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.

 

Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires Cooler

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   
This is a first for me,as I had never heard this theory before.
Im not sure what to make of this,so I thought I would throw it out to you guys for opinions.


(GeorgeWashington'sBlog)-Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires Cooler People assume that the jet fuel which ignited the fires in the Twin Towers made the fires quite hot. However, Thomas Eager, a Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT and a defender of the official story explains that the jet fuel actually made the fires cooler:

georgewashington.blogspot.com...


...................Finally, it is true that the soot from the jet fuel and other burning hydrocarbons may have raised the temperature somewhat. However, as Professor Eager points out, the fact that it was a fuel-rich fire -- at least while the jet fuel was still burning -- decreased the temperature of the fire "by a factor up to two", which would more than offset the increase due to reduction of radiative heat loss. Again, the bottom line is that the WTC fires were not very hot.

georgewashington.blogspot.com...

Full story here
georgewashington.blogspot.com...




posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
That was a great read. I had never had the collapse explained like that before. It also makes more sense, in my opinion, then some of the other ideas as to why the towers fell. Great find Black_Fox.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
The jet fuel fires may not have been incredibly efficient (in terms of fuel-to-air), but they still produced much lighter smoke than the predominantly office fires that burned afterwards and for longer.



posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I wonder where Mr. Haroki is on this one. Eh bray? Nice find Black_Fox.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   
www.nistreview.org...


NIST dismisses the possibility that jet fuel played a sustained role in the fires. “While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.” (NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3)



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Ya spend any amount of time reading on jet fuel + watch how most of it was consumed in the fireball and you quickly realize the jet fuel didn't cause the collapse.

It is not possible.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Ever light a grill using lighter fluid? Same thing here - the jet fuel was
dispersed over several floors as it flowed down through openings in elevator shafts, stairs, holes ripped in walls/floors by the impact. It
ignited everything flammable in the area. Modern buildings have a
high fuel load composed of tons of paper, ceiling tiles, cubicle dividers,
carpets, etc. Several floors in each building were ignited simultaneously
unlike normal high rise fires which start small and grow.

The jet fuel fire ball while looking impressive did little damage - this
took about 1/3 of the fuel load (over 9,000 gallons). The rest acted as
the accelerent in the worlds largest arson fire.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Modern buildings have a
high fuel load composed of tons of paper, ceiling tiles, cubicle dividers,
carpets, etc.


I have a question for you. Please don't take this the wrong way. I am appealling to your expertise of fires.

You say ceiling tiles and cubicle dividers. I was under the impression that those materials have been fire rated for longer than the 9/11 fires. Are actually made from gypsum (which is a fireproofing material initself). So, therefore, why would a seasoned firefighter bring up wall board and ceiling tile?

When you could have talked about computers, moniters, and anything else that is actually flamable.

But you talk about things that don't catch fire?

[edit on 11/30/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I think you are confusing "partitions" with "dividers" - most modern office
buildings are built to an "open environment". The offices along the
windows (usually for the managers!) are separated by partition walls
built using steel studs with sheet rock (gypsum board) which are fire
rated. The rest (most of the floor) are office cubicles - the cubicles are
separated by dividers which are metal frame with a core of sound
deadening materials usually urethane or styrafoam. Both of these are
highly flammable. Much of the remaining furnishings are also combustible.
Chairs - urethane padding, desks are particle board with plastic tops,
computers/printers are built mostly of plastics. Plastics are made from
petroleum - they have a heat energy of 12000 -16000 btu/lb, this is
50-100% more than organics (wood/paper/cloth). The ceiling tiles
in drop ceilings are made mostly of celluose fibers with binders - again
combustible. After 9/11 FEMA tested thermal output of materials in
the WTC towers - build a group of cubicles, covered them with ceiling
tiles (simulated tiles dislodged from ceiling on impact), doused with
jet fuel and lit it. Measured thermal output at 12 megawatts thermal
energy.

