Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires Cooler

ULTIMA, Just in case, I went through and re-read all of the posts in here to make sure that I did not miss anything. I have answered all of the questions you asked of me.

Pilgrum and Disclosed, thank you.

Originally posted by six
I have answered all of the questions you asked of me.

Well not really. You have not been able to explain how over 300 firemen missed the big jet fuel fires on the lower floors we were told were there by the official story. If the fires wsere as big as we were told the firemen should not have missed them.

Also how did the fuel get down the elevator shaft to the basement (according to the official story) when none of the passenger elevators go all the way from the upper floors to the basement.

And yes i know about the air packs i have been trained in their use. Being a federal police officer first responder we had to escort firemen to a fire.



[edit on 11-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Yes I did. A fire on a 40,000 sq/ft partitioned off floor would have been missed if they were not looking for fires on the lower floors. They NEVER searched any floor. They would have never stopped on ANY floor until they got to the floor where they knew fire to be. Thats why I quoted all of that stuff to you about search and rescue. Or did you not read that? Or are you unwilling to accept the fact that I might just be right and I might just know what I am talking about?

Edit to add. There are many different SCBA makers and models out there with many different capabilities. I am familiar with the ones that FDNY uses because my department uses them also. I am a certified trainer on these airpacks.


[edit on 11-12-2007 by six]

Originally posted by six
Yes I did. A fire on a 40,000 sq/ft partitioned off floor would have been missed if they were not looking for fires on the lower floors. They NEVER searched any floor. They would have never stopped on ANY floor until they got to the floor where they knew fire to be. Thats why I quoted all of that stuff to you about search and rescue. Or did you not read that? Or are you unwilling to accept the fact that I might just be right and I might just know what I am talking about?

Edit to add. There are many different SCBA makers and models out there with many different capabilities. I am familiar with the ones that FDNY uses because my department uses them also. I am a certified trainer on these airpacks.

So your stating the large jet fuel fires we were told about would have just gone unoticed by 300 firemen? Then how do we know these so called jet fuel fires existed?

You did not answer the question about the fire getting down the elevators to the basement.

I was originally trained on the old Scott airpacks. Then the MSAs later on.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Spread the 343 out to two buildings..Not one. And yes I am stating that it is possible that they never knew that there were fires below them , If there were any. You are the one who said there were fires on the lower floors. Not I. I explained to you how those fires, if they existed, could have been missed. You asked a question on how they could have been missed. Not if they existed. Please dont twist my words. I never said there was fire in the basement. That was a discussion on a different aspect of the collapse. Again..... Please dont twist my words.

Originally posted by six
You are the one who said there were fires on the lower floors.

No, its the official story that states there were jet fuel fires on the lower floors. I am just trying to find out if there was.

If the firemen did not see them, how do we know there were jet fuel fires on the lowere floors.

Also how did the juel fuel get to the basement (per the official story) if no elevators go from the upper floors to the basement.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


That is the same as asking if a tree fell in the woods......It is quite possible there was fires on the lower floor. Did not the hollow core run the entire length of the building? The elevators had to be designed the way they were. Just because they stopped at certain points doesnt mean that the core stopped there too. Besides there had to have been utility chases and other pathways for HVAC. SO there very well could have been pathways to the basement.

Originally posted by six
It is quite possible there was fires on the lower floor. Did not the hollow core run the entire length of the building?

But in your expert opinion do you see any evidence of jet fuel fires on the lower floors?

Or in your expert opinion do you see evidence that jet fuel made it to the basement?

My question is.......if a WWII jet plane that crashed into the Empire State Building did NOT explode and make that building collapse then how did these planes do it?

Originally posted by totallyhuman
My question is.......if a WWII jet plane that crashed into the Empire State Building did NOT explode and make that building collapse then how did these planes do it?

Slight correction, it wasn't a jet plane. The B-25 is a piston engine plane.

But yes if you compare the size of the planes to the size of the buildings , and know that high octane avgas burns hotter then jet fuel then it is a good question why the damage and fires to the Empire State building did not cause it to collapse.

Just like the other steel buildings that have had longer lasting fires and as much or more structural damage then the towers and still did not collapse.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by totallyhuman


B25 loaded weight: 21,120lbs
max speed: 275mph
wingspan 67ft

767 empty weight: 176,650lbs
max speed: 568mph (at 35000ft)
wingspan: 156ft

so a smaller, lighter, slower aircraft hit a building with a different design and since that building didnt fall thats proof of a controlled demolition at the wtc?

just want to make sure im reading that correctly.

Ultima is correct about the fuels burning at diff temps, but as the b25 would have had less fuel, and as its accepted that the fuel in the wtc's burned off fairly quickly (which ill always wonder one thing, why are some parts of the nist report ok to use as fact but the rest are not? isnt that cherry picking?) isnt that a moot point?

just seems like comparing apples and kelp to me.





P.S. totallyhuman: wondering if you'd care to reply to my post here i would be interested in comparing notes with you.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by Damocles]

Originally posted by Damocles
just seems like comparing apples and kelp to me.

But your are forgetting the to compare the size of the planes to the size of the buildings.

Yes a B-25 is a lot smaller plane but the building was a lot smaller too.

And do not forget the steel buildings i have posted that had longer fires and as much or more structural damage and did not collapse.

As far as using NIST for quotesa, Disclosed likes to use NIST to quote his points so i use NIST to disprove his points. But thanks for agreeing that the jet fuel burned off quickly




[edit on 12-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But your are forgetting the to compare the size of the planes to the size of the buildings

Yes a B-25 is a lot smaller plane but the building was a lot smaller too..

i really dont feel like i am forgetting anything as while yes, the buildings were different sizes, they were totally different designs all around. there really is no basis for comparison

And do not forget the steel buildings i have posted that had longer fires and as much or more structural damage and did not collapse.

well ill gladly concede that there have been buildings in history to burn longer, im not sure which buildings you refer to as having more damage to them. i certainly wont insist that you repost them cuz i could easily go review your posts im sure, im simply too tired to do it right now.

