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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

TEAM
LL

The beams showed evidence of ironsulphides and ironoxides which reduces the melting point below that of the hottest kerosene fire. You take oxygen, iron, intense heat form the 23k gallons of kerosene and you have enough to reach the vertical support beams on several floors. Given that about 1/4 of the beams where outright knock out by the actual impact. You've alread reduced the load bearing beams to 75% of what is was. So, the beams if to withstand the new weight which was now over 33% more weight. If it where to continue holding, it would have had to have started out at less than 66% capacity. Now you add the heat allowed to heat one for about an hour and the other 1 1/2 hours with the heat conductance average of k=50 W/(mK) and heat capacity of about 500 J/(kgK), this would have been able to comprimise floors beyond those burning since the beams were only 2 inces thick. Yes only 2 inches thick. They were squares of 32x12 inches but only actually 2 inches thick and hollow.
>SNIP<

Everything i have read regarding kerosene fires is that they burn at LOW temperature <= 500 C.

Do the properties of metal change in these conditions, yes (heat + corrosion/oxidation). Did this cause the buidling to fall - unlikely IMO. The pertinent physical evidence is not available to prove otherwise.

Give me a controlled test with Kerosene and equivalent steel girders INSULATED IN CONCRETE (as they were) showing oxidation and melting and then you got a stronger theory.

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.

The perimeter of the building support is < 75% of structural strength. Even if an entire side of support structures were demonlisted it would result in 18% reduction in load bearing capacity, however the damage was not that significant examining the evidence of external entry.

Looking at WTC Eyewitness Documentary (1 hour 45 minutes).

1. The collapse of WTC 1,2 and 7 defied the laws of physics (they fell in a vacuum). Now what causes a vacuum around a building? (implosions).

It's impossible to tell what collapsed first since there are no eyewitness for the weak areas since they are dead. It could have initially collapsed in any number of unseen areas on the inside.

This is not relevant for the simple fact that whether the building collapsed from the inside-out or not the rate at which the collapse was observed defies physics (a mass falling with air resistance) is simply fell to fast and there would have needed to be a near-vacuum which is exactly what implosions do (create a vacuum).

2. How could WTC7 be damaged by pyroclastic flow from the fall of 1 and 2 if it is behind building 8?? Not to mention the fact that other buildings IN DIRECT PATH OF THE FLOW were OKAY!

It looked like the top was burning when it fell, it most likely took damage from the initial impact and was more heavily spattered with debris and fuel from impact.

Please, take alook at a aerial view the WTC complex. Look where building 7 is in relation to 1 and 2 (what is in between 1,2 and 7? another building!) you will see how silly the 'pyroclastic/debris' argument looks.

Also take a look at REAL pyroclastic flows that have hit REAL towns. The buildings are intact (albeit a little singed).

3. Explain how debris was falling up to 600 FEET away from the building (EXPLOSION MAYBE?). Even better, the Chrysler bulding got 'scewered' by huge pieces of metal debris at horizontal angles!!

Ever seen Backdraft? Yes, I absolutely expect explosions when you add 23k gallons of jet fuel to a scad of rooms in a building.

4. Explain the 9 (yes nine!) audible and visible (large amounts of dust) recorded (on video) BEFORE the collapse of the two towers. The audible evidence is backed up by many consistent eye witness accounts (from inside the buildings).

Internal explosions. Are you referring to the dust blowing out before visual confirmation of collapse? It could have been collapsing inside first which would actually suck the collapse somewhat inward. That is consistent.

What, more fuel vapour?

Buildings do not collapse from the inside out and if it did, you would have seen the bottom of the building crumble first under the weight (which clearly didn't happen).

Note - FIRE FIGHTERS were still entering the building from the basement floors.

5. The problems with inertia (the south tower did NOT fall straight down - ie. pancake theory is out).

see above

None of what you have suggested explains the angular momentum observerd on the top section of the building.

You can pretty much forget the pancake theory all together also your internal collapse theory is not supportable. Neither pass the speed of collapse anyway.

High rise buildings collapse for two reasons

1. Earthquakes (they snap like a twig)
2. Explosives.

There is no single recorded event in history that can attest otherwise. Infact building designers over-engineer buildings precisely so this will not happen (collapse due to fire)

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

I hope I have clarified my position somewhat.

