed roughly 1/3 of a ton? IE it applied a max pressure of 50 tons but its mass was hugely less than that and the fuel/air blast could easily have shifted it (if it hadn't actually been borrowed for a few days that is) The same blast caused the damage in the lobby area above and some casualties below who were badly burnt (suggests flames to me - IE jet fuel).

What I'm getting at is what seems like an obvious picking and embellishing of only the information that supports someone's personal agenda and suppressing that which doesn't. A sort of selective myopia is evident in relation to the whole picture which won't get us anywhere near the real truth.

Me? - I don't believe I have an agenda to push
Just trying to see how ALL the pieces of the puzzle can fit together.




posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by ULTIMA1
As for fire, some of the outlandish claims have always amazed me as well. The North Tower could have a 3 plus hour fire, described as a blowtorch type by the firemen, concentrated primarily at the 11th floor. But only have a cool fire from kerosene, claimed to bring those buildings down in far less than three hours based on a cool fire. Carbon smoke is the first clue a fire is oxygen starved, which is considered an extremely cool fire.


I don't see that earlier fire is comparable to a fire created by a 100 000kg object smashing through the building, exploding inside and blasting off a majority of fireproofing on the then exposed steelwork. The 70's fire took place with all fireproofing intact.

Another thing I came across, not as yet fully substantiated, is that the building regulations in relation to use of asbestos for fireproofing changed when the towers were only up to about half way. They had to use a substitute material with inferior characteristics (mechanical and thermal) to asbestos for the rest of the construction.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
It does not help people trying to make their points valid, when all they do is present mis- or disinformation, which can be easily refuted by science. I have explained some of the principles of cool fire, black smoke, and oxygen starvation in several posts. I will now present more information to confirm what I have already also confirmed in prior posts:

911research.wtc7.net...

"The Fires' Progression Over Time

Most photographs of the South Tower show relatively dark smoke, and in much less quantity than from the North Tower. See photographs.
Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both Towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the Tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence.

Visible flames diminished greatly over time. Significant emergence of flames from the building is only seen in a region of the North Tower 10 stories above the impact zone.

South Tower: Virtually no flames were visible at the time of its collapse.

North Tower: Flames were visible in several areas at the time of its collapse. A region of flames on the 105th floor is seen after the South Tower collapse.

The smoke darkened over time. While the fires in both Towers emitted light gray smoke during the first few minutes following the impacts, the color of the smoke became darker.

South Tower: Smoke from the fires was black by the time it collapsed. At that time it was only a small fraction of the volume of the smoke from the North Tower.

North Tower: Smoke from the fires had become much darker by the time the South Tower was struck, 17 minutes after the fires were ignited. The smoke was nearly black when the South Tower collapsed. Thereafter the smoke appears to have lightened and emerged from the building at an accelerated rate.

After the fall of the South Tower, the North Tower continued to produce prodigious quantities of smoke, and showed regions of active fires. See photographs.

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."

The above should put this issue to rest. Unless, someone can prove black smoke does not mean oxygen starvation. I have not noted the people claiming it does not providing any proof it does not. As indicated above, the black smoke also means the fire is cooler. Thus, not rapidly providing a great deal of thermal energy (BTUs) to rapidly build heat outside and inside, when applied to an object.

To increase the thermal energy of flames, they need a strong supply of oxygen at all times. As smoke builds and surrounds object, oxygen cannot break through to continue to feed the flames. Oxygen starvation occurs. The flames begin feeding on a great deal of stifling CO2. To easily test that. Hold breathe preventing feeding of oxygen. CO2 and alot of it fed to the brain. Last extremely weak burst of energy - passing out.

Heat is not merely temperature reading on some thermometer away from flames. Heat is the amount of thermal energy to raise the temperature on and inside an object. Heat depends on the type of flame and amount of time being applied, as to how rapidly and high the thermal energy heat has increased on and inside an object. Orange and yellow are considered cool heat. Blue is considered hot heat.

A blowtorch type fire would be the same effect as using a blowtorch fed by acetylyne supplied with oxygen as used in welding. When a flame is fed oxygen, it becomes hotter and releases more thermal energy to actually heat an object from the outside in. It will not release dense black smoke unless loosing oxygen supply.

