WTC fireproofing

Left Behind, if you consider the situation, a fuel enriched commercial airliner hit the World Trade Center, and at the moment creating a huge explosion, an enriched flame, fueled by the jet fuel (hydrocarbons). What is trying to be discussed is that as the fuel was winding down (a.k.a. the flame not being as enriched), the smoke started to TURN BLACK because of the lack of enriched fuel.

What else do you need to understand with this?

Well I would be interested in what exactly you mean by a dying fire.

Since the fire was dying how long are you saying it was going to take for the fire to go out on it's own.

That is what you people are suggesting right?

When I hear dying I assume you are saying that maybe in the next couple of hours the fires were going to just stop burning.

And you happen to know this because there is black smoke.


Riiiiiiiight.


I watch the videos and those fires are still going. If left unchecked I'm sure it would have burned for a long time afterward, kind of like those high rise fires some erroniously compare to the towers.

So please someone pin down exactly what you mean by "dying". Is it twenty more minutes? A few more hours? Days?

Without something to quantify it, it remains another deceptive way of describing things to fit in with the demo theory.

Originally posted by Masisoar
Left Behind, if you consider the situation, a fuel enriched commercial airliner hit the World Trade Center, and at the moment creating a huge explosion, an enriched flame, fueled by the jet fuel (hydrocarbons). What is trying to be discussed is that as the fuel was winding down (a.k.a. the flame not being as enriched), the smoke started to TURN BLACK because of the lack of enriched fuel.

What else do you need to understand with this?

The FUEL I'm referring to is the jet fuel. Stop being ignorant.

Edit: Actually let me explain this for you a bit further... The temperature of the fire was great because it was an enriched flame (with the hydrocarbon jetliner fuel), now with the jet fuel winding down because it's being consumed, the TEMPERATURE of the fire would therefore begin to DECREASE because of lack of enrichment.. therefore cooling. Not necessarily the FIRE going out.

Comprende?

[edit on 6/5/2006 by Masisoar]

Yeah how long the fires burned is irelevant, it's the temperatures that count.

You could put a piece of steel in a 300 degree fire all day and it won't get hot enough to soften it.

The point is the fires were burning cool, not that they were going out.

Masisoar, that's great, but I'm talking about people who say that the black smoke is proof that it was a dying fire.

If your not saying the fire was dying, then I agree with you.

And please keep the ignorant comments to yourself if your just going to quote your previous post and go off on a tangent.

Thanks.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by LeftBehind]

I am in essence supporting the dying fire, not to say it was going to go out within the hour but none the less, with its lack of strength it was bound to die out relatively soon, within the next couple of days to give an educated guess, which should of left the building intact.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well I would be interested in what exactly you mean by a dying fire.

Oh, ok. So now, rather than finally conceding that point, you retreat to harrass us from another angle.

Will you at least be clear that you finally get the bit about the black smoke indicating that the fires were becoming more inefficient? At least?

Since the fire was dying how long are you saying it was going to take for the fire to go out on it's own.

That is what you people are suggesting right?

Actually, no, that's not what I've been suggesting at all. And this is actually the first point I brought up when I joined ATS:

Inefficient fires have lower temperatures, and in this case would've most certainly put out less heat, so what we're facing is the WTC somehow collapsing due to fire, as the fires were cooling.

How much sense does that make to you?

If the towers collapsed from fire, they would've collapsed when the fires were at their hottest and putting the most heat into the steel. Instead, they started going sooty immediately after the jet fuel burned out, and just got darker and darker.

That's the point I've always been getting at with this. I'm sure you'll refuse it, no question, because you're having a hard enough time accepting that the black smoke indicates a dying fire in this case (AGAIN -- no more fuel added to make the smoke indicative of fuel rich!).

Man has this dead horse been beat enough.


BSB

Originally posted by bsbray11
Inefficient fires have lower temperatures, and in this case would've most certainly put out less heat, so what we're facing is the WTC somehow collapsing due to fire, as the fires were cooling.



That's the point I've always been getting at with this. I'm sure you'll refuse it, no question, because you're having a hard enough time accepting that the black smoke indicates a dying fire in this case (AGAIN -- no more fuel added to make the smoke indicative of fuel rich!).

The jet fuel is not the only fuel to the fire. If skyscrapers lack things to burn, then why do they burn for so long in all the other cases?

Saying that the fires were less efficient is one thing. A less efficient fire will still continue to spread through the building.

Which one is it, a less efficient fire, or a dying fire?

You can't seem to make up your mind.

I agree that black smoke indicates a less efficient fire, but that has nothing to do with when the fire will go out.

Since you keep avoiding the question and using the term, I ask again. When you say dying fire do you mean it will literally go out by itself in a few hours? Or is it a rhetorical tool that exagerates the signifigance of black smoke?


Edit: Sorry I missed this.

