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.

 

How did the fires survive the collapses?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
It seems to me that it should be almost impossible for fires that were up at the very top of the towers could survive that violent collapse.

When the collapses start it appears that the fires are snuffed out b/c you see the flames appear to be squished out all sides of the building. Then you have the millions upon millions of tons of rubble dropped onto the fire, or mixed with it?, but considering the fire only covered a few floors compared to lets say a 100 floors of debris it would seem that the fire made up a very small percentage of the mixture, and logic would say that the fires would lose the ability to breathe and would instantly be put out.(Kinda similar to covering a campfire with dirt).

Yet somehow the fires raged at the bottom of the pile? How is this possible? Considering the fires were on the very top of the collapsing debris you would think that it wouldn't have a chance in hell to stay burning at the very bottom of the pile.

Burning so hot it was molten and lasted for months? Where was it getting all of the oxygen needed to do this especially in the beginning. If you look at photos of the clean up the debris is literally packed solid with what looks like dirt like substance that (mixture of all debris crushed finely?) is solidly filled in any spaces).

So how could the fires on the tops of the buildings survive a complete collapse (in all three buildings) and then continue to rage for so long (even with rain and FF's spraying water on it 24/7). I do understand there was fuel to burn yes but where did all the oxygen come from and how could it survive being packed into the pile after the collapse.Compared to other buildings that we have seen burning totally out of control the fires in all three WTC's didn't appear to be as large.




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
That's just it...none of it makes much sense...most of the fuel was burned off pretty fast, being high octane.

The collapse forced most of the oxygen out on the way down.
The burning debris in the building could re-ignite after collapse, but, how do you have 1500 degree fires up to 7 storys below the pile?

I could see some fires at the top of the pile, with re-igniting debris exposed to oxygen.

There were open spaces/tunnels below with access to oxygen, but, how did the fire get through all the rest, to that depth, and hot enough to melt steel into blobs lasting for weeks?

This has all been questioned before, and, the same conclusions have been reached...but good lookin' out for us!



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Considering the fires were on the very top of the collapsing debris you would think that it wouldn't have a chance in hell to stay burning at the very bottom of the pile.
Burning so hot it was molten and lasted for months? Where was it getting all of the oxygen needed to do this especially in the beginning.

The thermite/thermate that appears to have been used to help initiate the collapses doesn't need oxygen to burn as they burn with chemical reactions.

Yes, any normal office fires from up top would have been put out in the collapses and/or starved after the collapses due to lack of oxygen.

But, we have no way of knowing what different types of incendiaries were used in those buildings unless whoever did it comes forward.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
Considering the fires were on the very top of the collapsing debris you would think that it wouldn't have a chance in hell to stay burning at the very bottom of the pile.
Burning so hot it was molten and lasted for months? Where was it getting all of the oxygen needed to do this especially in the beginning.

The thermite/thermate that appears to have been used to help initiate the collapses doesn't need oxygen to burn as they burn with chemical reactions.


True, but the thermite/thermate reaction is a very fast one...it doesn't burn for weeks...so if there were fires in the piles for weeks there must have been an oxygen source.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Yes, any normal office fires from up top would have been put out in the collapses and/or starved after the collapses due to lack of oxygen.


Argument from personal belief.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
But, we have no way of knowing what different types of incendiaries were used in those buildings unless whoever did it comes forward.


That much I agree with



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


Yes the Thermate would have burned fast but if I understand the theory correctly the still reacting Thermate gets mixed into the falling debris. It then continues to react maybe seconds or even a minutes after the collapse then stopping (obviously AZ) and that this is what started the fires and got them roaring at such a high temperature so fast.

I for one cannot find not a single thing on the subject while searching for it on the internet that is a theory or explanation of how the fires were able to survive the collapse so successfully.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
the thermite/thermate reaction is a very fast one...it doesn't burn for weeks...so if there were fires in the piles for weeks there must have been an oxygen source.

There wasn't oxygen if the molten pools of steel were under the pile, which they were under all three buildings. The thermite/thermate would react fast, but what you're left with is molten steel. Take all the molten steel and dump thousands of tons of debris on top of it and you create an oven effect which will allow the molten steel to stay hotter longer and take longer to cool.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by adam_zapple
the thermite/thermate reaction is a very fast one...it doesn't burn for weeks...so if there were fires in the piles for weeks there must have been an oxygen source.

There wasn't oxygen if the molten pools of steel were under the pile, which they were under all three buildings. The thermite/thermate would react fast, but what you're left with is molten steel.


A thermite reaction doesn't produce molten steel:

Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat


Originally posted by _BoneZ_Take all the molten steel and dump thousands of tons of debris on top of it and you create an oven effect which will allow the molten steel to burn for weeks.


Molten steel doesn't burn.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
A thermite reaction doesn't produce molten steel

Ah, so the dripping molten steel from the reaction is invisible and the molten slag on the steel beams is also invisible? Oh by the way, care to provide some proof of your claims? There's plenty of videos of thermite that prove you wrong.


Originally posted by adam_zapple
Molten steel doesn't burn.

Touch it with your hand and I bet it burns. But seriously, wrong choice of words. And I edited my post accordingly.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by adam_zapple
A thermite reaction doesn't produce molten steel

Ah, so the dripping molten steel from the reaction is invisible and the molten slag on the steel beams is also invisible? Oh by the way, care to provide some proof of your claims? There's plenty of videos of thermite that prove you wrong.


