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: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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.


but, would you agree to what i posted above about the fact that there was no one able to actually walk around on the impact zone floors to do an assssment so in reality it doesnt matter what any report says, we just dont know. its all speculation. and sadly, it will always be speculation.

but to actually answer your questions i base my opinion on the fact that while the buildings you list did suffer extensive fire damage, they didnt have any large heavy fast moving objects slam into them.

so by simple comparison, take two buildings, identical would be ideal, and light one on fire, slam a jet into the other then light it on fire. (in the same manner as the first) which should in theory suffer more damage?




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



I'm just correcting the facts that you have stated. You said the building was much smaller. In fact, they were very similar in size. I want to make sure people on this forum have the correct information presented to them, so they can make their own decisions.

If you are saying the data I presented in my previous post was incorrect, then please show us the correct dimensions of the empire state building vs the WTC towers. I think we all would like to see how much smaller you say the Empire State building is.

But....to get this thread back to topic, again...

I think Six has more than answered the OP's questions, with real life and profesional experience. It would be hard pressed to find someone else with that kind of experience...





[edit on 12-12-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
so by simple comparison, take two buildings, identical would be ideal, and light one on fire, slam a jet into the other then light it on fire. (in the same manner as the first) which should in theory suffer more damage?


But if the builidng hit by the jet has a fire that only burns for an hour and the other building has a fire that lasted over 12 hours wouldn't the building with the 12 hour fire have just as much or more damage then the buidling with the jet hitting it?


Originally posted by Disclosed I think Six has more than answered the OP's questions, with real life and profesional experience. It would be hard pressed to find someone else with that kind of experience...


Just becasue Six has some experience as a firemen does not make him an expert in what happened to the buidlings that day.

I also have a lot professional experience, over 25 years combined military and government service.





[edit on 13-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Haroki
 


I have been a firefighter for 13 years and I have also worked with steel gurders and have had to heat them up.So I am pretty sure that fires would not have been hot enough.Not sure what, other than the explosions that the firefighters inside heard would bring the buildings down or keep the steel hot as it was.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


Sorry,but I am not a mathmetician.I am just your average experienced firefighter who has worked with C4,dynomite to blast stone and buildings for new public projects.I am just giving my point of view and not trying to make anybody wrong or right.I am sure your experience with this stuff is extensive and my hat's off to you for it.I am just here to give my observations and my research on different things.That's all.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


No.The proof of controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings are the explosions the FDNY firefighters heard while they were inside.Go to Firehouse.com and you can find the video of them telling this under the 9/11 link.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallyhuman
reply to post by Haroki
 


I have been a firefighter for 13 years and I have also worked with steel gurders and have had to heat them up.So I am pretty sure that fires would not have been hot enough.Not sure what, other than the explosions that the firefighters inside heard would bring the buildings down or keep the steel hot as it was.


Ok then, using your background, what would you say is incorrect about what is stated in this link.

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

And why do you disagree with this graph?

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

Cuz these guys are putting out data to be used by structural engineers, etc to base their fire proofing and building performance expectations. These guys are putting their name and their professional reputation on the line when they publish this data. I see no reason why they would put themselves at risk by putting out data that is inaccurate.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Haroki
 


I am not disagreeing with this.I am just stating that from personal experience and fire trianing that the fires were not what brought down the WTC towers.If you wish,you can go to Firehouse.com and click on the 9/11 link to see the video of the FDNY firefighters that were inside talking about explosions on the lower floors.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallyhuman
reply to post by Haroki
 


I am not disagreeing with this.I am just stating that from personal experience and fire trianing that the fires were not what brought down the WTC towers.If you wish,you can go to Firehouse.com and click on the 9/11 link to see the video of the FDNY firefighters that were inside talking about explosions on the lower floors.


So you agree that the columns could have been heated to beyond 500C, where they lose 1/2 their strength, but this still couldn't have caused the collapse? Wouldn't you say that a building that wasn't on fire, but had 1/2 of its columns removed would fail?

Consider these scenarios:

1- a building is designed to hold 150% its expected weight. The building's not on fire. But you remove 50% of the load bearing columns. Would the building fail?

