JEEBIES!

I knew about thermite but I didn't really think the buildings had aluminum to combine with the iron oxide. Thermite is explosive at high temperatures I'm not sure where it was but it was there. Maybe the staircases? The thermal release could have a lot to do with compromising the structure.

from a scientific american article . If you can open it there are several pages.

"Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. This keeps the metal hot and burning.

Here's some ammo, go wild.
And the thermal insulation had been removed previously. Which raises the question as to "why?" for the conspiracists

Some have raised questions about the degree of fire protection available to guard the structural steel. According to press reports, the original asbestos cementitious fireproofing applied to the steel framework of the north tower and the lower 30 stories of the south were removed after the 1993 terrorist truck bombing.

But for asbestos in 1986

(a) replacement of asbestos or of certain types of asbestos or products containing asbestos by other materials or products or the use of alternative technology, scientifically evaluated by the competent authority as harmless or less harmful, whenever this is possible;

(b) total or partial prohibition of the use of asbestos or of certain types of asbestos or products containing asbestos in certain work processes.

Various laws were past, so that might easily explain the removal of the abestos. Some laws were past essentially saying that if you had to work on it or demolish it, you had to remove it. After the initial damage, they may have been force to remove it. Or they decided to remove/replace for health/insurance reasons. It probably carried insuracne liabilities.

---

TEAM
LL

Point taken....but one problem....the fires at the towers didn't burn for 10 hours. They were burning for what, about TWO hours before the collapse?

And gasoline may have started the fire in the tunnel, but it would have been Kerosene that started the fires in the towers. Do they both burn at the same rate and the same heat?

1 building was about an hour and the second was about 1 1/2 hours. But they do not say how long it was before the 20 inches was fully compromised. It could have been after 5 hrs. But since conductance is a simple ratio based on thickness, temp on one side minus temp on the other side and a conductence constant, it's a linear relation before corruption. Thus, 20 inches in 10 hrs translates to 2 inches will degrade in 1 hr without inital corruption. And once again, we really don't know how fast it can corrupt the concrete and what type it was. It was a perspective I was going for with the oven effect and how brittle concrete is.

The best thing to do is to find examples of kerosene fires in concrete structures where the temperature can be accurately determined. That would be the ideal argument for or against any theory of conspiracy or not. I'll give it a go when I'm more in the mood. HB brings up a good argument because right now, there is an unknown of what the temperature actually was and both of us are trying to reason it when both of us could be way off. We need a measured example of a similar structure with kerosene. This does not quite do it given the info below. Although it might come close.

---------------------
The main ingredient of gasoline is octane octane MSDSand it's boiling point is below kerosene (gasolines boiling point is even lower) but gasoline has a slightly higher autoignition temperature. I would expect it to have a similar profile. It was a traffic tunnel, so it was probably cars and trucks which makes it gasoline and diesel with a flashpoint around 73 C compared to the flashpoint of kerosene around 45 C and gasoline -40 C.

---

TEAM
LL

* rings the bell for the end of round one *

Ok.....here is what I would like to see at this point...

H.B.....You tell us what kind of fuel it was. I understand you have been trying to do just that, but just for the sake of clarity. Tell us what type of Jet Fuel they use and why they use it.
....
* rings the bell for the beginning of round 2 *

It's called Jet-A. It's the ONLY jetfuel available at U.S. airports regardless of the airports size from the smallest private field that handles small private aircraft to the largest commercial operation. It's used because it is made from the highest quality kerosene that the refineries have. Jet-A is the ONLY fuel available in the so called "summer season" which usually lasts until Oct. 1-15 which starts the so called "winter season". This is the fuel that was on these planes.

Ok, thank you H.B.

Sleestak, your turn. You are the chemistry guy here by the look of things.

Sleestak...You take the type of fuel into account, including it's ingnition and burning properties ( such as how FAST it burns away ). Then let us know if it could have burned long enough and hot enough to do the damage that it supposedly caused.