Modern office buildings are a fire trap - as seen in other incidents
Meridian Plaza, Windsor building, etc) prove that once a office fire
gets going is almost impossible to extinguish. Problem with WTC is
damage inflicted by jet impacts causing massive structural damage
before the fires.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
I think you are confusing "partitions" with "dividers"


Quite possibly. But it depends on the partition or divider I guess. I'm still finding that both are fire rated though.


Partitions can also be constructed to meet fire-retarding and sound-attenuating standards.


www.ukpartitions.com...


We use only New Parts in our Clone Office Cubicle® systems. No rehabed parts or used electrical. Our panel fabrics are fire rated and the electrical system is UL approved.


www.clonecubicles.com...


The ceiling tiles
in drop ceilings are made mostly of celluose fibers with binders - again
combustible.


Again with ceiling tile. I am finding that they are fire rated.


The Sonex Harmoni ceiling tiles are a class one fire rated melamine foam ceiling tile and they are available in two different patterns and four different colors.


www.acousticalsolutions.com...

Why would they construct office buildings with combustible material when there are options to not do so?



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Having worked with cubicles in the past, I can say that they are some of them made out of wood. They have chipped board cores and that kind of wood burns very well with the resin that holds it together.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   


Why would they construct office buildings with combustible material when there are options to not do so?


You forget the "GOLDEN RULE" - he who has the gold, makes the rules!

Checked MSDS (material safety data sheet - required that manufacturer
list materials composed of and hazard associated with) - tiles are
made of fiberglass/mineral wool with celluose/starch which will burn.

Cost is the factor as often the cheapest materials - not the best from
fire resistance are used.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by assassini
reply to post by Griff
 


Having worked with cubicles in the past, I can say that they are some of them made out of wood. They have chipped board cores and that kind of wood burns very well with the resin that holds it together.


Like I said. I guess it depends on the materials used. Modern day is probably better than older materials also.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I fully understand what you're saying. It would be nice to see what exactly was used at WTC. That would settle some speculation.

Cheers for the info.




posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Well for my 2 cents, i am look ing at the photos and videos that show thick, sooty black smoke, meaning a oxygen starved fire.

Also the fact of no large flames emerging from the floors well before the collapse.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
No large flames from building?

Check this picture of North Tower taken from NYPD helicopter




Can see several floors involved in fires. Also thick black smoke doesn't
indicate oxygen starved fire - it indicates large amount of carbon present
Petroleum products frequently emit large dark smoke plumes even
when free burning in open air. WTC full of plastics which give off heavy
smoke when burning.


six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Thick black smoke does not mean oxygen starved fire..by any means. I explained that to you in another thread.

Something else about the fuel load. Carpets can give off about 10,000 BTU/lb. They are made up of oil derived polymers.

For comparison coal burned for generating electricity burns at 12,000 BTU/lb

For this example we shall say that the floors were approx 1 acre. Carpet weighs about 3.88 lbs/yd.

1 Acre = 4840 sq yd
3.88 lbs/yd * 4840 = 18779.2 lbs of carpet
18779.2 lbs * 10,000 BTU/lb = 187,792,000 BTU's generated by 1 acre of burning carpet

.75 acre of carpet = 140,844,000 BTU's generated

.5 acre of buring carpet = 93,896,000 BTU's generated

All of this just off of burning carpet.
Please forgive if the math is off. Bad day/night at work



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
For this example we shall say that the floors were approx 1 acre. Carpet weighs about 3.88 lbs/yd.

1 Acre = 4840 sq yd
3.88 lbs/yd * 4840 = 18779.2 lbs of carpet
18779.2 lbs * 10,000 BTU/lb = 187,792,000 BTU's generated by 1 acre of burning carpet

.75 acre of carpet = 140,844,000 BTU's generated

.5 acre of buring carpet = 93,896,000 BTU's generated


Is that rolled up carpet? Spread out carpet? Genuine question.

Ah. I see why I'm not figuring it out. I think you ment 3.88 lbs./square yard. Then your units will make sense.


six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 

Yes you are right..I caught that when you brought that up..Sorry about that



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Sorry for the total off topic post here, but I found this interesting.

They are using carpet as an alternative fuel for coal in some cement kilns. At least that is what I got out this site.

www.carpetrecovery.org...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join