2- a building is designed to hold 150% its expected weight. The building suffers no physical damage. But fires heat all the columns to a point where their load carrying capacity is reduced 50% Would the building fail?

3- a building is designed to hold 150% its expected weight. The building suffers a plane impact that reduces its load carrying capacity by 20%. The resulting fires heat 60% of the columns to 500C, reducing their load carrying capacity by 50%, for an averaged heat reduced load carrying capacity of 30%. Physical damage and fire weakening together result in a 50% reduction in load carrying capacity. Would the building fail?

There are instances when firefighters evacuate buildings and let them burn, you know this. Matter of fact, some of the buildings that are used as examples of buildings that didn't fall from fire were in fact abandoned by the fire fighters for the simple reason that they were of the opinion that the buildings would fail, and since there wasn't anyone inside, there was no reason to risk firefighters lives to save a building.

So how do you reconcile the fact that this has happened, and will continue to happen, with your statement that fires didn't bring down the towers, when there ARE instances where fire chiefs make the decision to NOT fight the fires cuz they're leery of the building failing and killing his crew?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


So you are stating that a professional fireman, who works every day with the same type of equipment the fireman at 911 use, doesnt make him knowledgable about policies regarding how fireman work?

He has provided very detailed information regarding policy involved in such fires, search priorities, equipment limitations, etc. Far more information that i'm sure many of us ever realized....and quite frankly I appreciate.

If such expert information is not allowed, then what exactly do people use for debate?

If true life work and experience of a fireman is not valid information, then the 25 years of govt and military experience doesnt matter either. Or all of the piloting experience another well known ATS poster has means nothing....and is not reliable for debate.

---

Also, have you found information regarding the actual size comparison between the Empire State Building, and the WTC towers? I want to make sure you understand that the two buildings were more similar in size than had been discussed earlier. Just want to make sure everyone had the proper information provided...


[edit on 13-12-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Haroki
 


Haroki said...
So you agree that the columns could have been heated to beyond 500C, where they lose 1/2 their strength, but this still couldn't have caused the collapse? Wouldn't you say that a building that wasn't on fire, but had 1/2 of its columns removed would fail?




This does happen in certain fire cases.I agree on that.But,why in the world would a Chief let his crew go into a skyscraper that had just been hit by a "jet" plane and risk the lives of his crew?The steel was heated past 500 degrees.I agree on that also.But,for steel to melt it has to be heated to the melting point.I may be mistaken but I believe I read on a site a while back that the heat from the fire was about 18-2000 degrees.The steel members had to be heated to 2300 in order to cause the collapse.I wish I could remember the site.I would be more than glad to post it so you could check on that.I think,not sure,but I think it was on whatreallyhappened.com under the 9/11 link.Sure,the heat did somewhat weaken the structural beams somewhat.but I don't personally believe that the "official" story is the true story.The Government has been using cover-ups for years on things that have happened here and abroad.I have no inside info on this but just research I have done.Thanks for this debate on this and the opinions that you as another American citizen have.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by totallyhuman]

[edit on 13-12-2007 by totallyhuman]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallyhuman
So you agree that the columns could have been heated to beyond 500C, where they lose 1/2 their strength, but this still couldn't have caused the collapse? Wouldn't you say that a building that wasn't on fire, but had 1/2 of its columns removed would fail?


Not necessarily. In fact, the only way I could see this happening realistically is if the 1/2 of the columns were taken out all on the same side. But even that would not necessarily result in a collapse, if the remaining columns and beams could handle the moment that this would create around this particular floor. Skyscrapers are built very redundant, very over-engineered for safety reasons. A safety factor in structural engineering is how many more times you can increase the design load before deformation begins to occur. A factor of 2 (requiring 1/2 of the structure to be compromised before the structure would be just barely holding itself up) would be pretty low for all of the columns in a skyscraper. One of the towers' engineers said in the 60s that the towers were being designed for some of the perimeter columns to take 2000% of their design loads, and this was probably on the upper floors. That would mean you could theoretically take 19/20ths of the perimeter columns and still have stability, just considering column strength alone. Like I said though, this was probably just for the perimeter columns on the higher floors, since they were roughly the same size as the ones on the bottom but had to carry only a fraction of the weight.