This has nothing to do with a gasoline fire in a tunnel. The tunnel was a relatively enclosed space so the damage done by the fire there doesn't properly relate to the towers. Not the way I see it anyway.


I want to make absolutely sure that everyone is clear about why you are saying what you are saying about the steel in the building.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

I am most concerned about the statement of being protected by concrete, which is a good point. So, I was looking around and found an interesting article on a MIT study. It's somewhat related and somewhat unrelated but gives some perspective.

Fires in long traffic tunnels are rare. But when they occur, they tend to burn long and hot, inflicting damage on the concrete walls that requires months of closure and costs millions of dollars in economic loss.

At least 40 people died in the March 24 fire in the Mont Blanc tunnel connecting France with Italy, which burned for two days and reached a temperature of 1,832 degrees.
Researcher examines damage to concrete walls in tunnel fires

20 inch thick concrete destroyed by fire.

When fire burned for 10 hours in the 31-mile tunnel connecting France and England in 1996, the concrete walls peeled away layer by layer like an onion, destroying entire portions of the 20-inch-thick concrete ring and leaving the chalky soil exposed in places.

This gives perspective on the heat too since, i'm guessing it was gasoline that started the fire but I'm not sure.

Point taken....but one problem....the fires at the towers didn't burn for 10 hours. They were burning for what, about TWO hours before the collapse?

And gasoline may have started the fire in the tunnel, but it would have been Kerosene that started the fires in the towers. Do they both burn at the same rate and the same heat?

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

* rings the bell for the end of round one *

Ok.....here is what I would like to see at this point...

H.B.....You tell us what kind of fuel it was. I understand you have been trying to do just that, but just for the sake of clarity. Tell us what type of Jet Fuel they use and why they use it.
....
* rings the bell for the beginning of round 2 *

It's called Jet-A. It's the ONLY jetfuel available at U.S. airports regardless of the airports size from the smallest private field that handles small private aircraft to the largest commercial operation. It's used because it is made from the highest quality kerosene that the refineries have. Jet-A is the ONLY fuel available in the so called "summer season" which usually lasts until Oct. 1-15 which starts the so called "winter season". This is the fuel that was on these planes.

I am most concerned about the statement of being protected by concrete, which is a good point. So, I was looking around and found an interesting article on a MIT study. It's somewhat related and somewhat unrelated but gives some perspective.

Fires in long traffic tunnels are rare. But when they occur, they tend to burn long and hot, inflicting damage on the concrete walls that requires months of closure and costs millions of dollars in economic loss.

At least 40 people died in the March 24 fire in the Mont Blanc tunnel connecting France with Italy, which burned for two days and reached a temperature of 1,832 degrees.
Researcher examines damage to concrete walls in tunnel fires

20 inch thick concrete destroyed by fire.

When fire burned for 10 hours in the 31-mile tunnel connecting France and England in 1996, the concrete walls peeled away layer by layer like an onion, destroying entire portions of the 20-inch-thick concrete ring and leaving the chalky soil exposed in places.

This gives perspective on the heat too since, i'm guessing it was gasoline that started the fire but I'm not sure.

---

TEAM
LL

From what I understand and taken from the video evidence...the fuel pretty much exploded immediately when the planes hit the towers. That would mean that it didn't have time to soak in. I am assuming ( perhaps mistakenly ) that if the fuel was vaporized in the impact like you suggest Sleestak, then the fire from the fuel itself would have been pretty short lived. If I am wrong about that I will happily admit it.

* rings the bell for the beginning of round 2 *

I doubt that it was all vaporized since it would have started off cold. It did however get spread out rapidly and possibly nebulized but not completely. This would have allowed a quick mixing of fuel and oxygen for an quick intense burn as I suggested earlier. There is video evidence for that. However, I would think it unlikely that it was all burned right away. But the initial nebulizing of the fuel should allow for a higher burn temperature.

---

TEAM
LL

* rings the bell for the end of round one *

Ok.....here is what I would like to see at this point...

H.B.....You tell us what kind of fuel it was. I understand you have been trying to do just that, but just for the sake of clarity. Tell us what type of Jet Fuel they use and why they use it.