No reputable contractor put asbestos in only part of any buildings and not in the rest in those days, when asbestos could be legally used in buildings. If someone has proof that happened, then please present in, or please stop making unproved claims.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



It does not help people trying to make their points valid, when all they do is present mis- or disinformation, which can be easily refuted by science. I have explained some of the principles of cool fire, black smoke, and oxygen starvation in several posts. I will now present more information to confirm what I have already also confirmed in prior posts:

Who has deliberately false info here?
Also, are you saying anytime any fire produces black smoke, it is cooler and oxygen starved? Yes or No?



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


That is what I stated directly related to the burning of carbon based fossil fuels, specificially aircraft kerosene fuel, and objects burned by that fuel.

This is the issue concerning 9/11, isn't it? Burning carbon based kerosene jet fuel, which, in turn, burned other objects with carbon fossil fuel bases, i.e. vinyl and plastic of office furniture and equipment and personal items, plus, wood also containing carbon, i.e. desks and any chairs, personal items, etc.

Do you know of any carbon products which do not give off black smoke when burning or being burned? If so, could you provide proof that happens when carbon based objects are burned or burning?



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


here is one of your oxygen starved fires



Does this fire look oxygen starved to you?



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


That is what I stated directly related to the burning of carbon based fossil fuels, specificially aircraft kerosene fuel, and objects burned by that fuel.

This is the issue concerning 9/11, isn't it? Burning carbon based kerosene jet fuel, which, in turn, burned other objects with carbon fossil fuel bases, i.e. vinyl and plastic of office furniture and equipment and personal items, plus, wood also containing carbon, i.e. desks and any chairs, personal items, etc.

Do you know of any carbon products which do not give off black smoke when burning or being burned? If so, could you provide proof that happens when carbon based objects are burned or burning?


So based on your own posts, all fires which burn carbon, burn cool and are oxygen starved.
I have seen plenty of wood burn white smoke.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Your photo image does not prove your point. Do you seriously believe high flames are all it takes to estimate thermal energy heat and amount of oxygen being fed, to effectively and increasingly build higher thermal energy heat? That fire says a great deal of oxygen is being uselessly absorbed, because the flame is spending more time burning off it's own heavy carbon base source of the fire, plus, any carbon based object(s) it is burning, than actually producing effective thermal energy heat. See the black smoke, orange and red flames? That is considered cool, not hot, heat. If you do not believe it, then, by all means, research it yourself.

What you appear to be describing, in the post to which I am responding, some amount of wood burning outside. That would not be the case if someone enclosed that fire and started to decrease the oxygen supply. Are you aware that all fires need oxygen, the purer the more effective for producing hot heat, or become oxygen starved, when not getting enough oxygen caused by smoke blocking the impure oxygen supply to flames? I learned that as far back as elementary school many years ago.

Yes, cooler fire results from highly concentrated carbon based fossil fuel products all the time, particularly as the oxygen supply to the flames decreases.

Why do you keep asking me the same questions without doing any actual science research of your own? The photo you presented is not science research. Have you thought about researching at educational sites provided by universities? I always take the time and make the effort to do valid research, before continously pestering or badgering anyone else for answers I can easily find myself.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123


Your photo image does not prove your point.

Yes it does. A fire cannot burn without oxygen. A huge fire cannot burn without a huge amount of oxygen. The picture showed a MASSIVE fire burning with a lot of flame. So there must have been a lot of oxygen available and there was black smoke. This means that fire was not oxygen starved. Ta Da !!!


Do you seriously believe high flames are all it takes to estimate thermal energy heat and amount of oxygen being fed, to effectively and increasingly build higher thermal energy heat?

Do you honestly think that fire wasn't extremely hot?


That fire says a great deal of oxygen is being uselessly absorbed, because the flame is spending more time burning off it's own heavy carbon base source of the fire, plus, any carbon based object(s) it is burning, than actually producing effective thermal energy heat. See the black smoke, orange and red flames? That is considered cool, not hot, heat. If you do not believe it, then, by all means, research it yourself.