Originally posted by Maosasor
it was bound to die out relatively soon, within the next couple of days

That's what you mean by a dying fire? It still would've burned for a couple of days?

You don't see that as disingenuous in the slightest?

You might as well refer to all building fires as "dying", if that's what you mean by it.




[edit on 5-6-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind

The jet fuel is not the only fuel to the fire. If skyscrapers lack things to burn, then why do they burn for so long in all the other cases?

Saying that the fires were less efficient is one thing. A less efficient fire will still continue to spread through the building.

Which one is it, a less efficient fire, or a dying fire?

You can't seem to make up your mind.

Sure, it could of spread through out the building... but oh wait, the building fell before it could.

But I'm trying to understand something, you use less efficient.. as in, not burning as strong, correct? As strong as the fire originally fueled by jet fuel correct? When thinking in the terms of "cooling" and "dying fire" this is in comparison with the intensity of the fire initially.

So the fire is not as strong after the jet fuel was used up, which therefore.. is cooling. And the fire was dieing, just not very quickly (of course). There were still items in the building that were flammable of course.

Are you like.. not getting the point of what is trying to be said here. Relatively soon as in a couple of days.. why are you attacking this area of the argument anyways.



The reason the dying fire is being exhibited on is because the latter flame didn't have characteristics of the initial flame. Pour gas onto a fire (BOOOM) and then after that, it starts to die down, depending on the amount of remaining fuel you have (wood) and other irrelevant intrinsic factors.

It would have only taken about 20 minutes of a standard fire to weaken the floor trusses once the fireproofing was damaged or dislodged.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It would have only taken about 20 minutes of a standard fire to weaken the floor trusses once the fireproofing was damaged or dislodged.

I've read all these posts of each side waving their arms and yelling about temperatures and "softening the steel trusses" and such. I have to agree with Howard here. I am amazed that nobody is talking at all about the amount of expansion the floor trusses must have undergone. You know it had to far outreach any capacity built into the expansion joint clips that attached the trusses to the upright columns. All it takes is a few trusses sagging because of this extension of length, they do not have to be softened, and the integrity of the floor support is completely compromised. Typical of localized fires heating the floor trusses in their individual areas, several trusses next to each other would start to sag. Enough sagging and the other, non-heated trusses can no longer support the load. It's got nothing at all to do with softening the steel. It also would not occur if the fireproofing did it's job.

No need for any of the columns to have been compromised by fire. The floor trusses supported the horizontal stresses of the columns. They did not support the columns vertical loads, but they served like "stabilizers," ensuring the columns remained vertical. The floor collapses, the columns stabilized by that floor are weaker. The collapsing floor overloads the floor below it, that floor collapses, that floor's columns are weakened. A couple of floors, and you have failure of the columns without even heating them, and this doesn't even count the collection of columns that were actually removed by the aircraft.

Harte

So you're saying enough trusses were taken out around the surrounding floors of the impact zone to cause the floors to do their "pancake theory" (edit: Furthermore the buildings fell down way too fast and just gave out at the same time, which wouldn't support a pancake theory. Do you see the reasoning? ) and cause enough of a load onto one another to cause a chain reaction in which the building ultimately fell, do I have that right.



By the way Howard --> Up to what temperature can trusses in the World Trade Center endure til they're A) Sufficiently weakened and B) Melted?

I just do not understand so much giving out at one time to cause the building to just begin to collapse upon itself.. well I meant implode upon itself to cause it fall in its foot steps. And as I said before, consider both buildings were affected differently by the oxygen starved fires. There were no equal uniform amounts of heat applied evenly to the supports and trusses.


[edit on 6/5/2006 by Masisoar]

[edit on 6/5/2006 by Masisoar]

Originally posted by Harte
I've read all these posts of each side waving their arms and yelling about temperatures and "softening the steel trusses" and such. I have to agree with Howard here. I am amazed that nobody is talking at all about the amount of expansion the floor trusses must have undergone. You know it had to far outreach any capacity built into the expansion joint clips that attached the trusses to the upright columns. All it takes is a few trusses sagging because of this extension of length, they do not have to be softened, and the integrity of the floor support is completely compromised. Typical of localized fires heating the floor trusses in their individual areas, several trusses next to each other would start to sag. Enough sagging and the other, non-heated trusses can no longer support the load. It's got nothing at all to do with softening the steel. It also would not occur if the fireproofing did it's job.

So, what you are stating is that every building that has a fire goes through this expansion of the trusses and subsequent failure of the columns? Every building, whether having just inner core columns and outer columns or the typical column lines, has to adhear to Euler's formula. Meaning that if you lose a floor or two on any building that the stability is lost. This doesn't seam to happen in most structures for some reason?