No videos are necessary,
Here is the chemical formula of a thermite reaction:

Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat

Would you mind pointing out the steel in the above reaction?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Molten steel doesn't burn.

Touch it with your hand and I bet it burns. But seriously, wrong choice of words. And I edited my post accordingly.


Very well. Although you are still assuming that this material was steel, and you are assuming that it was molten at the time of the collapse.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Good Point

This is very true, just kick some dust onto a camp fire, it does goes out almost instantly and begins to cool down.

We all saw the massive amounts of dust on 9/11, yet there are fires burning with that amount dust landing on them.

That is not a normal fire, or materials burning



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Good Point

This is very true, just kick some dust onto a camp fire, it does goes out almost instantly and begins to cool down.


Wow....perhaps the fire department should switch to dust instead of water....

Seriously, it takes a LOT of dust/dirt/etc to smother a fire. If a little kick of dust puts out your campfire then you must be building some pretty small camp fires....that's all I'm sayin'



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by adam_zapple
the thermite/thermate reaction is a very fast one...it doesn't burn for weeks...so if there were fires in the piles for weeks there must have been an oxygen source.

There wasn't oxygen if the molten pools of steel were under the pile, which they were under all three buildings. The thermite/thermate would react fast, but what you're left with is molten steel.


A thermite reaction doesn't produce molten steel:

Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat


Originally posted by _BoneZ_Take all the molten steel and dump thousands of tons of debris on top of it and you create an oven effect which will allow the molten steel to burn for weeks.


Molten steel doesn't burn.


Adam, sometimes I think you are too smart for you own good.

Let me put it really blunt, so your debate is that the reaction doesn't produce molten steel, very true indeed.

Actually let me put it a little different because I wanna sound like a troll, How do you get Koolaid when we are talking about h2O? oh thats right because you deliberately forget what the thermite was used for. Thats how you get the molten steel.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
"Well with all that steel & rubble collapsing into the ground so fast it generated massive heat (similar to a nuclear reaction) and all the metal turned to molten rivers of steel, and it burned for months - the end"

- NIST



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
"Well with all that steel & rubble collapsing into the ground so fast it generated massive heat (similar to a nuclear reaction) and all the metal turned to molten rivers of steel, and it burned for months - the end"

- NIST



Did NIST really say that? I have never heard that "theory" before. So they claim that the "friction"? of the collapse created a high temperature that was able to melt the steel? That doesn't sound right the more I think about it. Just based on witness reports/stories alone it doesn't seem to be possible.

Is there any more information on this theory of theres or is this one of there famous one liner comments that they made?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
No NIST didnt say that - I was simply giving an explanation for the molten steel on their behalf, along the lines of their explanation given for the collapse of the towers ie "fire ensued, metal weakened, and the towers collapsed.."

I figured I'd answer for them this time & save a stack of taxpayers money, and someone writing a 1000 page report about nothing that ends with a similar non-convincing conclusion.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
The thought just crossed my mind that maybe what started and kept the fires raging for months was the large explosion that was reported by a few witnesses in the basement of the tower.

I guess if it was strong enough to melt entire layers of skin off of peoples bodies and big enough to blow a multi ton piece of machine apart, it was big enough to ignite fires. Which, I guess would make sense of how fires were able to continue after the collapse?

I guess all go back to thinking lol.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Dont know if anyones even reading this anymore but heres a quote I found that gives some sort of idea of how much water was in through out the towers.




The primary water supplies for the WTC consist of connections to 12" city mains and total capacity in 14 steel gravity tanks of 70,000 gallons. These water supplies are delivered to sprinkler and standpipe systems by a total of 12 pumps. The tanks are automatically refilled from a 2" connection to the domestic water system.

Eight of the pumps are multi-stage, high net head pumps serving the standpipe system. These eight pumps are 3-stage, Peerless pumps rated at 750 gpm with net heads from 228 to 360 psi. These pumps are situated on the following levels; B-1, 7th, 41st, and 75th floors of each tower.

On floor 108 of both towers there are 500 gpm Peerless pumps with a net head of 60 psi. These pumps take suction from 5,000-gallon steel gravity tanks and provide water supplies to both the standpipe and sprinkler systems for the top floors (sprinklers - floors 99 to 107 and standpipe floors 99 to the roof)


www.actuaries.org.uk...

I know I heard before that there were something like 200k gallons of water on the tops of the buildings but I would guess that 70k spread throughout in tanks may be correct. Maybe someone else might know for sure.

My point is with this amount of water spread throughout the towers, I ask again. How could the fires survive the collapse?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
If you pour water on a gas fire it can cause it to accelerate and "spatter" water alone is not enough to put out a gas/fule fire. Also an open air or dirty burn of pooling fuel can take a very long time to get put out.

(THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS AND SHOULD ONLY BE DONE WITH PROPER SAFTEY GEAR AND OUTDOORS IN AN OPEN AREA FREE OF COMBUSTIBLE ITMES)

as an example take some oridnary cooking oil and heat it to the poit of combustion (I recommend doing this outside) from a safe distance spray water onto it.

The fire will seem to leap higher under the stream, next (again from a safe distance) put a lid over the bruning oil. leave the heat source, and remove the lid. it will burst back into flames. due to the heat still present.

So the probablilty is that the flames were temporarily blown out and re-ignited after the collapse.




top topics



 
0

log in

join