So based on your definition, there is no such thing as a hot fire. All fires with black smoke must be cool fires. I bet fire fighters will be glad to hear that



What you appear to be describing, in the post to which I am responding, some amount of wood burning outside. That would not be the case if someone enclosed that fire and started to decrease the oxygen supply. Are you aware that all fires need oxygen, the purer the more effective for producing hot heat, or become oxygen starved, when not getting enough oxygen caused by smoke blocking the impure oxygen supply to flames? I learned that as far back as elementary school many years ago.

Heat rises causing the smoke to rise with it. Cooler, more oxygen rich air is pulled up into the fire.


Yes, cooler fire results from highly concentrated carbon based fossil fuel products all the time, particularly as the oxygen supply to the flames decreases.

So all fires with black smoke are always cool according to you. There are NEVER ANY exceptions.


Why do you keep asking me the same questions without doing any actual science research of your own?

Oh I have. The reason I ask you these questions is to make sure I understand what you're saying.


The photo you presented is not science research. Have you thought about researching at educational sites provided by universities? I always take the time and make the effort to do valid research, before continously pestering or badgering anyone else for answers I can easily find myself.

The photo is evidence. I have researched plenty of information thanks.
I'm sorry that you feel pestered and badgered. Since it's such an obvious inconvenience to support your statements, might I suggest never posting here again??? I'm sorry that you feel unsettled by the fact that you were questioned but might I suggest, based on previous posts, you get used to it if you plan on posting on ATS in the future.


[edit on 25-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


You can repeat your opinion until doomsday and never be correct. I have science on my side, and it is apparent you do not.

What you continue to state is not scientifically correct. If you studied the principles of heat conduction and thermal energy, from an accredited educational institution, you would know how incorrect your opinion is.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
 


You can repeat your opinion until doomsday and never be correct. I have science on my side, and it is apparent you do not.

What you continue to state is not scientifically correct. If you studied the principles of heat conduction and thermal energy, from an accredited educational institution, you would know how incorrect your opinion is.


Your opnion is that I am incorrect. The fact is I am correct. You are confused regarding your application of the evidence you have posted. Hopefully you will work through this and we will be able to continue with the discussion. Good luck.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Once again, black smoke does not automatically mean oxygen starved fire. Plastics and other items produce black smoke as they burn.
.


So your stating that the sites that state it does mean oxygen starved are wrong ?


Originally posted by Pilgrum
The 70's fire took place with all fireproofing intact.


Well i can see you did not read my post and do research or you would have noticed that their was not fireproofing in the towers untill after the 1975 fire.



[edit on 25-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 25-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 




Originally posted by jfj123
Once again, black smoke does not automatically mean oxygen starved fire. Plastics and other items produce black smoke as they burn.

So your stating that the sites that state it does mean oxygen starved are wrong ?

Well once again you have not read and or understood what I posted. What I have said all along was that black smoke doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean that the fire is oxygen starved. You cannot have a massive fire without massive amounts of oxygen. Try lighting a match in a vacuum-it doesn't work.

Just to be really, super, incredibly, crystal clear-You cannot 100% assume EVERY time that when you see black smoke, you AUTOMATICALLY have an oxygen starved fire. I posted several photos that showed black smoke but with massive amounts of flames. Flames would burn down without oxygen. Put a lit candle in an airtight container and watch the flame eat up all the O2 until there is none left and the flame goes out.

Remember, with elevated building fires, flames can be easily fed fresh air from below. Where you don't see all the black smoke.

[edit on 25-12-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well once again you have not read and or understood what I posted. What I have said all along was that black smoke doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean that the fire is oxygen starved.


You did not answer my question.

Have you had any training in fires or fire fighting?



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Well once again you have not read and or understood what I posted. What I have said all along was that black smoke doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean that the fire is oxygen starved.


You did not answer my question.

Have you had any training in fires or fire fighting?



Actually, this is your question, which I have answered.

So your stating that the sites that state it does mean oxygen starved are wrong ?



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually, this is your question, which I have answered.

So your stating that the sites that state it does mean oxygen starved are wrong ?


NO, you did not answer it.

Are the sites that state that black smoke mean a fire is oxygen starved wrong?

Because you seem to believe that balck smoke does not mean oxygen starved, correct ?



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Well once again you have not read and or understood what I posted. What I have said all along was that black smoke doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean that the fire is oxygen starved.