The steel was heated past 500 degrees.


This is false, or at least unsupported. NIST found no evidence of heating from fire beyond around 300 C in the core columns. The fires may have been over 500 C but the steel itself would not automatically be that hot. Not at all.


But,for steel to melt it has to be heated to the melting point.I may be mistaken but I believe I read on a site a while back that the heat from the fire was about 18-2000 degrees.


That doesn't sound very credible, even if in degrees Fahrenheit.



The steel members had to be heated to 2300 in order to cause the collapse.


Just so you know, all the "official" reports avoid column failure theories. They focus on the relatively weak connections between the floors and inner/outer columns. To fail the buildings just by heating the columns would be extremely unrealistic, especially in only less than 2 hours of sporadic fires that aren't always even near a column.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
So you are stating that a professional fireman, who works every day with the same type of equipment the fireman at 911 use, doesnt make him knowledgable about policies regarding how fireman work?


Also, have you found information regarding the actual size comparison between the Empire State Building, and the WTC towers? I want to make sure you understand that the two buildings were more similar in size than had been discussed earlier. Just want to make sure everyone had the proper information provided...


As stated just becasue Six is a firmen does not make him an expert on what happened on 9/11.

As far as the difference between the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center please see Wikipedia for square footage.

Empire State Building Floor area 2 million square feet

World Trade Center Floor area 8 million square feet.

Still want to stick to your post about the buildings being close to the same size?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Actually,I was answering a post by Haroki.The very first partof the post you have highlighted is theirs,not mine.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by totallyhuman]


six

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Damocles
so by simple comparison, take two buildings, identical would be ideal, and light one on fire, slam a jet into the other then light it on fire. (in the same manner as the first) which should in theory suffer more damage?



But if the building hit by the jet has a fire that only burns for an hour and the other building has a fire that lasted over 12 hours wouldn't the building with the 12 hour fire have just as much or more damage then the building with the jet hitting it?



Originally posted by Disclosed I think Six has more than answered the OP's questions, with real life and professional experience. It would be hard pressed to find someone else with that kind of experience...


Just becasue Six has some experience as a firemen does not make him an expert in what happened to the buidlings that day.

I also have a lot professional experience, over 25 years combined military and government service.





[edit on 13-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


First ...I have more than just some experience as a firefighter. I have ALOT of experience as a firefighter. I never claimed to be a expert on the whole disaster...But I am a expert on some of the issues at hand. I have no problem saying that either. You dont achieve the rank I hold with just "some" experience.

As for the damage. We will never know the true extent of the damage to the towers. As was stated above...NO ONE saw the damage first hand. There were 4 events that day...4...Not one. The impact...The explosion..The fires...And the collapse.....Not just a fire. So you can not make the comparison to the two events..They are TOTALLY different.

As for the Empire State Building....670 gallons of fuel on board compared to 11,000 gallons on a 767. One plane 43,000 max overload weight, The other 300,000 lbs...One building hit at less that 200 mph..The other at 500+ mph. Two totally different construction types and materials. Empire State Building 79th and 80th floors struck....WTC 10+ floors struck...I really am not seeing any similarities other than a aircraft hit both.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by six]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by six


And your point?



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As far as the difference between the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center please see Wikipedia for square footage.

Empire State Building Floor area 2 million square feet

World Trade Center Floor area 8 million square feet.

Still want to stick to your post about the buildings being close to the same size?


Are you saying they had an 8 million square foot floor? You do realize that would mean each side of the building was 933 YARDS across. Thats over 9 football fields long...each side.

You might want to do some actual research and find the true dimensions of each side of the building.

Allow me:

Empire State building:
www.esbnyc.com...

The building is 1,453 feet, 8 9/16 inches or 443.2 meters to the top of the lightning rod.

Area of Site: 79,288 square feet (7,240 meters) or about two acres. East to west, 424 feet (129 meters), north to south, 187 feet (56.9 meters.)

Foundation: 55 feet (16.7 meters) below ground

Basement: 35 feet (10.6 meters) below ground

Lobby: 47 feet (14.3 meters) above sea level


WTC: 208 feet each side.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit: corrected link.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallyhuman
Actually,I was answering a post by Haroki.The very first partof the post you have highlighted is theirs,not mine.


