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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:
six

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The thing about back drafts is that the conditions that set up the backdraft explosions are very very hot.. A oxygen starved fire tends to "burn" hotter than a "regular" fire. Like cooking with Charcoal. The pile was basically like a huge insulated oven. As for the melted steel ends...I dont know...May be it did get hot enough to start the melting process...Where there ever any temp readings taken of the pile? I know that rescuers were having their boots melted on a regular basis...Fire boots are made not to melt, so that might give you a indication of how hot the pile was


[edit on 5-12-2007 by six]



six

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Were there any utility tunnels? Subway tunnels? Steam tunnel? I know there had to be sewer and water. That might bo some of the sources of O2 at the lower levels of the pile.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
After reading the postings on this thread I have to say I found them all very informative, especially those by six, who I must confess were to the point and specific to the questions asked.


To the question asked about how fires can continue to burn when buried under tons of rubble.. When I was a kid this question always had me stumped until later on in life when it all became much clearer. A good question to ask.



Take for example this fire..

Recently a news report stated a large fire has just been extinguished after burning out of control for over 50 years despite many attempts over the years to put it out.

Underground Coal Fire...



An underground fire that has consumed more than 12.43 million tons of coal in northwest China has been extinguished after more than 50 years.




The fire, covering 923,500 square meters, was fueled by coal more than 100 meters underground. It released more than 70,000 tons of toxic gas, including sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide each year since it started in the early 1950s.




Underground coal fires, most of which occur spontaneously, are common in the region's coal fields. Some fires have been burning for almost a thousand years and are technically very difficult to put out.


It is my understanding that just like the fires under the rubble at ground zero, the coal fire in the above example was able to burn quite happily with very little oxygen at hand. The 'fuel' (Coal) itself was able to produce a limited amount of oxygen from its high heat core to sustain this fire without a direct oxygen source being required.

In the case of ground zero, the rubble itself would have contained many different sources of fuel/materials that would have released a steady source of oxygen as it traveled underneath the rubble to where ever a source of easily combustible fuel could be found. Add also the air pockets/sewers/tunnels etc found underneath the fire all would have helped to keep the fires burning hot for weeks/months and even years to come.


Regards Freelancer



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   


Recently a news report stated a large fire has just been extinguished after burning out of control for over 50 years despite many attempts over the years to put it out.


Mother is from coal country, Scranton PA (thats Pennsylvania). Used
to be huge piles of coal waste, coal mixed with rock, called "CULM".
Would catch fire from spontaneous combustion and burn for years.
The smoke and smell of burning sulphur was so bad there were signs
posted telling people to close all windows and not to stop! Underground
fires are nothing new- plenty of fuel in WTC offices to fuel fires. Site
burned for over 3 months into December.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Two guys dont make several units.


More the 300 firemen died in the builidngs, thats more then 2.

The official story states there were large jet fuel fires on lower floors why didn't any the firemen report them?


Originally posted by Damocles
one thing id like to add is that when people hear that these fires "burned" for 100+ days under the debris, that doesnt mean open flames by any means. think cigarette. smoldering really.


But could these smoldering "cigerette" fires keep steel molten for at least 6 weeks?


Originally posted by thedman



Recently a news report stated a large fire has just been extinguished after burning out of control for over 50 years despite many attempts over the years to put it out.


So are you saying there was coal in the debris at ground zero?



[edit on 5-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But could these smoldering "cigerette" fires keep steel molten for at least 6 weeks?

well, since they apparently DID do exactly that, i guess id have to say yes.

do you have some evidence or better yet proof that this couldnt possibly happen under any circumstances?
cuz if i have to make a choice between what we actually saw and what you think then.....



So are you saying there was coal in the debris at ground zero?

[edit on 5-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


please for the love of god tell me that wasnt a real question and that you were twisting his tail just for fun...i mean for the love of all thats good and just in the world you cant possibly have come to that question based on his post. you do know what an 'example' is yeah? i mean maybe you dont, maybe im assuming but with that question i really have to reconsider...

i mean ive always thought you were a sharp guy even if i disagree with y ou...so im hoping that youve just taken up a new past time of late and have emulated Mr Lear and are just trying to "stir the pot' as it were...



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
please for the love of god tell me that wasnt a real question and that you were twisting his tail just for fun...


For the love of god why would you compare a coal fire to what happened at ground zero?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by six
 


I don't dispute that there was access to oxygen.

I was thinking of the towers and the holes in the sides. Could that actually have made it so the fire was cooler than optimum? On those sides?

Basically I'm just thinking aloud and not disputing anyone's theories in this thread.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



I don't know how true this second hand story is so take it as such.

My previous employer had a contract with the pentagon (my ex-co-workers were actually on the roof of the pentagon where it got hit the day before 9/11). My boss told me that the wood (I'm assuming the gutter stops were made of wood as most are) in the roof of the pentagon smoldered for weeks after 9/11 before anyone noticed. No one noticed the roof smoldering I guess because of all the other damage.

Anyway, just a second-hand story.

Edit: Maybe a subterranean landfill fire might be a better example of what happened at GZ?