I think, perhaps, that you meant Enigma, or H.B. were questioning the chemistry involved.

My apologies. To those who are ignoring the real world please substitute your name for Knightmares! ;)

No worries Bill.....lol

---

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

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

I hope I have clarified my position somewhat.

I think, perhaps, that you meant Enigma, or H.B. were questioning the chemistry involved.

My apologies. To those who are ignoring the real world please substitute your name for Knightmares! ;)

Knightmare, please check out Sleestak's chemistry and physics info. As he noted, sulpher was not needed to compromise the iron. Also, look into the design of the floors. It wasn't the entire load bearing structure that needed to be compromised to begin the collapse, only the relatively few attachment points where the floor slabs attached to the structure. These points were near the center of the area where the jet fuel was burning, where the hottest conditions were achieved.

Sleestak also mentioned that, "..casting iron itself becomes malleable at 800-950 C." What this means, given that Jet A burns at around 1000 C, is that the uneven loading caused by the 25% of external (and a significant number of beams in the central core, as well) load bearing beams which were destroyed in the initial impact caused these hinge points to start to deform. Given that there were many floors above both impact points, the thousands of tons of forced caused the attachment points to stretch like taffy when they achieved malleability. Once that process started, the total collapse of the building was inevitable.

Educate yourself in the science of the event and many of your objections (not all, I grant you) evaporate.

Oddly enough...I'm not the one doing most of the objecting here. I am not questioning the chemistry because I know nothing ABOUT chemistry. I have admitted that fact in prior posts. My questions and objections don't invlove the towers themselves for the most part. I saw a program on History Channel called ( I think ) Why The Towers Fell. The details and explanation provided on that program were reasonable enough. The fire weakened the support struts and put too much load on the main support beams. There are a few questions about the physics involved with the falling debris, but other than that, I am not all that concerned with the towers themselves. My main problems with the explanations revolve around the explanation of how/why Building 7 collapsed.

I hope I have clarified my position somewhat.

I think, perhaps, that you meant Enigma, or H.B. were questioning the chemistry involved.

---

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

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Knightmare, please check out Sleestak's chemistry and physics info. As he noted, sulpher was not needed to compromise the iron. Also, look into the design of the floors. It wasn't the entire load bearing structure that needed to be compromised to begin the collapse, only the relatively few attachment points where the floor slabs attached to the structure. These points were near the center of the area where the jet fuel was burning, where the hottest conditions were achieved.

Sleestak also mentioned that, "..casting iron itself becomes malleable at 800-950 C." What this means, given that Jet A burns at around 1000 C, is that the uneven loading caused by the 25% of external (and a significant number of beams in the central core, as well) load bearing beams which were destroyed in the initial impact caused these hinge points to start to deform. Given that there were many floors above both impact points, the thousands of tons of forced caused the attachment points to stretch like taffy when they achieved malleability. Once that process started, the total collapse of the building was inevitable.

Educate yourself in the science of the event and many of your objections (not all, I grant you) evaporate.

Now i'm convinced that 'the sulphur did it' (NOT)

The beams showed evidence of ironsulphides and ironoxides which reduces the melting point below that of the hottest kerosene fire. You take oxygen, iron, intense heat form the 23k gallons of kerosene and you have enough to reach the vertical support beams on several floors. Given that about 1/4 of the beams where outright knock out by the actual impact. You've alread reduced the load bearing beams to 75% of what is was. So, the beams if to withstand the new weight which was now over 33% more weight. If it where to continue holding, it would have had to have started out at less than 66% capacity. Now you add the heat allowed to heat one for about an hour and the other 1 1/2 hours with the heat conductance average of k=50 W/(mK) and heat capacity of about 500 J/(kgK), this would have been able to comprimise floors beyond those burning since the beams were only 2 inces thick. Yes only 2 inches thick. They were squares of 32x12 inches but only actually 2 inches thick and hollow. So oxidized by oxygen can reduce the melting point from 1535 C Fe MSDSdown to 1370 C FeO MSDS depending on which oxide form it is. For FeS the melting point can be reduced to 1194 C FeS MSDS. FeO might ignite over 200 C and hazardous reaction with sulphur dioxide and heatFeO and can MSDS...
And FeS is incompatible with metal oxides FeS MSDS.