Sleestak...You take the type of fuel into account, including it's ingnition and burning properties ( such as how FAST it burns away ). Then let us know if it could have burned long enough and hot enough to do the damage that it supposedly caused. Again, just for the sake of clarity. As far as the burning properties, my best example would be gasoline. Gasoline burns hot, but burns away quickly unless it has had opportunity to soak into what is being burned.

I have managed to get a bit confused as far as which fuel was used and what it was supposed to do. If nobody else has found themselves in that position at this point, just humor me please. I am a bit slow when it comes to chemistry and such.

From what I understand and taken from the video evidence...the fuel pretty much exploded immediately when the planes hit the towers. That would mean that it didn't have time to soak in. I am assuming ( perhaps mistakenly ) that if the fuel was vaporized in the impact like you suggest Sleestak, then the fire from the fuel itself would have been pretty short lived. If I am wrong about that I will happily admit it.

* rings the bell for the beginning of round 2 *

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

But then again, I'm a pilot. What the hell do I know about aviation?

If that's how you think, then I know nothing about how much fuel there was on a plane and you know nothing about the chemical reactions such as oxidizing metal or burning hydrocarbons. So, I'll let you tell me how much fuel was on a plane and which type of fuel, if you let me tell you what chemical reactions happened.

---

TEAM
LL

I must be missing something here. I could have SWORN I just saw someone state that it was more like 10,000 gallons of fuel. Still a LOT of fuel, but not NEARLY 23,000.

All of the jets were scheduled for transcontinental flights and carried an average of 20,000 gallons of aviation fuel.9-11: THE BASICS

And again...

That 911 site just like many others know not to much about Boeing aircraft or how planes are fueled and why.

A 767-200ER like the ones that did the crashing DO NOT open the pilot's window and yell down to the fuel truck to "FILL IT UP".

[reposted from a previous post]
Not that it makes much difference, I mean what does 8000 or 12000 gal. matter, but a Boeing 767 on a cross country flight is NEVER loaded with a full fuel load of 23980 gal. The full fuel load is only done for International long distance flights. For domestic long distance such as Boston to LA the max fuel load would be 16000 gal. Airlines have a thing about having to transport 50000 lbs. of extra fuel around the country at a financial loss. Now the next thing you have to realize is that taxiing, taking off, getting up to speed and altitude comes at great fuel cost. So much in fact that those maneuvers and the time it was in flight before it crashed it probably used up 25% of it's fuel load. That would have left 12000 gal. or about half of what some non-pilot would assume.

But then again, I'm a pilot. What the hell do I know about aviation?

OK so it was 12-16k instead of 20k. So what? I'm a chemist, what would I know about using the correct information for a chemical reaction? What the hell do I know.

---

TEAM
LL

I must be missing something here. I could have SWORN I just saw someone state that it was more like 10,000 gallons of fuel. Still a LOT of fuel, but not NEARLY 23,000.

All of the jets were scheduled for transcontinental flights and carried an average of 20,000 gallons of aviation fuel.9-11: THE BASICS

And again...

That 911 site just like many others know not to much about Boeing aircraft or how planes are fueled and why.

A 767-200ER like the ones that did the crashing DO NOT open the pilot's window and yell down to the fuel truck to "FILL IT UP".

[reposted from a previous post]
Not that it makes much difference, I mean what does 8000 or 12000 gal. matter, but a Boeing 767 on a cross country flight is NEVER loaded with a full fuel load of 23980 gal. The full fuel load is only done for International long distance flights. For domestic long distance such as Boston to LA the max fuel load would be 16000 gal. Airlines have a thing about having to transport 50000 lbs. of extra fuel around the country at a financial loss. Now the next thing you have to realize is that taxiing, taking off, getting up to speed and altitude comes at great fuel cost. So much in fact that those maneuvers and the time it was in flight before it crashed it probably used up 25% of it's fuel load. That would have left 12000 gal. or about half of what some non-pilot would assume.

But then again, I'm a pilot. What the hell do I know about aviation?

