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.

 

A New Fire Challenge!

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I'm going camping this weekend, and I thought our lovely host of GL's could suggest
a fuel that will burn for at least 6 hours consistently, and maintain intense heat
so that I don't have to buy firewood and replenish the camp fire every two hours.

Any ideas what sort of material would have been inside WTC 7 that could do the trick?

Do you guys think I should invest in a titanium grill to cook my food, or will the
skimpy steel wire flavour do the trick and not sag with a few pounds of meat on top?

On a more serious note, can any of the GL's suggest a fuel that burned in WTC 7
for six hours, maintained 800+ degrees C for the duration of the day?

How about suggesting a type of steel that does not transfer/conduct heat?


Keep in mind when you reply this fuel source must be available on at least every
4th floor, evenly distributed on said floors in order to melt/break all of the
beam connections simultaneously.

You must be able to explain how the beams maintained a critical temperature
all day long such that they did not cool down to regain their stability.

Feel free to reference the NIST report...on second thought, don't bother - THEY
DON'T MENTION THAT PART!


[edit on 4-9-2009 by turbofan]




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


I'm not a fire expert like you, obviously, but my real life experience tells me that burn time is determined by fuel quantity and not quality.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Try building a fire that's 741 ft high. I doubt you'll have to replenish that every two hours.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

I'm not a fire expert like you, obviously, but my real life experience tells me that burn time is determined by fuel quantity and not quality.


Not necessarily; it depends on the density of the fuel. You can burn up
2" x 4" x 2' piece of spruce faster than you can burn up a 2" x 4" x 2' piece
of oak wood.


Originally posted by hooper
Try building a fire that's 741 ft high. I doubt you'll have to replenish that every two hours.


Why are we building a 741' high fire?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I think you know cheeky boy.

I was pointing out the flaw in your premise. You start by asking people to suggest a fuel that could burn for six hours, presumably as an analogy for what happened in WTC7. What you really mean is "burn for six hours and then cause a building to fall down". The two concepts are different. Buildings burn for a long time all the time.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Well, I have no idea what you mean.

Like mentioned in the original post, we need all the connections to fail
simultaneously.

In order for that to happen, you need a specific temperature for a certain
duration of time.

That temperature maintenance requires a constant energy over a period
of x hours at all points.

So...where are you going with this?

Is your building totally engulfed in flames for 6 hours straight, maintaining
800 degrees C at every connection?

That would be totally different than what would happen in real life.
Fire would creep from place to place consuming fuel sources over
a longer period time, however temperatures would vary at all points of
the buidling. As the fuel burned off, those local areas would cool down.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I don't have a building. I was making a point about the flaw in your analogy, that's all.

And I wouldn't bother going camping. It's a rubbish way to spend a weekend.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Going to the beach for the weekend and hitting the race track with a bunch
of friends is a waste? Get out much?

Anyway, answer your own "corrected" question then.

Find me a fuel source that can burn for six hours, keeping a min. temperature
of 800'C, and bring the building down.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Well, I have no idea what you mean.


No comment


Like mentioned in the original post, we need all the connections to fail
simultaneously.


Really. How long before the total collapse of WTC 7 did the penthouse collapse? 6 seconds? 8 seconds? 9 seconds?

You still need all the connections to fail simultaneously? Want to rephrase that? Or is this more Pilot logic?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Oh no, it's Trebor! I wonder if he'll fail this challenge like the rest.

Would you like to tell me what the penthouse has to do with the other
core and perimter columns of WTC7?

How many columns supported the penthouse?

After that, explain how just the penthouse disconnected without bringing
down other floor sections in the area.

After that, please answer the original question about the fuel source.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Going to the beach for the weekend and hitting the race track with a bunch
of friends is a waste? Get out much?

Anyway, answer your own "corrected" question then.

Find me a fuel source that can burn for six hours, keeping a min. temperature
of 800'C, and bring the building down.


I don't agree that that was the sole reason the building came down, so why would I bother? Your frame of reference is a typical truther construct - you package together a series of assertions as fact, and then ask dissenters to staisfy an illogical scenario of your own creation.

And I wouldn't go to the ractrack if I were you. Don't you know it's all rigged?

[edit on 4-9-2009 by TrickoftheShade]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I didn't state it as fact, NIST is the organization that made the claim.

You did read the report, or at least view the conference?

If you don't believe NIST, then are you on side with "typical truthers"?

What is your version of what happened?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I didn't state it as fact, NIST is the organization that made the claim.


