Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires Cooler

It seems as if fire is going to be blamed for the collapse of WTC 1 on 9/11 that the following fire should have collapsed WTC 1 years ago instead, particularly considering where the fire started and spread at the bottom lower level:

www.nytimes.com...

Trade Center Hit by 6-Floor Fire

The 1975 fire burned much longer than the fires in WTC 1 or 2 on 9/11.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

Originally posted by Disclosed
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.

No, thats not what it states.

It states the the Empire state builidng has 2 million square feet of space and the WTC had 8 million square feet of space.

Which means the WTC buildings had about twice the space of the Empire State building.

Its not the hard to figure out !


[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ANOK
Then you must admit that the fuel had NO effect on the fire either way?

you mean other than to actually START the fires? probably not.

though the difference would be that everything flamable in those affected floors would start on fire pretty much all at once rather than starting in a trashcan and spending X amount of time building to a full floor fire. which im sure you can agree would make just a little difference. Six, is that accurate or am i grasping here?

So, no 'extra' temperature from the jet fuel is what we've been saying all along.

dont recall ever actually arguing against that point, but who's to know for sure. i dont recall everythign i write and my first 6 months of posts got deleted by an admin by mistake a year ago august.

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.

well, depending on how i read that i would agree...but, why in gods name would the entire building have to get to a certain temp? are you trying to say that ALL of the steel in the building would have to be heated in order to fail? really? id have to see some proof of that. id have thought that only the steel in the affected area had to be heated. that is where the building failed after all.

So now Damocles, what did?

lol how in the blue blazes would i know? cmon anok, dont be one of those guys that sits there and demands that someone who disagrees with a theory HAS to be able to explain what went wrong. if i could do that id have done nists job for them all by myself. NEVER said i KNEW what caused the collapse, and if you read enough of my posts you'll see where ive said that numerous times. what i HAVE said is that based on what i know, i have a pretty good idea of what did NOT cause those buildings to fall, and thats preplaced high explosives. thats it. sure i have my own uneducated opinions as to why they fell but in these debates my opinion about that is worth jack all.

ive done the math. i have a good idea of just how much ordinance it would take to drop those buildings, and i used really concervative numbers so if anything my numbers are lower than what would really be needed. (i cant do anything EXACT cuz they have classified the structural diagrams for some god aweful reason...which even i admit is really really odd, but i think it points more to a design problem than anything) i know how that much ordinance going off would sound. ive watched countless videos of the day and theres no "earth shattering kaboom". so yes, this too is my opinion but it is fairly educated and backed up by facts.

so, unless youre also a member of the "THEY have this super secret stuff we dont know about" crowd...

Originally posted by thedman
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.

According to page 66 on this website, dense black smoke is indicative of an oxygen starved fire:

books.google.com...

Petroleum products emit an orange flame which indicate being loaded with impurites, primarily carbon impurities. Thus, when oxygen starved will give off dense black carbon based smoke and smaller flames resulting in cool heat, which is a decrease of thermal energy affecting temperature. The hottest and most heat efficient flame is blue. Yellow is a cool flame and not as efficient. Orange is a much cooler flame than either yellow or blue and highly inefficient.

Heat is not completely guaged by temperature. It is gauged by a combination of temperature and thermal energy produced by the source of flames. Type of fuel can definitely make a difference between a hot efficient heat vs a cool inefficient heat. For example, propane (hot) vs K-1 kerosene (cool).

Just how much "kaboom" is heard from cutter charge implosion vs use of demolitions for explosion not cutter charge implosion?

reply to post by OrionStars


take a 1' cutter charge and set it off its probably not all that loud compared to a 1lb tnt block. but cutting all the core columns the yeild adds up fast.

heres the comparison. 172lbs/floor for linear shape charges or "cutter charges" or 1100lbs/floor using C4 Sheet charges.

so, 1100lbs will certainly be much louder, 172lbs is still going to be very loud and even if the sound of the fall would mask the sound, which i doubt, you'd still hear the first one loud and clear many blocks away.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Its not the hard to figure out !
[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Apparently it is hard for you to figure out:

Empire State Building = 424 x 187 feet
WTC buildings = 208 x 208 feet

You do the math.

