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.

 

Why is WTC 7 as hot as WTC 1 & 2???

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
The dust you keep babbling about was from the sheet rock and ceiling tiles
that was pulverized by the collapse


It was also very small particles of everything else that you don't see in the rubble pile.

A firefighter was once video interviewed explaining how the biggest piece of non-structural debris he saw was the key pad to a telephone. It doesn't sound like your mental image of Ground Zero is in keeping with what's in the actual photos and other evidence.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



Therefore why are the hot spots all the same temperature if the circumstances & metrics of the three buildings collapsing are different?


Because all three buildings were on fire when they collapsed - the furnishings in
the building, much of it being plain old paper was buried under the rubble
where it continued to smolder. The fires in the Twin Towers rubble burned
for over 3 months. The jet fuel from the aircraft impacts was consumed fairly
quickly - what burned was all the office furnishings. It was very dangerous
for rescue personnel as fires would often flare up suddenly when piece of
rubble was moved.


Sorry for late response. Been away for a few days.

Office furniture & supplies will not burn underground for weeks on end. The floors of the towers were compacted to @ 15" each! Where did the oxygen for this debris to burn weeks on end come from?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by yankeerose
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


I'm with you OP, but before I comment can you please tell me where the picture is from, and who took it? I think it's a government image that was used as evidence during the investigation, and held at the Library of Congress.


The pictures have been posted on numerous websites. The one you linked to is one of them indeed.

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



I'm not sure how they can claim friction caused the heat when it's a fact that no friction was present in the collapse?


Who said anything about friction - the buildings were all on fire when
collapsed. Or did you you miss that?


I saw small portions of the bulidings producing smoke & some fire, but not, "all on fire when collapsed". So yes I guess I missed that.

You really saw the buildings, "all on fire when collapsed"??? And again, even if they were, they were compacted into @15" per floor, ( with respect to the towers ), so how was the oxygen provided for this debris to keep burning for 12 weeks?

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
What was burning were the building contents - all the office furnishings and
equipment along with tons and tons or paper stored in the offices. When the
buildings collapsed all this fell into the basement where it continued to
burn. The debris covering it insulated the burning materials and voids
allowed sufficient air to support combustion.
I know several cops/ff who
worked the recovery and described the scene as being akin to hell on earth


You cannot force air into a void w/o an exhaust port. Think about it. How does a combustion engine work? (intake & exhaust ports).

Here's a little experiment for you. . .

Take a metal barrel & fill it with some paper, wood, & other combustables packed together at the bottom. Apply some lighter fluid & light the blaze. The fire will slowly burn out long before it consumes the pile. Even with the top of the barrel totally open to the air!

This is because you have an exhaust port w/o any intake port. NOW-

Take the same barrel & puncture it with holes thru the bottom & sides & the fire will burn much longer. Even w/o breaking up the pile.

For gas to get in, gas has to get out. You can't have the fire insulated by the debris & also fed with oxygen. It just doesn't work that way.

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


It would only take a small source of ignition to get things going. What that was, is indeed questionable.

But "dust" can't choke out a fire. Dust, when suspended, is suspended in AIR..... the very thing needed for combustion, right? If you disagree, then try to explain away wheat mill fires that start when the wheat dust explodes. Kinda throws a monkey into that wrench, yes?


Wheat dust doesn't explode. The methane produced by the decaying wheat is what explodes, not the dust.


Now, it IS agreed that one can plop a load of combustible "dust" (ground up paper, plastics, carpeting, etc) onto a fire and it will smother it out. But if you take that pile sitting on the ground, and put an ignition source to it, on the OUTSIDE of the pile, it will alight. Agreed?


Agreed. But only the "outside" of the pile will burn.


And a typical office fire, with plastics as a part of the combustibles, burn at a typical temp of around 1000C. Which is enough to turn steel red and glowing, like is found in the photo of the excavator pulling a beam out of the rubble pile.


Yes, but it would need an oxygen source & exhaust ventilation to do so. Sorry-


However, red steel DOES NOT mean that there was molten, flowing steel, like is asserted by many. It could have been virtually any of the various metals found in the 3 sites.


The "many" that you speak of in part were first responders stating that there were "pools" of molten metal weeks after the collapse.

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


MSDS for wheat dust. Note the fire fighting measures. It states that the dust can explode. Owned...


www.lacrossemilling.com...

There are numerous "exhaust ports" in evidence. Watch a youtube of the cleanup - notice all the smoke plumes? That's an "exhaust port". If there's "exhaust" present, then logic would dictate that there is air coming in to eplace it, correct?




posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


MSDS for wheat dust. Note the fire fighting measures. It states that the dust can explode. Owned...


www.lacrossemilling.com...


