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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by six
 



We're all human. Interesting subject....carpet.



six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I think it was that site , or one similar to it, where I found this information. I have the site written down somewhere.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Six has it right...

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

The standard fires do not always represent the most severe fire conditions. Structural members having been designed to standard fires may fail to survive in real fires. For example, the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire.

And a graph explaining what this all means from that source:

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

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


Well accordeing to my exerience and research i have done it does mean oxygen starved in a office fire.

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.(Elaboration..., p5)



911research.wtc7.net...

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.

There appears to be no evidence of fires within the buildings' cores. It can be assumed that most of the fires were near the perimeters of the towers where broken windows around the crash zone allowed them a supply of air. The cores were an average distance of about 70 feet from the nearest walls, and had much less flammable material than the surrounding offices. The impact gash in the North Tower provided a line of sight to the core. Available photographs and videos show the gash as consistently dark, showing no signs of fire in the building's core.


six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Well according to my real life experience, that comes every third day, for the past twelve years...It doesnt. When you are in the fire business, you learn to read the smoke, it could save your life. I explained it all to you before. So you know better because you read it on some web page, or read it in some book?


six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Here is a small class on reading smoke.
www.iaff-local2.org...

About half way through read the parts about:

Density- The thicher the smoke the more dangerous it is.

Color of smoke-White is cooler, Black is hotter

Black Fire- High volume, turbulent velocity, super thich black smoke. A sure sign of impendending flashover

Nowhere does it say anything about a oxygen starved fire having thick black smoke. Smoke from a oxygen starved fire behaves in a very different manor. EVERY firefighter knows those signs. If he doesnt, it can get him killed.

Edit to add:
Soot is produced at every fire. Smoke is filled with soot, gasses, all products of combustion.
Of course you would not have fire IN the buildings core. The core is hollow. It is a pathway for elevators, power, water, phone etc

[edit on 4-12-2007 by six]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by six]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Well according to my real life experience, that comes every third day, for the past twelve years...It doesnt.


From my government fire training and training fighting aircraft and jet fuel fires it does.

Every report i have read states that thick black smoke means oxygen starved fire.

So are all these reports wrong, or lieing?

www.911research.wtc7.net...

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.


911research.wtc7.net...

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"



[edit on 4-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

These were not aircraft fires. These were fire ignited BY aircraft. These were structure and contents fires after the initial ignition by the jet fuel. It is generally agreed that the fuel burned off in 15 minutes or less. That leaves you with structure and contents.

BTW: This is not exactly a "unbiased" web site you quoted. Who wrote this? What are their qualifications? Have they actually fought any fire? Or are they just quoting something that fits their version of things? Thedman also explained about thick black smoke. Are we lying?



[edit on 4-12-2007 by six]

[edit on 4-12-2007 by six]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
These were not aircraft fires. These were fire ignited BY aircraft.


Yes, i know and thanks for ageeing with that part.

Now answer the question. Are all the reports (like NIST report) that state black smoke mean oxygen starved fires lieing, YES or NO ?


[edit on 4-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I never said it was anything different than that.

I wouldnt call it lying. More like uninformed. You didnt quote the NIST report. You quoted the 911 web site. Something totally different.

BTW a question for you. How many oxygen starved aircraft fires have you ever fought?



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
How many oxygen starved aircraft fires have you ever fought?


I think the terminology is incorrect when people state "oxygen starved". Wouldn't oxygen starved actually mean the fire is out? Since fire needs oxygen to burn?

Wouldn't the better terminology to use be "less than efficient" fire?


six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


No you can have a oxygen starved fire. That is were backdrafts come from. But the trick is that the building/room has to have a pretty good seal to keep enough oxygen from reaching the fire.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 



Gotcha. It's hard to look this stuff up anymore because when you type "oxygen starved fire" into google, all that comes up are 9/11 sites. It gets quite annoying after awhile actually.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
I never said it was anything different than that.

I wouldnt call it lying. More like uninformed. You didnt quote the NIST report. You quoted the 911 web site. Something totally different.

BTW a question for you. How many oxygen starved aircraft fires have you ever fought?


1. I never stated you did, i thanked you for agreeing. Some people on here seem the think fires in the WTC were jet fuel fires.

2. Yes, if you look at the question #9. that is a question asked to NIST from a NIST report. Would you like me to post the NIST report its from instead of the 911 research site?

3. The only times i know you have an oxygen starved jet fuel fire is if its inside a contained area or when you hit it with Halon.

By the way the 911 research site is one of the fairest and best sites i have come across. But if you like i will start using professional or government research sites.

[edit on 4-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 

Any time. Thats what I try to do, find non 911 sites. It is getting increasingly hard to find thse site without wading through everthing else first



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Found something.


Signs of backdraft.

When enough oxygen is no longer available, large quantities of carbon are released during the combustion process indicating oxygen-starved fire.


books.google.com...# PPA66,M1


six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

The key to that is contained area. The WTC were not contained by any means. They had huge holes in both sides allowing for air to "feed" the fires.

Halon was good stuff...Too bad its so bad for the enviroment.


six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 

But the smoke in a oxygen starved fire comes out in puffs..Sometimes is drawn back in. Niether of these signs were present on 911. WTC were not sealed. They had large holes in either side of the building.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
The key to that is contained area. The WTC were not contained by any means. They had huge holes in both sides allowing for air to "feed" the fires.

Halon was good stuff...Too bad its so bad for the enviroment.



But would you agree the fires were buring out before the towers collapsed?

Yes, thats why Halon is mostly used in computer or battery rooms.

We had Halon go off in a battery room and had a guy go in without an airpack, we had to drag him back out.


six

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


No I would not agree with you that the fires were going out. There was simply too much combutible material in each floor to burn up in a hour. The signs outside the building dont point to the fires going out.

My dad used to have a small halon extinuisher at his print shop. It was fun to play with. I remember it having a fruity smell.

Edit to add:

The reason for the site being so hot for so long after the collapse was the fact that the fires were still burning when the buildings collapsed. When that happened you gave the fires access to more fuel, and put a "insulating" barrier on top of what was burning. I would not have been suprised if the temps got hotter after the collapse in the pile. Kinda like a pit to smoke a pig. Fill it with hot coals and bury it. Come back in 9 hours and the meat is cooked.

[edit on 4-12-2007 by six]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join