These figures are not guesses...they are fact.

here: www.esbnyc.com...

and here: en.wikipedia.org...

Plus Damocles is right....the WTC was designed for MAXIMUM floorspace useage, the ESB was not. It is a classic piece of architecture.

reply to post by Damocles


Things go boom inside structure fires all the time. Sometimes you are never able to determine what the source was either due to the damage that is done to the structure. The are so many different products out that can be explosive if exposed to enough heat.

You are correct. On a bomb call, we are there just in case the device does go boom. If a bomb is suspected, we dont go in until it has been cleared by EOD.

I believe you have a good point about perception. If you hear a boom, well the best thing you can relate it to is a bomb, even if you have never actually heard a real bomb go off. Maybe thats because of our movie culture.

reply to post by ANOK


I would agree with you. I think that the fuel was only the catalyst for the inferno the followed. I think that it only help in spreading the fire to areas that may not have caught on fire under different circumstances.

Edit to add. But office fires get alot hotter than you think. Most all of todays materials are synthetic in nature, petroleum based. They tend to burn alot hotter than the fires of old. Plus with the possibility of the fire proofing itself making the area surrounding the fire hotter, it got hot enough to heat the steel to the point of failure. Note...I didnt say melt...lol

I think that a point that most people miss is the fact that there was a huge fuel/air explosion prior to the ingition of the fires. Damocles is alot more of a expert to be able to tell just what damage that may have occured from that. What are your thoughts on that Damocles?


[edit on 14-12-2007 by six]

reply to post by OrionStars


The fire alone is not blamed for the collapse. It is a combination of the four events that happened that day not just the one.

reply to post by Damocles


You are correct in your assumptions. Instead of it taking several minutes to spread, the fire was instantaneously spread to most of the floor, if not the whole floor, on 10 floors all at once


Edit for my lousy speelink

[edit on 14-12-2007 by six]

reply to post by OrionStars


If you will read back a few pages...on page 2 or 3, I explained why that was not true. I have linked a small class on reading smoke that will help you. But that smoke was not indicative of a oxygen starved fire. Smoke from thoses types of fires behaves differently.

reply to post by Damocles


No problem with the post.Everything is good between us.As a firefighter of 13 years I have been to fires where there were explosions.There were no bombs but,there were propane tanks.Just as dangerous.As far as the FDNY videos,there is 1 on Firehouse.com,they say how the explosions went off.It is a good video.You might want to watch it.I don't think they are talking about bombs.I think they are talking about controlled explosions in the building.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by totallyhuman]

reply to post by six


Six,
Thanks for your fire experience on all this also.Stay safe.

reply to post by Damocles


I can't u2u yet.Don't have 20 post on here YET.LOL

Originally posted by Disclosed
Plus Damocles is right....the WTC was designed for MAXIMUM floorspace useage, the ESB was not.

So you and Damocles agree the WTC is bigger and has much more space then the Empire State Building?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


No what they are saying is is that the foot print of the ESB is bigger than that of the WTC. ESB is tappered. It is bigger at the base than WTC. The measurements given by Disclosed show that.



[edit on 14-12-2007 by six]

Originally posted by six
It is bigger at the base than WTC.

But the B -25 did not hit the base did it?

The B-25 hit at a smaller area of the buidling then the planes at the WTC. YES or NO ?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


What does that have to do with how big the base of the structure is? No it hit the 79th and 80th floors. Still a very big difference between the two.

Originally posted by six
What does that have to do with how big the base of the structure is? No it hit the 79th and 80th floors. Still a very big difference between the two.

Yes the building is not the same size at the upper floors as at the base(Unlike the WTC builidngs that are the same size all the way from base to top).

So the B-25 hit a smaller part of the building, which did more damage. About the same amount of damage in comparison to the WTC.


[edit on 14-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]