I must be missing something here. I could have SWORN I just saw someone state that it was more like 10,000 gallons of fuel. Still a LOT of fuel, but not NEARLY 23,000.

All of the jets were scheduled for transcontinental flights and carried an average of 20,000 gallons of aviation fuel.9-11: THE BASICS

---

TEAM
LL

OK... Here we go again.

When the crude oil is cracked at the refinary in those tall thingys known as "cracking towers" there are many different products that emerge from them. At least 6 of these products are known as kerosene and only 1 of them is used as Jet Fuel. This 1 has a boiling point of about 150C/300F. So my numbers are correct. Of course when you use the wrong product and only one of it's specs with my correct specs things look out of wack.

Kerosene is a mixed product and does not have a specific boining point, it has a range because it is mixed. And that range is about 150-290 C. And that is well known, as you like to say. And the 315 comes from lighting a puddle of kerosene, which first has to evaporate the liquid into the gaseous phase to mix with oxygen to combust. When you vaporize the fuel like crashing the plane into a building, it mixes it all with fuel vapor and you obtain a much higher temperature. The maximum temperature is optimize the components, when that is done, you can reach over 1000 C but that is a high oxygen content. With normal oxygen content, the mixture reaches 1000 C. Use the right measurements for you analysis.

---

TEAM
LL

The upper boiling point of kerosene is 290 C. It can't burn in it's liquid state. It has to vaporize to mix with oxygen to burn. There is no way it was burning at 260C. That's why the burning pan temperature is 315C. It has to vaporize enough to mix with oxygen and then it's cool on one side. This was immediately well mixed and spread out and it burns much hotter when mixed. The internal temperature would have reached maximum.

OK... Here we go again.

When the crude oil is cracked at the refinary in those tall thingys known as "cracking towers" there are many different products that emerge from them. At least 6 of these products are known as kerosene and only 1 of them is used as Jet Fuel. This 1 has a boiling point of about 150C/300F. So my numbers are correct. Of course when you use the wrong product and only one of it's specs with my correct specs things look out of wack.

Just more misinformation. Flashpoint of Kerosene.Jet-A is 49C/120F. Autoignition temp. is 218C/425F. The burning temp. of kerosene/Jet-A are as follows, Open air burning temp: 260-315C/500-600F. That's like the flame made by your BBQ charcoal starting fluid (well I'll be, they use Jet-A for that stuff too). Maximum burning temp: 980C/1800F. That's in a highly oxygen rich fed environment. In an oxygen poor environment you will see a lot of dark/black colored smoke which is what I saw at the WTC fires.

In the reference for dangerous workplace materials 10th edition, it's states that the autoignition temperature for jet fuel and kerosene based products is 475 C. So to think that it would burn below this in the given conditions is ridiculous. This isn't a firemans flashpan for training workers. This is 23k gallons of fuel.

I must be missing something here. I could have SWORN I just saw someone state that it was more like 10,000 gallons of fuel. Still a LOT of fuel, but not NEARLY 23,000.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

The upper boiling point of kerosene is 290 C. It can't burn in it's liquid state. It has to vaporize to mix with oxygen to burn. There is no way it was burning at 260C. That's why the burning pan temperature is 315C. It has to vaporize enough to mix with oxygen and then it's cool on one side. This was immediately well mixed and spread out and it burns much hotter when mixed. The internal temperature would have reached maximum.

---

TEAM
LL

Just more misinformation. Flashpoint of Kerosene.Jet-A is 49C/120F. Autoignition temp. is 218C/425F. The burning temp. of kerosene/Jet-A are as follows, Open air burning temp: 260-315C/500-600F. That's like the flame made by your BBQ charcoal starting fluid (well I'll be, they use Jet-A for that stuff too). Maximum burning temp: 980C/1800F. That's in a highly oxygen rich fed environment. In an oxygen poor environment you will see a lot of dark/black colored smoke which is what I saw at the WTC fires.