Okay. You point me to the bit where NIST claims that a fire burning at a constant temperature of 800 degrees was the sole reason the building fell.

Your question also highlights another typical truther mistake, one so hardwired into the movement that it's unlikely every to be dislodged. The notion that there is an official story which you can chip away at, and which will thus eventually fall down like building 7, is nonsense. That's not how knowledge is built, or investigation carried out.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Why don't you take a bag of those magic paint chips for your campfire?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Oh no, it's Trebor! I wonder if he'll fail this challenge like the rest.

Would you like to tell me what the penthouse has to do with the other
core and perimter columns of WTC7?

How many columns supported the penthouse?

After that, explain how just the penthouse disconnected without bringing
down other floor sections in the area.

After that, please answer the original question about the fuel source.


First comment: I guess it is more Pilot logic

Second: I have no idea how many columns supported the Penthouse on WTC 7. One? Fifteen? The fact of this thread is that you are the one who said in order for the building to fall down, all the connections needed to fail simultaneously.

This is clearly not the case in the failure of WTC 7. If you are trying to compare fruit flies to apples, you've done a good job, but we're not here to talk about P4T logic.

The other fact of the matter about WTC 7 failing is that the support columns (one? fifteen?) supporting the Penthouse structure failed first, resulting in the structure falling into the building. What damage that did I have no idea, but can speculate till the cows come home that the internal damage by that resulted in greater and greater support structure failure within the building, until the entire unique cantilevered design had a global collapse failure.

Bottom line is that the collapse of WTC 7 did not need simultaneous failure of all connecting beams.

And, btw, where in the original post did you mention/specify "core and perimeter columns"? Your two statements regarding "simultaneous failure" are specifically:


Keep in mind when you reply this fuel source must be available on at least every 4th floor, evenly distributed on said floors in order to melt/break all of the beam connections simultaneously.


and


Like mentioned in the original post, we need all the connections to fail
simultaneously.


If you want to go around throwing other criteria in after the fact, like "core and perimeter columns", please feel free though. I am used to that element of P4T logic. Are you going to make a "simulation" of this, as well? I hope so. I'm always on the lookout for "professional" models and simulations created by professionals who apply all the appropriate criteria to ensure their model or simulation is an accurate representation of an event or of an object.

As far as the fuel source goes for a 6-hour continuously hot blaze, unless you are going to change the criteria again, I'd recommend pile up the innards of a downtown Manhattan 47-story office building. I'll let you figure out what that consists of.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by trebor451]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Remember this bit about your fire and it is relatively dangerous...

1). There will be parts of it that are completely un-burnt.

2). Beware when it collapses, do not stand near these bits thinking you are safe.

3). They will surprisingly act just the same as the bits that are burnt.

4). When this is about to happen listen carefully, in the background you will hear a Park Ranger shouting...`PULL IT`.

Hope this helps, happy camping
.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Going to the beach for the weekend and hitting the race track with a bunch
of friends is a waste? Get out much?

Anyway, answer your own "corrected" question then.

Find me a fuel source that can burn for six hours, keeping a min. temperature
of 800'C, and bring the building down.


Coal, fuel oil, and just about any carbon source in sufficient quantity, say like 47 story buildings worth. Was that helpful?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


No, not really. Are you saying these materials were found on most floors?

You do realize the connections on the floors above the fuel tanks need
to heat up and fail at the same time for the building to come down
straight (telescoping) as shown in the video?

Hey Trebor, I don't think you really get it. Maybe you can show me
some raging fires from the front/side/back/top that were hot enough
to break the Penthouse support columns JUST BEFORE FAILURE...
or any time during the day for that matter.



I can't seem to find one video, or photo at any point that shows fire
on the upper levels to have the Penthouse columns failing all at once.

Here's a bunch to choose from:
images.google.ca...

Note: I see we're playing a lot of 'dodge ball' here. Lots of critique about
my question, but nobody is able to explain the failure in their own words
which supports the video/photo evidence.

Heck, even some of you don't believe the NIST report (I don't blame ya though).



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Exactly how does one determine the exact temperature of a fire by looking a photo?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by turbofan
 


Exactly how does one determine the exact temperature of a fire by looking a photo?


Come on Hoop, stop stalling!

Show some pictures of fires any time throughout the day, or ESPECIALLY
before the Penthouse falls.

I can't find ANY.

Exact temps. via photos would be tough, I'll agree...but you can get
a sense of approximate potential by the size of the fire, quantity/colour of smoke, even location of the fire(s) would help you out!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join