Now if kerosene burns about about 1000 C and upto 1400C This is enough to melt the FeS into pockets of molten iron with explosive combinatins starting at only 200 C. Also, casting iron itself becomes malleable at 800-950 C

With these numbers. The load of the remaiing beams jumpt to 133% of the previous state and on the high end, the state of the iron was completely compromised and on the low end, the state of the iron was completely compromised by becoming malleable with potential explosive combinations or iron oxide with iron sulfides. Even on the low end, the sulpher is not needed to compromise the iron

It is really quite irrelivent as there is not adequate supporting evidence from the beams 'recovered' (oh i forgot, the evidence was rapidly extracted and re-cycled - what evidence) or any other source (like a simulated WTC beam in a sulphur fire) etc etc to support this hypothesis for 'total collapse of the building'.

Then you tell me where the sulphur came from. Where is your evidence for your doubt? I challenge your beliefs. Prove to me that sulphur had no role. It was only found in the oxidized metal and the only source that I know of is the fuel and the only way it could have got hot enough was from the jet fuel. What's your evidence that it is not?

Looking at WTC Eyewitness Documentary (1 hour 45 minutes).

1. The collapse of WTC 1,2 and 7 defied the laws of physics (they fell in a vacuum). Now what causes a vacuum around a building? (implosions).

It's impossible to tell what collapsed first since there are no eyewitness for the weak areas since they are dead. It could have initially collapsed in any number of unseen areas on the inside.

2. How could WTC7 be damaged by pyroclastic flow from the fall of 1 and 2 if it is behind building 8?? Not to mention the fact that other buildings IN DIRECT PATH OF THE FLOW were OKAY!

It looked like the top was burning when it fell, it most likely took damage from the initial impact and was more heavily spattered with debris and fuel from impact.

3. Explain how debris was falling up to 600 FEET away from the building (EXPLOSION MAYBE?). Even better, the Chrysler bulding got 'scewered' by huge pieces of metal debris at horizontal angles!!

Ever seen Backdraft? Yes, I absolutely expect explosions when you add 23k gallons of jet fuel to a scad of rooms in a building.

4. Explain the 9 (yes nine!) audible and visible (large amounts of dust) recorded (on video) BEFORE the collapse of the two towers. The audible evidence is backed up by many consistent eye witness accounts (from inside the buildings).

Internal explosions. Are you referring to the dust blowing out before visual confirmation of collapse? It could have been collapsing inside first which would actually suck the collapse somewhat inward. That is consistent.

5. The problems with inertia (the south tower did NOT fall straight down - ie. pancake theory is out).

see above

---

TEAM
LL

They expect us all to be sheep and take their " word " for everything they want to feed us as truth. Not all that amazing actually.

The Government still fails to realize that they no longer have the right to say " trust us, we'll tell you the truth " and expect us to do so.

I used to think that Aussie and NZ had lots of sheep. The U.S. is definately in the number #1 spot (human sheep that is).

They expected everyone to just "get on with their busy lives" and 'forget about it'. The tread-mill stopped for a few days..... the started up again. No time to actually think about whats really going on.

it worked.

The lame 'so called expert' explanations and suppression of evidence just proves what contempt the Gov has for the population. The powers that be, must think that the average person is a complete moron (and rightly so).

They just know that the " average " person is too apathetic to ask questions. Or even pay attention to questions being raised. So they can feed everyone the same load of crap, and the ones that ask questions will be branded " crackpots ".

convince the' mind of the mob' and the job is done.....


Consider this

If 9/11 occured in 1980, Limited Live Broadcast, No Digital Cameras, Very Few Home Video Cameras and most importantly NO INTERNET, the only information you would likely have is what's being rammed down everyones throat today 'the official explanation'. In fact there probably would have been even less information available to the public.

No doubt. Nobody would be able to examine the " evidence " ( oh wait, we still can't ) to find discrepancies ( sp ) in their explanations.

I am just waiting for someone to tell me that the flashes seen on the video that you provided the link to were nothing more than problems with the film used to capture the images. I would figure that someone would want to use the same explanation for those images as the explanation for " paranormal " images on stil frame photos. Wouldn't seem more illogical that what we have been fed so far.

---

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

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

They expect us all to be sheep and take their " word " for everything they want to feed us as truth. Not all that amazing actually.

