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.
Yes, the fires were burning for several weeks after the collapse. The collapse of the building liberated tons of potential energy and heat. There was also, literally tons of fuel, paper, jet fuel, etc. still trapped in the wreckage. Like an underground coal fire, this smoldered happily for weeks, in a nice insulated environment.
Thank you, my point exactly. The quantity of burning material on the floors was high. You have office materials, airplane materials, residual fuel and a number of floors and walls that were broken, allowing the fire to spread and grow.
From a number of sources. here are two
wtc.nist.gov...
www.pentoncmg.com...
both of these reports estimate the quantity of fuel on board the aircraft at impact from 31,000 to 38,000 liters (about 8,000 to 10,000 gallons.
the estimate of the fuel consumed in the fireball is around 3,000 gallons, or less then half of the total fuel consumed.
I do not agree with both of the reports on one issue. Both of these reports estimate the consumption rate of the remaining fuel on the floors based on fire pool data. While this may work in estimating how quickly a tanker spill will burn up, I do not agree with the underling assumption that the remaining fuel spread out in an even pool across the floor. Neither of these reports takes into account that significant areas of the floor slabs in the impact zone were destroyed, uplifted or otherwise distorted, this would have allowed deeper pools to form then estimated.
sure it does. you asked me earlier about the difference between a single candle and 1,000. Well what is the difference between a fire in a single wastebasket that spreads slowly across an office floor to one that engulfs the entire floor simultaneously? Even if the majority of the jet fuel did burn up in the first few minutes, it succeeded in igniting several floors at once.
Which do you think would be worse a knife stab in the stomach, or a slicing cut across the abdomen?
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Paper? Boy you would make up any excuse.
Office materials, and walls. Why don't you throw in some thermite explosives to justify how it could have melted the steel, and vaporized the concrete, humansl. Which reminds me, you have not explained how the terrorists passport survived.
Does that even matter, we have already established that the impact is not a factor. However, what you evaded here, is that the fuel dispersed and was consumed in a fireball outside of the building.
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).
In actual building fires, steel beams and columns probably never exceed 500 C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Chorus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360 C.
Originally posted by df1
Of course you do... I have never seen a political post of yours that wasn't intended to create a pissing contest....
If you had anything to back-up your claim, you would be $100,000 richer. C'mon guy, it should be really easy to back-up the government position. The fact is that you cannot do so.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The prize is in the form of negotiable bonds held in a special investment account.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
.........................
On 2001, September 11th. The proof of God was given. He is Allah, and he is on the Muslims side. It was he that struck WTC with a divine thunderbolt and protected one of their passports with a divine shield so they could become famous for an act of God. I will let Howard submit this for the $100,000, he deserves it, for it were not for his persistance, I would not have found God. I am coverting to Islam tomorrow.
Case Closed.
[edit on 18-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]
Originally posted by blueymorgan wait till you see Bush's new legislation on the testing for mental stability of ALL U.S. citizens, including school age children shelved for FEB 16.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Well if gravity was removed from the equation, then how come the towers fell down?
Originally posted by blueymorgan
Don't you realise that gravity also holds things UP as well as bring things down.....
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Originally posted by blueymorgan
Don't you realise that gravity also holds things UP as well as bring things down.....
Thanks for the new sig line.
That has to be one of the funniest (i.e. dumbest) posts that I have read in a while.
But I will give you the benifit of the doubt. Please provide proof of what you claim.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Paper? Boy you would make up any excuse.
Paper, plastic, etc. Due to computers workstations, cubilcle designes, etc. The fire load of modern offices is actually higher now then it was when the WTC towers were designed.
Office materials, and walls. Why don't you throw in some thermite explosives to justify how it could have melted the steel, and vaporized the concrete, humansl. Which reminds me, you have not explained how the terrorists passport survived.
The collapse of the building involved enormous amounts of kinetic energy. This is what pulverized the concrete. (The pulverization of the concrete also liberated heat in its own right).
Does that even matter, we have already established that the impact is not a factor. However, what you evaded here, is that the fuel dispersed and was consumed in a fireball outside of the building.
OK, hot shot. Prove it. show me some calculations that prove all of the fuel burned up in the fireball.
I am particulary interested in how you acount for the fuel in the left wing of the second plane, and all of the anrcdotal evidence of fuel odors in the building.