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.

 

The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

page: 22
87
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje

You really believe a kerosene fire can burn so hot molten metal is still found at almost the end of the cleanup?



I have zero doubt that the fires started by the impacts, would continue to produce heat, until the time they were extinguished.

That's what fires do.




posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


What fires dont do is use steel as fuel (normal fires don't at least), not without some propellant.

The kerosene would've been burned up long after the impact but way before the collapse. Though the steel stayed in a molten state for pretty much the entire cleanup without it (while being unable to melt steel to begin with)?

Now i'm not sure about the solidification rate of steel in open air but i'm damn sure it's less than a 5 weeks when something isn't keeping it heated up above melting point.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by waypastvne
 


What fires dont do is use steel as fuel (normal fires don't at least), not without some propellant.

The kerosene would've been burned up long after the impact but way before the collapse. Though the steel stayed in a molten state for pretty much the entire cleanup without it (while being unable to melt steel to begin with)?

Now i'm not sure about the solidification rate of steel in open air but i'm damn sure it's less than a 5 weeks when something isn't keeping it heated up above melting point.


It is good to see that we have another expert on this forum who knows how fires behave and which materials do and which don't make it possible to reach high temperatures for long periods of time. We will now see an explanation of why exactly (maybe using some models?) regular office contents can not be responsible for the fires observed in the WTC (debris). And after that he is going to explain to us which material is capable of doing that. He will do this because that is what experts do. Either that, or he is just making baseless assertion, probably something he read on some internet site.
edit on 1-7-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Where did i claim i was an expert? Logic and common sense means being an expert nowadays?

If we were all experts we wouldn't be "discussing" the TWIN towers collapse in a deliberately derailed thread about the WTC7 collapse.

it wasnt FIRE it was MOLTEN METAL, kept molten.

Nope, office materials won't burn that hot, for 5 weeks on end.

Btw the pools of molten metal were mostly found in the elevator shafts.. (funny how close they were to the central columns) Quite some office material there i suppose.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Romekje
 


I am not impressed by your logic or common sense. I have personally melted metal in small campfires. I also have seen a couch that was on fire. The immense heat made it impossible to get closer than 5m. I have actually measured the temperature of a small campfire, it was over 900C.

My experience tells me that those fires can get very hot. What is your personal experience?
edit on 1-7-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Romekje
 


There was plenty of material in the rubble that could burn at high temperature. Are you insinuating that there was no combustible material after the collapse? That's just stupid.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Constant 5 weeks of burning at a temperature high enough to keep steel molten?

Cmon.. if that would be the case the entire WTC complex would be ablaze as soon as the plane impacted with fires spreading from floor to floor.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Romekje
 


I am not impressed by your logic or common sense. I have personally melted metal in small campfires. I also have seen a couch that was on fire. The immense heat made it impossible to get closer than 5m. I have actually measured the temperature of a small campfire, it was over 900C.

My experience tells me that those fires can get very hot. What is your personal experience?
edit on 1-7-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


And how MUCH metal did you melt?

Pretty sure it wasnt a fire but embers.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Romekje
 


How about this, first answer my question and tell us your experience with fires, and I will answer yours. I am asking this because to me is seems you have no experience whatsoever with fires and have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I can of course be wrong, but if not, I don't see the point in putting any more effort in this discussion.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


My basic knowledge of fire is just that, basic.

Closest i came to working with it was welding building industrial ovens, which, to my limited knowledge, is melting metals together


I too can melt metal with my jet lighter, but not for 5 weeks on end.

And i dont mind you stopping the discussion, i know you must be busy on the 150 9/11 threads you are active in.

This one wasn't about the twin towers to begin with but got derailed that way so yeah, we might aswell end it here.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Why did the same jet fuel do the same damage at the Pentagon? If every plane hijacked had full tanks or almost empty tanks then surely all the fires should have burnt at the same intensity yet 2 buildings collapsed and the Pentagon only has a hole in it.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atlantien
Why did the same jet fuel do the same damage at the Pentagon? If every plane hijacked had full tanks or almost empty tanks then surely all the fires should have burnt at the same intensity yet 2 buildings collapsed and the Pentagon only has a hole in it.


You're making a common truther mistake of not knowing what you're talking about when asking questions. Your questions are leading and based on your already made-up mind.

Jet fuel was not the main fuel of the fires. It was the combustible materials inside the buildings that mainly burned. The jet fuel simply started the fires.

As for stuff burning underground from the other guy, ever heard of smoldering? How about rubble shifting, opening up oxygen pockets and making fires flare at prolonged high temperatures? How about the broken gas lines that burn? How about the electrical stuff down there, sparking and junk all that time. How about the tons of office material? There was plenty to burn and keep burning.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Ok so then the Pentagon had no combustible material to burn?



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Romekje
 


Well, I don't think anything enlightening will come from this discussion, as you have already changed the subject to my person. But still, you claimed that logic tells you that fire at ground zero could not have burned that hot for 5 weeks without some mystery substance (you have yet to reveal the mystery substance that can). Can you share your logical line of reasoning, including the assumptions you made and what you based them on?



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Atlantien
 


Maybe you missed all those fire trucks parked in front of the Penagon?



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have personally melted metal in small campfires.


So why doesn't a stove melt? Or an electric heater?

Why don't aluminum cake pans melt in the oven? Or tin foil?

Do you realise all metals are not equal? Have you ever tried to melt carbon steel?

Steel melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500 °F). The steel would have to be heated uniformly to that temp, the thicker and large the piece of steel the longer it will take to reach that temperature.


Flame temperatures in room fires

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C.


But it takes time for the fire to heat up the room to those temps...


The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.


www.doctorfire.com...

You then have to consider heat transfer. It takes time for the heat from the fire to effect surrounding objects, which will never get hotter than the fire itself. So room fires are not hot enough to melt steel.


Temperatures of objects

It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size.


Temperatures in flames and fires

(don't be afraid of the link it's not a "truther" site)


edit on 7/1/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atlantien
reply to post by Varemia
 


Ok so then the Pentagon had no combustible material to burn?


What are you even talking about, man? The firefighters were able to put out the pentagon fire a lot faster because it was a lower-level, relatively isolated area. The burned section of the Pentagon collapsed in on itself anyway. So what's your point here?



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


The "mystery substance" would not be such a mystery at all since it's all been heavily discussed already.
Industrial Thermite. Which will keep reacting with metal untill there's no metal left to react with.

And i never attacked your person, i just checked where you post the most and that's something anyone can do.
Im not allowed to point out truth?



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romekje
reply to post by -PLB-
 


The "mystery substance" would not be such a mystery at all since it's all been heavily discussed already.
Industrial Thermite. Which will keep reacting with metal untill there's no metal left to react with.

And i never attacked your person, i just checked where you post the most and that's something anyone can do.
Im not allowed to point out truth?


Thermite needs fuel too. There is no magical version that keeps burning forever. It burns for a short period of time, until the reaction promptly stops. Thermite is so powerful because it is a fast, violent chemical reaction. That's the fact.



new topics

top topics



 
87
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join