The Government still fails to realize that they no longer have the right to say " trust us, we'll tell you the truth " and expect us to do so.

I used to think that Aussie and NZ had lots of sheep. The U.S. is definately in the number #1 spot (human sheep that is).

They expected everyone to just "get on with their busy lives" and 'forget about it'. The tread-mill stopped for a few days..... the started up again. No time to actually think about whats really going on.

it worked.

The lame 'so called expert' explanations and suppression of evidence just proves what contempt the Gov has for the population. The powers that be, must think that the average person is a complete moron (and rightly so).

They just know that the " average " person is too apathetic to ask questions. Or even pay attention to questions being raised. So they can feed everyone the same load of crap, and the ones that ask questions will be branded " crackpots ".

convince the' mind of the mob' and the job is done.....


Consider this

If 9/11 occured in 1980, Limited Live Broadcast, No Digital Cameras, Very Few Home Video Cameras and most importantly NO INTERNET, the only information you would likely have is what's being rammed down everyones throat today 'the official explanation'. In fact there probably would have been even less information available to the public.

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

They expect us all to be sheep and take their " word " for everything they want to feed us as truth. Not all that amazing actually.

The Government still fails to realize that they no longer have the right to say " trust us, we'll tell you the truth " and expect us to do so.

I used to think that Aussie and NZ had lots of sheep. The U.S. is definately in the number #1 spot (human sheep that is).

They expected everyone to just "get on with their busy lives" and 'forget about it'. The tread-mill stopped for a few days..... the started up again. No time to actually think about whats really going on.

it worked.

The lame 'so called expert' explanations and suppression of evidence just proves what contempt the Gov has for the population. The powers that be, must think that the average person is a complete moron (and rightly so).

They just know that the " average " person is too apathetic to ask questions. Or even pay attention to questions being raised. So they can feed everyone the same load of crap, and the ones that ask questions will be branded " crackpots ".

---

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

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

They expect us all to be sheep and take their " word " for everything they want to feed us as truth. Not all that amazing actually.

The Government still fails to realize that they no longer have the right to say " trust us, we'll tell you the truth " and expect us to do so.

I used to think that Aussie and NZ had lots of sheep. The U.S. is definately in the number #1 spot (human sheep that is).

They expected everyone to just "get on with their busy lives" and 'forget about it'. The tread-mill stopped for a few days..... the started up again. No time to actually think about whats really going on.

it worked.

The lame 'so called expert' explanations and suppression of evidence just proves what contempt the Gov has for the population. The powers that be, must think that the average person is a complete moron (and rightly so).

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

They expect us all to be sheep and take their " word " for everything they want to feed us as truth. Not all that amazing actually.

The Government still fails to realize that they no longer have the right to say " trust us, we'll tell you the truth " and expect us to do so.

---

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

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

With Jet A at about 6.84 lbs/gal that works out to 129.4 lbs sulphur per 8 hour flight. But Jet A-1 comes in at .02% or about 27 pounds per 8 hour flight.

Now i'm convinced that 'the sulphur did it' (NOT)

It is really quite irrelivent as there is not adequate supporting evidence from the beams 'recovered' (oh i forgot, the evidence was rapidly extracted and re-cycled - what evidence) or any other source (like a simulated WTC beam in a sulphur fire) etc etc to support this hypothesis for 'total collapse of the building'.

Looking at WTC Eyewitness Documentary (1 hour 45 minutes).

1. The collapse of WTC 1,2 and 7 defied the laws of physics (they fell in a vacuum). Now what causes a vacuum around a building? (implosions).

2. How could WTC7 be damaged by pyroclastic flow from the fall of 1 and 2 if it is behind building 8?? Not to mention the fact that other buildings IN DIRECT PATH OF THE FLOW were OKAY!

3. Explain how debris was falling up to 600 FEET away from the building (EXPLOSION MAYBE?). Even better, the Chrysler bulding got 'scewered' by huge pieces of metal debris at horizontal angles!!

4. Explain the 9 (yes nine!) audible and visible (large amounts of dust) recorded (on video) BEFORE the collapse of the two towers. The audible evidence is backed up by many consistent eye witness accounts (from inside the buildings).

5. The problems with inertia (the south tower did NOT fall straight down - ie. pancake theory is out).

NOTE: If you have not looked at the above documentry, please do not respond to this post.