Huh! I thought it was gas inside the dust rather than the dust itself. Learn somethin new everyday. ( You don't have to get nasty though. . . "MSdon't stink" & "owned" are a bit "myspace" in this case don't you think? Was anything in my prior post durogatory towards your statement in any way? )



There are numerous "exhaust ports" in evidence. Watch a youtube of the cleanup - notice all the smoke plumes? That's an "exhaust port". If there's "exhaust" present, then logic would dictate that there is air coming in to eplace it, correct?

( useless "laugh out loud" smileys removed by 2PacSade )


Got a link to the video you cite?

Without actually seeing any video you didn't provide I can only guess they are probably exhaust ports "created" by the responders, but even if they were not, you still believe that the debris from the building is gonna cause steel to glow from an office debris fire burning underground?

Did you try the paper in a barrel experiment I suggested? Just wondering because you didn't coment on it.

If not, then try this one;

Dig a hole & lay pipes into the hole that can bring in air. Fill the hole with paper, carpet, & furniture, and light it on fire. Lay some steel beams on the burning material. Cover the hole with aluminum, concrete & gypsum dust & everything else that accompanies a building collapse. Come back 12 weeks later.

Is it still burning & caused the steel to glow white hot & drip?

If not try this one;

Take some paper, carpet & furniture, aluminum, concrete & gypsum dust & everything else that accompanies a building collapse & put it right out on the ground with huge amounts of oxygen available. Light the pile on fire. Place some steel beams in the blaze. Wait as long as you want. . .

Is it still burning & caused the steel to glow white hot & drip?

Let me know how you make out-

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 


MSDS = Material Safety Data Sheet. I have no idea about what you were saying.

I'm not doing your homework. Go find a few videos yourself and critique them. If don't see any smoke, we can discuss it.

Your barrel example was a poor example. The debris pile wasn't sealed tight like the sides of a barrel. The pile was full of voids that would allow fresh air in and "exhaust" out. Firefighters, etc have spoken about this. If you don't believe me, again, I'm not doing your homework, find your own sources and critique them, then we can talk.

The only thing I'll say about smoldering fires is that they can heat to 1100C, whereas steel glows red at around 700C. Read it yourself :

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

And a graph for some of that:

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

Also, poorly ventilated fires typically present HOTTER temps than more ventilated compartments:

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





[edit on 31-12-2007 by MikeVet]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
The only thing I'll say about smoldering fires is that they can heat to 1100C, whereas steel glows red at around 700C. Read it yourself :


Funny then that there are no reports of steel glowing red in the towers from the fires. I guess the fires were not that hot and did not burn that long. (as i have stated many times)

Oh and why use an Engish site, you could not find an American site to quote from ?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Sorry thought it was a different acronym I had seen before. My bad.

Not my homework. You brought up the video evidence not me. Show me the video(s) you referred to & we can discuss it/them.

Any example I give you is of no consequence because you will not make steel glow white hot & drip like it did at WTC. These voids were left unattended until they were breached by the responders. There was not nearly enough oxygen & accelerant to heat the metal so hot. Blast & Arc furnaces, under constant supervision, are used in industry to complete such tasks. Not a hole in the ground. Now if you had reactions going on underground that supplied their own oxygen source, etc., then you may have a chance.

If the fires were that hot at WTC 7 then how did the underground diesel tanks not catch fire & explode?

You believe that you could heat steel white hot using some office furnishings & a hole in the ground with some air vents left unattended for a few months? Sorry I just don't think it's gonna happen. . .

Thanx for the input-

2PacSade-


spelling

[edit on 31-12-2007 by 2PacSade]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Sorry thought it was a different acronym I had seen before. My bad.

Not my homework. You brought up the video evidence not me. Show me the video(s) you referred to & we can discuss it/them.

Any example I give you is of no consequence because you will not make steel glow white hot & drip like it did at WTC. These voids were left unattended until they were breached by the responders. There was not nearly enough oxygen & accelerant to heat the metal so hot. Blast & Arc furnaces, under constant supervision, are used in industry to complete such tasks. Not a hole in the ground. Now if you had reactions going on underground that supplied their own oxygen source, etc., then you may have a chance.

If the fires were that hot at WTC 7 then how did the underground diesel tanks not catch fire & explode?

You believe that you could heat steel white hot using some office furnishings & a hole in the ground with some air vents left unattended for a few months? Sorry I just don't think it's gonna happen. . .