Thanks for the clarification, but I might as well not know any of the usernames of the people I'm responding to. Or at least that's the way I feel a lot of the time.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallyhuman
Sorry,but I am not a mathmetician.I am just your average experienced firefighter who has worked with C4,dynomite to blast stone and buildings for new public projects.I am just giving my point of view and not trying to make anybody wrong or right.I am sure your experience with this stuff is extensive and my hat's off to you for it.I am just here to give my observations and my research on different things.That's all.


Thanks for the reply. i apologize for the tone of my first post to you, ive been moody of late and that at times makes me a bit "surly" and i had no right to direct that at you. my apologies.

i have nothing but the utmost respect for firefighters. i spent some time in EMS in the 90's so i got to hang out with the firefighters a lot. as a matter of fact, one of the greatest honors ive had was to get to buy some beers for some FDNY and NYPD guys that were there on 911 while we were all at a Dept. of Justice training class on WMD terrorism. (was like a hyper advanced HazMat class) and my discussions with those guys were a lot of what i base my own opinions of 911 on. i wont bore ya'll with them as its 2nd hand stuff and therefore pretty worthless to anyone but me.


If youre interested thehuman, u2u me and ill give you a link to a thread where i did a lot of the math for demo requirements. having worked with the stuff even in the capacity you have it may be of interest to you. if not, all good as well.


Originally posted by totallyhuman
No.The proof of controlled demolitions of the WTC buildings are the explosions the FDNY firefighters heard while they were inside.Go to Firehouse.com and you can find the video of them telling this under the 9/11 link.


yes, but what ive seen in nearly every video of the firefighters was the term "sounded like..."

so, as a fireman let me ask you a few questions (six, feel free to chime in here as well, multiple points of view are often helpful in any discussion):

have you ever responded to a house fire where there was an explosion?
was there a bomb present? (ammo reloading supplies aside)

have you ever responded to an office fire where there was an explosion?
was there a bomb present?

have you ever heard a very loud noise that you later told someone "man, it sounded like an explosion it was so loud" or "gees, it sounded like a bomb going off"? ever in your life? even after becoming a fireman?

cuz, ive blown things up and i myself will tell people that something really loud sounded like an explosion at times. its human nature to relate things to each other in a way that the other will comprehend what we're saying...and everyones seen action movies.

IF FDNY suspected any bombs in the building, why were they using their radios? (minimum safe distance from even a 1w transmitter is 30m which means that from the stairwells to anywhere on the floor is just about within 30m in the wtc towers.)

IF FDNY suspected any bombs in the building, why did they even enter the building? is protocol NOT to set up a safe perimeter and then wait for eod regardless of what else is going on?

so im just curious to see anyones take on these questions as my perceptions could be totally off base.



Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As far as the difference between the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center please see Wikipedia for square footage.

Empire State Building Floor area 2 million square feet

World Trade Center Floor area 8 million square feet.

well i went to wiki, and it seems that those are total square feet of usable floor space. easy enough, the wtc's were designed with an open floor plan, the empire state building wasnt.
of interest though is that the empire state building is 2 acres at its base. WTC is .99 (for those that dont believe me, take 208*208(length of each wall of wtc in feet)=43264 then go here and put in the sq/ft and hit calc. .99acres

so, which building is bigger?


but as to being on topic for a change. IF the fuel burned off within minutes as NIST states, and since thats ONE area that most with an "alternative theory" will agree to, does it matter if the fuel did in fact make the fires cooler...wouldnt the "cooler" period only have been that few minutes?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but as to being on topic for a change. IF the fuel burned off within minutes as NIST states, and since thats ONE area that most with an "alternative theory" will agree to, does it matter if the fuel did in fact make the fires cooler...wouldnt the "cooler" period only have been that few minutes?


Then you must admit that the fuel had NO effect on the fire either way?

So, no 'extra' temperature from the jet fuel is what we've been saying all along.
The 'proof' is in that office fires cannot possibly, even in a 100% efficient burn situation (impossible in open air), get hot enough in an hour to cause 110 stories of steel columns to globally fail to their basements.

So now Damocles, what did?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join