As far as using NIST for quotesa, Disclosed likes to use NIST to quote his points so i use NIST to disprove his points.

well, it happens a lot in these debates is the only reason i mentioned it. seems fair game to use parts of nist or fema or 911 commission as gospel when they support a theory but the rest is disregarded out of hand simply because it disagree's with a given theory. i just find it amusing is all. but it seems to be a common enough practice among a number of posters that i guess its ok...

But thanks for agreeing that the jet fuel burned off quickly

well in all fairness id challenge anyone to find where id ever implied differently. i have absolutly no factual basis for saying that the fuel would have burned for hours.

but this is one of those fun bullet points that is interesting to me.

most people cite nist for this one and generally its taken as a fair statement.

however, if you read the semantics of most of their findings they say things like "probably burned off" or most of the fuel was "probably burned off outside the building in the fireball" (please no one hammer me for the exact quotes, im paraphrasing to make a point) and probably to me isnt a real accurate unit of measurement.

of the fuel on hte plane at the time of impact, how much EXACTLY was consumed in the fireball? how long EXACTLY did it take for the remainder of the fuel to burn off?

i dont know, you dont know, THEY certainly dont know, but yet the bit about most of the fuel being consumed within minutes is taken as gospel by most on either side of the debate.

even relativly small ammounts of fuel in aerosol form on fire will look like a lot of fuel.

did they take what they knew to have survived the fireball, put it into a large open containment area and light it to time how fast it would burn off?

isnt science supposed to be exact? yet we are all taking one part of the event, which COULD be kind of important, and kind of glossing over it with approximations. well, i said we are, i meant that they are.

so yeah, i guess i dont disagree with you about it being consumed quickly, though its more because i have no basis in fact to disagree with you, nor do i have any particular reason to dispute that. i have no reason to believe that there were pools of burning jet fuel until moments before the collapse.

but its ok for me to SWAG something like this, its certainly not ok for scientists to do it on something important.

Originally posted by Damocles
well ill gladly concede that there have been buildings in history to burn longer, im not sure which buildings you refer to as having more damage to them. i certainly wont insist that you repost them cuz i could easily go review your posts im sure, im simply too tired to do it right now.

well, it happens a lot in these debates is the only reason i mentioned it. seems fair game to use parts of nist or fema or 911 commission as gospel when they support a theory but the rest is disregarded out of hand simply because it disagree's with a given theory. i just find it amusing is all. but it seems to be a common enough practice among a number of posters that i guess its ok...

Here are the buildings i have posted about. They are from a fire department site.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

1. One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed

2. The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

4. Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

I usually only use NIST, FEMA and commission report to debate or disprove other post using the same agency.

NIST made several mistakes, and the 911 commission report did not agree with or publish all their findings.



[edit on 12-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But your are forgetting the to compare the size of the planes to the size of the buildings.

Yes a B-25 is a lot smaller plane but the building was a lot smaller too.

You might want to re-check your research on the sizes of the buildings. The Empire State Building, at its base (424 feet across), was actually a LOT wider than the WTC (208 feet). True, the building tapers up slightly, at 100 meters, 300 meters, and the top....but the size is very comparable.

The 767 weighed 8 times as much ats the B-25, wingspan about 2.5 larger, and flew twice as fast.

In short, these impacts cannot be compared at all.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


i guess we may just have to agree to disagree but i dont see where any of the buildings listed in your post could reasonably be said to have sustained MORE or even AS MUCH damage as either of the wtc towers on 911.

ill concede though that as we have NO accurate idea of how badly wtc7 was damaged, that one could be contested. but the towers themselves i myself cannot see how one can make even a passing comparison based on the snippets in your quoted material.

again im willing to agree to disagree but i just dont see it honestly.

ok, in retrospect i guess to be fair, since no one got a chance to go in and do an analysis on wtc1/2 at the impact sites we really dont know EXACTLY how much damage they sustained, but that really does go both ways doesnt it?

Originally posted by Damocles
i guess we may just have to agree to disagree but i dont see where any of the buildings listed in your post could reasonably be said to have sustained MORE or even AS MUCH damage as either of the wtc towers on 911.

If you read the discriptions and look at the photos you can see these buildings sustained a lot of structural damage from the fires.

Photos of First Bank,

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

Photo of Windsor tower. (does not really count since it concrete and steel)

i114.photobucket.com...

Photos of the other buildings around the towers that did not collapse.

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...

i114.photobucket.com...



[edit on 12-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Disclosed
In short, these impacts cannot be compared at all.

Oh, you mean like your comparison of the Zero hitting the ship.

I guess you did not do enough research to see about the type of fuel and the photos of the damage done.





[edit on 12-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


oh dont get me wrong, maybe im not being articulate, i can concede that...im not saying that these buildings were not damaged severely by any means.

what im saying is that i personally feel that the statement you made about them sustaining as much or more damage than the wtc towers may not be entirely accurate. im not saying you are being misleading or deceitful, just that you may be mistaken about the comparisons is all. im just saying i disagree with you, and im going to admit im basing that on nothing but my personal opinion.

you may be right, i just dont see it. no need to try to prove the point, im just voicing an opinion.

Originally posted by Damocles
what im saying is that i personally feel that the statement you made about them sustaining as much or more damage than the wtc towers may not be entirely accurate.

Well i would need to see what you are basing the damage to the towers on.

Because most of the reports i have seen do not state much damge to the towers.