Thanx for the input-

2PacSade-


spelling

[edit on 31-12-2007 by 2PacSade]


1- yeah, I'm not doing your homework. Unless you state first that a video that has smoke will convince you that there were fires underground. I'm not going down that road under any other circumstances. Maybe you have another theory about why the steel stayed so hot? Please don't say that thermite/ate reactions were going on for months or I'll lose respect.

2- the steel pulled out in the famous excavator photo was red hot - 700C. There's no proof what was dripping from it. Think - why would steel that was heated hot enuf to drip - which takes what, 1200-1300C - still be only red, indicating 700C? Probably wasn't steel, but something else. I have no idea what it was.

3- diesel (and jet fuel) doesn't explode normally, except in a Hollywood movie, unless it is atomized, as happened when the jets hit the buildings and the fuel sprayed around. Matter of fact, you can extinguish a match in a pool of diesel or jet fuel - not enough vapor present to light up. And the reason the tanks weren't affected is that the fire never reached there.

4- again, the steel was red - 700C, not white hot. The links gave evidence where slow, smoldering fires can easily reach 1000C for extended periods of time. Do you find an error in that?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet

1- yeah, I'm not doing your homework. Unless you state first that a video that has smoke will convince you that there were fires underground. I'm not going down that road under any other circumstances. Maybe you have another theory about why the steel stayed so hot? Please don't say that thermite/ate reactions were going on for months or I'll lose respect.


Of course there were fires underground. They were pulling glowing metal from them. So let me see your video. No I don't have another 100% concrete theory- It still puzzles me why fires burned so hot for so long, especially with respect to WTC 7, which is why I started this thread in the first place. Let me ask you a question- If you put thermite/ate underground & started a reaction would it not fit what we see? I'm not saying that's the case, but I find it a bit odd that you would "lose respect" for a valid hypothesis just because you don't believe it. Can you prove there wasn't any present?



2- the steel pulled out in the famous excavator photo was red hot - 700C. There's no proof what was dripping from it. Think - why would steel that was heated hot enuf to drip - which takes what, 1200-1300C - still be only red, indicating 700C? Probably wasn't steel, but something else. I have no idea what it was.


It's red where the excavator has grabbed it because it is starting to cool from contact with the much cooler metal of the excavator itself. It is yellow-white at the bottom end, and dripping;





3- diesel (and jet fuel) doesn't explode normally, except in a Hollywood movie, unless it is atomized, as happened when the jets hit the buildings and the fuel sprayed around. Matter of fact, you can extinguish a match in a pool of diesel or jet fuel - not enough vapor present to light up. And the reason the tanks weren't affected is that the fire never reached there.


I agree that the fumes could have been at a minimum, and that maybe the fire didn't reach any of these places. I will concede that could happen. But then we're left with a situation where there is glowing metal found underground in an @ 330'x140' area along with two 6000 gallons fuel tanks & two 12000 gallon fuel tanks none of which were anywhere near the glowing metal because they themselves would have glowed hot & at least ruptured.



4- again, the steel was red - 700C, not white hot. The links gave evidence where slow, smoldering fires can easily reach 1000C for extended periods of time. Do you find an error in that?


No I don't contest the data, and there was a lot of good information there- But the tests were done on compartments above ground, within a standing structure, not in crushed areas below a rubble pile. Also the heat in every case substantially drops off after 30 minutes, not twelve weeks. Do you find an error in that? I don't understand how this relates to WTC site fires burning for months below the rubble/ground?

Thanx for the input-

2PacSade-



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade

Of course there were fires underground. They were pulling glowing metal from them. So let me see your video. No I don't have another 100% concrete theory- It still puzzles me why fires burned so hot for so long, especially with respect to WTC 7, which is why I started this thread in the first place. Let me ask you a question- If you put thermite/ate underground & started a reaction would it not fit what we see? I'm not saying that's the case, but I find it a bit odd that you would "lose respect" for a valid hypothesis just because you don't believe it. Can you prove there wasn't any present?

It's red where the excavator has grabbed it because it is starting to cool from contact with the much cooler metal of the excavator itself. It is yellow-white at the bottom end, and dripping;

I agree that the fumes could have been at a minimum, and that maybe the fire didn't reach any of these places. I will concede that could happen. But then we're left with a situation where there is glowing metal found underground in an @ 330'x140' area along with two 6000 gallons fuel tanks & two 12000 gallon fuel tanks none of which were anywhere near the glowing metal because they themselves would have glowed hot & at least ruptured.

No I don't contest the data, and there was a lot of good information there- But the tests were done on compartments above ground, within a standing structure, not in crushed areas below a rubble pile. Also the heat in every case substantially drops off after 30 minutes, not twelve weeks. Do you find an error in that? I don't understand how this relates to WTC site fires burning for months below the rubble/ground?