[edit on 12/6/2007 by Griff]


six

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Freelancer
 


I know slightly off topic but this coal fire has burned underground for 2000 years

www.emoti.com...


six

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


343 to be exact. Those two were on a recon mission. Did you not read my post above? That would have explained it to you. They were not looking for fires on the lower floors. They had no reason to suspect fires on the lower floors. The two who made it to the 78th floor could not have searched every floor on the way up. As for the rest ...Read my post..That will explain it.


six

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I know you werent. I was just asking questions. Thinking out loud I guess. I dont belive that the holes on either side would have made the fires cooler. I They were small in comparison to the square footage, so most of the hole was probably a fresh air intake for the fires, with the products of combustion moving upward primarily through the building and out the upper portion of the holes. What I also wonder is if the fires were not made hotter by any fire proofing and insulation that was not damaged or destroyed by the intial impact and explosion. Certain insulation and fire proofing can make fires hotter

www.monolithic.com...



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Interesting idea.


When sprayed on the interior of a building, with no covering such as shotcrete or drywall, polyurethane foam can create a dangerous fire hazard.


It would be nice to know what was used in WTC without having to speculate though.

Actually, it's a very interesting theory.



In 1967, urethane modified polyisocyanurate rigid foams were introduced, offering even better thermal stability and flammability resistance to low density insulation products.


en.wikipedia.org...

Notice the date. Would the trade center have used this as "the best" fireproofing?

Do you have that info Six?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
They were not looking for fires on the lower floors. They had no reason to suspect fires on the lower floors.


But how could they and all the other firemen miss the big jet fuel fires that the official story keeps telling us were there on the lower floors?

Not to mention the very big inferno that they talk about.

Also maybe you can explain why the 1975 fire burned for 3 hours without causing any problems with the steel, but on 9/11 we are supossed to believe that fire lasting less then an hour weakened enough steel to casue the collapse.




[edit on 6-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


six

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


You didnt read the post. They were not supposed to look on fires on the lower floors. The initial response was for fire attack and rescue. So they would have headed up to those floors that they knew to be on fire. They would not have searched every floor on the way up. That would have come later in the incident. For search and rescue, the people trapped in the most peril would have been A) Those trapped on the fire floors B) Those trapped ABOVE the fire floors C) Those on the floor just BELOW the fire floor D) Those in the stairwells and floor below... In that order. So WHY would they have been searching the floors below when that was not their job to begin with?

As for the other...Apples to oranges..The 1975 fire didnt have 300,000 lbs of aluminum, fuel, titanium, steel, and other assorted materials fly into it at 500mph either. Different animal all together



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
You didnt read the post. They were not supposed to look on fires on the lower floors.

As for the other...Apples to oranges..The 1975 fire didnt have 300,000 lbs of aluminum, fuel, titanium, steel, and other assorted materials fly into it at 500mph either. Different animal all together


So your saying the firemen just walked by the big jet fuel fires we were told were there?

But we are not talking about the plane, we are talking about fire. How did the fire that burned less then an hour cause enough steel to weaken ?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


to illustrate the fact that fires can burn under ground so long as it has fuel to consume? just taking a guess here.

again, it was just an example.


six

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


To answer your first question...Yes. If there was no reason to suspect fires on the floors below, they would not have gone looking for them. Plain and simple.

As for the second part. You are looking at four events 1) Large commercial airliner, fully loaded for a cross country flight, collides at high speed with the buildings. 2) Very large fuel/air explosion. Who knows what damage that may have caused. 3) Very large, very hot fires that burned UNCONTROLLED for the duration of the event. 4) the collapse of the buildings. You are not looking at just a structure and contents fire. Please show me just how the two events are similar beyond the fires. You CAN NOT tie the two together. They are very different incidents. Just FYI, All fires are not the same. You can have the same fire, in the same spot, in the same building, and have two TOTALLY different out comes.


six

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


You know...I really dont know. I have tried to look it up, but I have had no luck. Way too much junk to wade through. Would that information be in the spec sheets that have not been released? About all I have found is that some of it was asbestos based. But I would think that it would have the same effect. It would make sence to me. It was designed for the same purpose. Do any of your code books have fire ratings on the newer fire proofing out? Do you think it would be similar?


[edit on 6-12-2007 by six]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
reply to post by Griff
 


You know...I really dont know. I have tried to look it up, but I have had no luck. Way too much junk to wade through.


Tell me about it.


Would that information be in the spec sheets that have not been released?


Quite probably. I would wager yes. I'm not saying it's been suppressed because of that though. Just saying it would probably be included in those.


About all I have found is that some of it was asbestos based. But I would think that it would have the same effect.


I would say, depending on the material, you might be right. Although, and you can help out here, I've thought that asbestos was fire proof (real fire proof).


It would make sence to me. It was designed for the same purpose. Do any of your code books have fire ratings on the newer fire proofing out?


I'll have to check out the codes. Like I've always said, I don't pretend to know it all. I can look it up though.


Do you think it would be similar?


I would think so. Especially if "they" are going to say it's better. Don't you think?

BTW, ALL. Great discussion going on here IMO.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join