In the reference for dangerous workplace materials 10th edition, it's states that the autoignition temperature for jet fuel and kerosene based products is 475 C. So to think that it would burn below this in the given conditions is ridiculous. This isn't a firemans flashpan for training workers. This is 23k gallons of fuel.

Wrong again! And... What does 23k gallons of fuel have to do with it?

Just more misinformation. Flashpoint of Kerosene.Jet-A is 49C/120F. Autoignition temp. is 218C/425F. The burning temp. of kerosene/Jet-A are as follows, Open air burning temp: 260-315C/500-600F. That's like the flame made by your BBQ charcoal starting fluid (well I'll be, they use Jet-A for that stuff too). Maximum burning temp: 980C/1800F. That's in a highly oxygen rich fed environment. In an oxygen poor environment you will see a lot of dark/black colored smoke which is what I saw at the WTC fires.

In the reference for dangerous workplace materials 10th edition, it's states that the autoignition temperature for jet fuel and kerosene based products is 475 C. So to think that it would burn below this in the given conditions is ridiculous. This isn't a firemans flashpan for training workers. This is 23k gallons of fuel.

---

TEAM
LL

No skyscrapers have ever withstood as much structural damage as WTC 1 or 2 and survived intact. Maybe engineers think they are overbuilding by 25% and they're only really getting 5% over due to scale issues.

WTC7 is a legitimate mystery. As I said a relatively long time ago, the entire World Trade Center had a checkered past with safety issues... it may have been a firetrap since it had been built.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

25% load bearing beams damage based on what?

After the wings and nose are torn off on the perimeter of the building, you are talking about a pencil hole. This would indicate almost ZERO damage to the internal structure from impact.

You are making the assumption that the beams were evenly spread evenly and teh are not. Almost all the beams were on the outer edge and the plane simply punched them out. Look here for where the beams were: here. I based the 25% as an estimate for the outer damage and the inner damage. Yes it did not knock out a full side but it did blow all the way through.

If you read the article you posted, they are discussing how this design is not posssible. If you take a look at the PHOTO's in your reference link VS the diagram (graphic) they do not correspond and the author of the link is explaining how this engineering cannot work. In essence there are a LOT MORE BEAMS dispersed across the surface area of a floor.

In fact the 'truss design' is how they pancake theory of collapse was justified, but it is in itself quite ludicrous, we are talking a 30-60 foot trusses supporting nearly 60 tons! (yeah right). do you like how the blue-prints for the building design have been withheld from the public (read suppressed).

An article that discusses 500C hydrocarbon fires

However as i said in my earlier post consider the frontal surface aread of 747 once the wings, the roof and the floor have been ripped off sailing through the building is more like a missile (small surface area), damage is minimal.

Yes kerosene can burn lower. It's flashpoint is lower (300 C)which means to maintain a kerosene burn, you need at least that temperature. Considering 23k gallons of fuel per building, 500 C is not a practical assessment at all because it can burn as hot as 1900 C. 1000 C is a safe assumption and most likely an underestimate.

Thanks HBS i was about to say the same thing.

The WTC fire was burning VERY RICH, ploom after ploom of dark black smoke. You are talking LOTS of UNBURNT fuel and an oxygen starved fire, in fact there were almost NO FLAMES visible from outside what so ever - LOW TEMPERATURE (< 500 C). For goodness sake, several pour souls were sitting on the edge of the gaping holes and their hair was not singed ie. they didn't get barbecued, how hot or large can the fire really be??

Either way, steel aint gunna melt at 500C and will only be marginally weakened.

i notice you ignored the physics issues realated to gravity freefall with wind resistance and also building 7 again <grin>.

another point to note, is that the fuel had one hour to splash, pour, burn all the way down the building ( i dont think it neatly turn to vapour and filled each floor), what's 50 tons of fuel in a 500,000 thousand ton building.

P.S.

Did you actually read the link you posted quote??

"Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses, it should still be pointed out that the fuel capacities of the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 767 are essentially the same. And in any case, it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted"

....LOL....

EDIT: Formatting.

---

Belief gets in the way of learning