You are not reading or understanding what is being posted.

No, black smoke does not necessarily mean an oxygen starved fire. But a fire that starts out producing grey smoke which then turns black is an indication of a fire that is either starved of oxygen or fuel. A fire starved of either, producing black smoke, will be a cool burning fire due to the other points made.

The only other way the smoke could change colour is if another type of fuel was added that would produce black smoke such as rubber or some plastic. But we can safely assume no other fuel was added that wasn't already present.

Showing pictures of fire with black smoke proves nothing...'Cool' is a relative term meaning the fire is not burning at 100% efficiency. To get the temps you all like to quote it would require a 100% efficient burn, impossible in 'open air' under any circumstances.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by jfj123
Well once again you have not read and or understood what I posted. What I have said all along was that black smoke doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean that the fire is oxygen starved.


You are not reading or understanding what is being posted.

No offense but yes I have read what has been posted and yes I do understand what they are saying.


No, black smoke does not necessarily mean an oxygen starved fire.

And this is exactly what I have been saying all along so you agree with me.


But a fire that starts out producing grey smoke which then turns black is an indication of a fire that is either starved of oxygen or fuel. A fire starved of either, producing black smoke, will be a cool burning fire due to the other points made.

or...

The only other way the smoke could change colour is if another type of fuel was added that would produce black smoke such as rubber or some plastic.

BINGO !!!!!!
Now are you saying that there were no computer monitors, keyboard, mice, towers, laptops, furniture, electric wire insulation, etc..... ? that would have been burning causing black smoke???


Showing pictures of fire with black smoke proves nothing

actually it does as what has been stated is that every time you see black smoke the fire is oxygen starved and cool. A fire of those magnitudes, which I have posted, did not seem oxygen starved to me.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually, this is your question, which I have answered.

So your stating that the sites that state it does mean oxygen starved are wrong ?


NO, you did not answer it.

Are the sites that state that black smoke mean a fire is oxygen starved wrong?

Because you seem to believe that balck smoke does not mean oxygen starved, correct ?


Yes I did answer your question. What I have said over and over is that black smoke during a fire doesn't automatically mean oxygen starved every time.

If those are legitimate sites, then they won't say that every time you see black smoke, the fire is oxygen starved. I believe that the sites probably say something along the lines that black smoke may be an indication of an oxygen starved fire and you're simply either creatively editing again or you simply don't understand what the information means.

Does that answer you question?



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
When the Towers started turing to fine dust as they exploded outward, all fires were finished as far as office furniture and other conbustibles. NO fires burned openly at ground zero: TONS, hundreds and thousadns of tons of fine dust and material were piled several stories high and there has NEVER been any proof shown that any fires in the Towers were hot enough to even affect the steel: Yet, we have reports from the NIST itself that talk about ' inexplicable vapoization ' of some of the steel.

Vaporization. Say that a few times until it sinks in that NO fires in the Towers no matter WHAT was buring or where could account for that kind of heat: Heat so high that steel vaporized. Think about that. Also think about this fact:

The Towers were built so that no one elevator could go from top to bottom uninterrupted, as a fire safety design: To STOP fire from moving faster. It is IMPOSSIBLE, totally impossible, for the jets to have hit, exploded in huge fireballs, and then had unburnt fuel pour anywhere, much less all the way to the lowest levels, no way, no how. Cannot happen. The lobby was destroyed by a blast, not by fire: Look at the pictures and listen to the witnesses and realize that fire was NOT present there at all: The lobby was blown up when the blast below went off: The one Rodriguez talks about. It was bottom up, not top down for the damageas below no way can the planes be attributed to that.

So, there are only two examples of proof that the official story is a lie: There are HUNDREDS more ' inexpliacable anomalies ' that the government hides from and will not answer, or answers with obvious nonsense. For God's sake: The NIST crew even had the temerity to NOT include the entire event in their appraisal!! No looking after the ' collapse initiation'. No no, thats an area they will not examine, because they cannot without spilling the beans. And in every case, every one, when caught like that they simply refuse to consider it as valid(!!) or give an explanation that insults the informed mind.

What I cannot understand is how anyone who reads and comprehends evidence could possible, in any way, believe the official story; it has to be denial. Nothing else explains it.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join