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.
Originally posted by jfj123
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???
Again you are not reading. Did you miss the part about there being NO new fuel added to the fire? The computers and other stuff were there all along, not added later.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
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...
Originally posted by ANOK
Again you are not reading. Did you miss the part about there being NO new fuel added to the fire? The computers and other stuff were there all along, not added later.
But regardless it's a mute argument, even if the fire didn't start cooling it would not cause a global collapse of thousands of tons of steel in an hour...
Not enough temperature and more importantly an inefficient transfer of thermal energy.
Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
Yes, melting plastic automatically becomes oxygen starved. Hence, the black carbon smoke pouring from melting plastic.
Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123
The discussion began as to if black smoke indicates a fire is oxygen starved. That was in general. Yes, it does.
Now you have changed it to plastic.
Plastic can add to oxygen starvation, particularly when the accelerant (fuel source), is carbon based fossil fuel. That was my point in general and in specifics.
I cannot consider plastic or rubber a fuel source. Without an accelerant and ignition, or an already existing fire, plastic or rubber is highly unlikely to self-ignite from any friction.
Do you realize what the actual temperature in a blast furnace is for even beginning to compromise steel, much less melt it down during the recycling process? It takes time for the steel to become internally hot enough to compromise any other part of the steel.
People have repeatedly made the valid point that kerosene could not compromise the WTC steel, causing complete building collapse, in 1 hour or 3 hours or 24 hours. Never in the history of steel and concrete buildings has there ever been a building collapse from any fire.
What will be standing is almost all, if not all, of a skeletal hulk of the original building.
Originally posted by OrionStars
Actually, there was from the first day of finished construction. Asbestos was applied in conjunction with several plies of sheetrock/drywall as a fire retardant in lieu of heavier concrete and on the steel.
Originally posted by jfj123
Still no it doesn't. Once again, just because you see black smoke, it doesn't automatically mean every time without exception, the fire is starved of oxygen.
A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.
Jet fuel (kerosene) only burns at a fraction of the temperature needed to melt steel. In any case, the fuel did not last long, as much was consumed in the impact fireballs, and the rest would have evaporated and burned in under 5 minutes. Thereafter the fires were far less severe than other skyscraper fires (such as the 19-hour One Meridian Plaza blaze in 1991). Few flames were visible, and the black smoke indicated the fires were oxygen-starved. Survivors passed through the WTC 2's crash zone, and firefighters who arrived there described "two pockets of fire".
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Still no it doesn't. Once again, just because you see black smoke, it doesn't automatically mean every time without exception, the fire is starved of oxygen.
jnocook.net...
A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.
Originally posted by MikeVet
Maybe you should do some research on typical structural fire temps and the impact that plastics can have on the temps before you make posts like these.
Just a suggestion.....
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by MikeVet
Maybe you should do some research on typical structural fire temps and the impact that plastics can have on the temps before you make posts like these.
Just a suggestion.....
Oh but i have, have you ?
Originally posted by jfj123
Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by MikeVet
Maybe you should do some research on typical structural fire temps and the impact that plastics can have on the temps before you make posts like these.
Just a suggestion.....
Oh but i have, have you ?
Originally posted by jfj123
As stated above, you said you have information about typical structural fire temps. Could you please post the info along with your source?
Thanks.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
As stated above, you said you have information about typical structural fire temps. Could you please post the info along with your source?
Thanks.
I notice you did not respond to my post about the jet fuel fires.