---

Belief gets in the way of learning

You still completely missed the point. Let me recap... The original idea was that the iron was oxidizing. Aside from the 16% oxygen in the atmosphere and extreme heat. It was found that the iron also oxidized with Sulphur. Now to rebut, you have to prove 1. That the atomosphere contains no oxygen and 2. the jet fuel on that plane contained absolutely no sulphur natural or added.

1. impossible to prove.
2....

WHAT IS THE aerospace industry going to do about cutting the amount of sulphur that is currently used in jet fuel, or Jet A-1 as it is known?
Sulphur challenge: unless airlines, the aerospace industry and oil companies act now to reduce the sulphur in jet fuel, legislation could be imposed--with painful consequences George Coupe explains

From BP petro

Jet A
Specifications
USA ASTMD1655(Jet A)
Total Sulphur, %mass 0.07
Handbook of Products (BP)

This is actually more than I anticipated. And for example, considering a 747-400 burns 3378 gallons per hour and if the flight was to be 8 hours, that would be 27024 gallons of fuel... That's a lot of sulphur.

With Jet A at about 6.84 lbs/gal that works out to 129.4 lbs sulphur per 8 hour flight. But Jet A-1 comes in at .02% or about 27 pounds per 8 hour flight.

You still completely missed the point. Let me recap... The original idea was that the iron was oxidizing. Aside from the 16% oxygen in the atmosphere and extreme heat. It was found that the iron also oxidized with Sulphur. Now to rebut, you have to prove 1. That the atomosphere contains no oxygen and 2. the jet fuel on that plane contained absolutely no sulphur natural or added.

1. impossible to prove.
2....

WHAT IS THE aerospace industry going to do about cutting the amount of sulphur that is currently used in jet fuel, or Jet A-1 as it is known?
Sulphur challenge: unless airlines, the aerospace industry and oil companies act now to reduce the sulphur in jet fuel, legislation could be imposed--with painful consequences George Coupe explains

From BP petro

Jet A
Specifications
USA ASTMD1655(Jet A)
Total Sulphur, %mass 0.07
Handbook of Products (BP)

This is actually more than I anticipated. And for example, considering a 747-400 burns 3378 gallons per hour and if the flight was to be 8 hours, that would be 27024 gallons of fuel... That's a lot of sulphur.

---

TEAM
LL

* grabs the popcorn and watches the chemistry brawl resume *

Enjoy folks.lol

BTW... There's no silicone contamination here. It's an ALL NATURAL product of Mother Nature.

But if you feel you need it, all I can say is... "You GO girl!

* grabs the popcorn and watches the chemistry brawl resume *

Enjoy folks.lol

---

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

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

I'll say more after I can actually load the Chevron pages. It's been 5 minutes and it still won't load. Well, it seems that most of the information is for avgas for reciprocating piston engine aircraft.

The first 6 chapters are about Aviation Turbine Fuel also known as Jet Fuel.

I'll say more after I can actually load the Chevron pages. It's been 5 minutes and it still won't load. Well, it seems that most of the information is for avgas for reciprocating piston engine aircraft.

From aircraft medicine link:

Aircraft atmosphere contamination can include—

Exhaust gases.

Tetraethyl lead.

The effects of carbon monoxide on the human body vary. The leading symptoms of carbon monoxide intoxication are—

Headache.

Mental confusion and disorientation.

You're still posting about the wrong fuel.

No. This is the key paragraph to be read in that report:

Jet Propulsion Fuels
JP-4, JP-5, and JP-8 are mixtures of hydrocarbons, producing different grades of kerosene. Each JP fuel has a specific vapour pressure and flash point. JP fuels do not contain tetraethyl lead. The recommended threshold limit for JP fuel vapours has been set at 500 parts per million. Toxic symptoms can occur below explosive levels; therefore, a JP fuel intoxication can exist even in the absence of a fire hazard. In addition to being an irritant hazard to skin and mucous membranes, excessive inhalation of JP fuels degrades central nervous system functioning. JP fuels, in high enough concentrations, can produce narcotic effects.

Why do you read in only what you want to? As for the designation JP it is military jargon and stands for Jet Propulsion. Jet-A and JP-8 are the same fuel only the Military JP-8 allows several additives that Commercial Jet-A does NOT.