Thanx for the input-

2PacSade-


1- So there's no need for a video since you agree there were fires. Cool. The fires burned for so long cuz they slowly traveled around the debris - start here, consume the fuel, slowly travel to another area. They burned as hot as they did cuz that's what a fire with limited ventilation does - refer to the links again. I'm against the thermite/ate argument cuz it burns hot and energetically, then it's done. I've never seen an instance whereby thermite/ate smolders. It just doesn't burn that way. Could it start it? sure, but not sustain it. No , I can't prove a negative - absence of thermite.

2- no, it's not yellow-white hot, you're stretching. At best, the temps are 800-900C, still within the range of the fires.

3- Right, the fires never reached the tanks. I don't know what other point you're trying to make here.

4- The temps drop after 30 minutes? Huh? Go back to the graph - the test lasted 2 hrs and the slow fire was increasing in temp the whole time. The releance here is that it's a similar situation as the conditions in the rubble pile. Limited ventilation. Limited vantilation, combined with the rubble acting as an insulating blanket would slowly heat thing up, then keep it that way. So why would limited ventilation do this? Limited ventilation will result in lower BTU's being produced, agreed? No raging fires. But the flame temps would be consistent whether they're raging or not. And with limited ventilation, like in the compartment fires at Mace, the heat can't escape. See, compare that with the open fires in the graph - which has lower temps. Why? Cuz the heat can "rise" and temps are cooler.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Maybe that's where they had a thermite stash? The more I do my own investigations on 9/11, the more stupid I believe those that did this crime think we as a collective society were/are.

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
There were several tanks of diesel fuel used for emergency generators inside building 7. Some of it was under pressure. The resulting fire fueled by the diesel probably did much to weaken the steel too.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 2PacSade
 



looking at your heat images...

explain why there are any hot-spots beyond the 'footprint' of towers 1 & 2
as they collapsed on themselves.
there are 'hot-spots' all over the complex, including #7


imho. #7 was brought down to obscure the fact that #1  failed
because of intrinstic flawed design... & overly stated strength/resilency...
#s 1 & 2 were supposed to give rescuers and evacuation several hours
to excape... which was not the case.
(especially with 'bosses' telling the people to Stay-Put because the authorities tell us a jet crash or a category 5 hurricane won't affect the buildings integrity.

#7 always had a team proficient with demo of that designed structure because it was a significant & sensitive building housing & used for
classified operations.







~~~~~~~~~

perhaps everyone is overlooking the fact that there was a air-supply
under the complex which allowed slow fires to be sustained...
there was a massive underground complex for the subway that
delivered the staff & workers there at WTC 24/7
its not like there needed to be exotic chemical reactions with exotic
thermites or potassiums to create hot spots under the debris...
seemingly thought impenetratable under all that earth & pulverized concrete (or light-weight gypsum used as flooring pads)




[edit on 6-1-2008 by St Udio]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by avingard
There were several tanks of diesel fuel used for emergency generators inside building 7. Some of it was under pressure. The resulting fire fueled by the diesel probably did much to weaken the steel too.


possibly - consider this - there were small tanks placed on a few floors , used for emergency generators. how were those tank to be filled in the case of an extended power outage? by diesel fueled pumps below grade that pull from large tanks that start automatically when the power goes out. the power went out when 2 collpased and damaged the underground power lines.

so IF the fuel lines to these were cut, it's possible that the diesel pumps would have turned on, then continued pumping in an effort to fill the tanks above. an impossibility since those lines were cut, so they continued to pump diesel all over the place.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by avingard
There were several tanks of diesel fuel used for emergency generators inside building 7. Some of it was under pressure. The resulting fire fueled by the diesel probably did much to weaken the steel too.



Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

Note that the size of a 12,000 gallon tank would be a little less than 12 feet by 12 feet by 12 feet (if built as a cube).


Source

The diesel fuel played no significant part in the collapse of WTC 7. Even IF the diesel fuel had caught fire it wouldn't have burned hot enough, or long enough, to cause the complete global failure of a steel building. Even IF the diesel did burn at a high enough temperature, and the transfer of thermal energy was at a maximum, the building would still not symmetrically fail and collapse into it's own footprint. Only one thing that can do that and that is well positioned explosives.

[edit on 6/1/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Exactly where were generators sitting inside WTC 7?

Why would anyone place high rises over underground diesel tanks?

Why would anyone put generators and diesel fuel tanks inside a high rise? Generators have to be vented. To much heat on diesel tanks can cause the vapors to start getting extremely active, placing undue pressure on inside of the tank walls if placing them in a closet.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join