No need for any of the columns to have been compromised by fire. The floor trusses supported the horizontal stresses of the columns. They did not support the columns vertical loads, but they served like "stabilizers," ensuring the columns remained vertical. The floor collapses, the columns stabilized by that floor are weaker. The collapsing floor overloads the floor below it, that floor collapses, that floor's columns are weakened. A couple of floors, and you have failure of the columns without even heating them, and this doesn't even count the collection of columns that were actually removed by the aircraft.

Harte

I agree with you on the last statements here. After the floors collapsed, going by Euler's formula, the columns would start to lose their lateral bracing and subsequently fail due to buckling. But, you have to remember that even by NIST the inner columns had their own lateral support not related to the floors. So, we have to come to the conclusion that the inner cores could have stood on their own....until blown over by a gust of wind (which is not what we saw...they fell into themselves after standing for a moment). If they had fallen due to wind, they would have fell over like a tree not into themselves. All just my opinion...take it with a grain of salt if you wish.

Originally posted by Griff

I agree with you on the last statements here. After the floors collapsed, going by Euler's formula, the columns would start to lose their lateral bracing and subsequently fail due to buckling. But, you have to remember that even by NIST the inner columns had their own lateral support not related to the floors. So, we have to come to the conclusion that the inner cores could have stood on their own....until blown over by a gust of wind (which is not what we saw...they fell into themselves after standing for a moment). If they had fallen due to wind, they would have fell over like a tree not into themselves. All just my opinion...take it with a grain of salt if you wish.

That's an interesting part, the pancake theory wouldn't of brought down the inner core directly.

I don't believe the pancake would have. Although, there are a lot of variables to consider. Like could the inner columns have been sheered off by some other falling debris and things of that nature. But, IMO the inner core should have been able to stand for longer than they both did. I'm not saying the whole length of the inner core but maybe half of it (like we see in pictures). But it is very interesting that they didn't fall over but fell into themselves. Remember that the inner columns were welded together the length of the building (I believe). This would make them act as 47 individual columns (trees) which IMO would have toppled instead of falling into themselves. If I'm missing something in my assumptions, please show me my fallacies (this is for anyone).

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The jet fuel is not the only fuel to the fire.

I didn't say it was, man!

Why do you have such a hard time with this?

All of the fuel that was in there and available to the fire, was available since the moments of the impacts! So you can't even pretend to argue that the fires suddenly became fuel-rich right when the jet fuel happened to burn out, as even NIST will tell you. That makes no sense, and you know it. The fires got darker when the jet fuel ran out because of a lack of fuel, leading to the bad fuel to air ratio, not excessive fuel. I guess I have to repeat this common freaking sense until you give up trying to assert nonsense.

Which one is it, a less efficient fire, or a dying fire?

Both, but my point is that the fires WERE COOLING. I'm not arguing anything else right now.

I agree that black smoke indicates a less efficient fire, but that has nothing to do with when the fire will go out.

Well golly gee! I wasn't even arguing that the fires were about to go out. I was arguing that they were cooling because of the shift towards a bad fuel to air ratio.

I'm not trying to evade your oh-so-tight grip on logic here. You're just asking totally irrelevant questions.

Here it is, simplified, once again:

· WTC Towers are impacted, and fire begins with access to both jet fuel and office materials.

· Smoke from fires is initially gray, turns darker.

· THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL FUEL ADDED BEFORE THE SMOKE WENT DARK.

And once again, black smoke means an inefficient burn. That means not as much heat put out, from a bad fuel to air ratio. NO FUEL WAS ADDED, therefore we can assume that the black smoke wasn't from excess fuel. It would've been the opposite.

For christ sake LB, just admit that you understand this very simple logic. At the WTC on 9/11, the darkening smoke meant cooling fires. Just think about it for two seconds before knee-jerking out a post on why we can never possibly be right about anything.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It would have only taken about 20 minutes of a standard fire to weaken the floor trusses once the fireproofing was damaged or dislodged.

If by standard you mean a fire in a closed space, with no ventilation and near perfect fuel to air ratio, and heating smaller trusses to inhibit the heat transfer, then sure.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It would have only taken about 20 minutes of a standard fire to weaken the floor trusses once the fireproofing was damaged or dislodged.

Bullcrap howard, if that is the case then the towers would have fell in 93.
The fires from the 93 bombing 100 foot (30 m) hole through 4 sublevels of concrete, and created larger and hotter fires than on 9-11, yet the building stood and was repaired.




And again with the fireproofing crap? How much could have been realistically 'knocked off' when one plane didn't even barely touch the center core of the tower? Just a rhetorical question howie, I already know what your answer will be
But for those that don't he'll try to convince you with a series of lies how a plane impacting 3 floors could knock fireproofing off of columns 110 stories high.
Or how fires on floor 95 and up could cause columns to heat up all the way down to the basement enough to cause them to fail simultaneously. Don't believe the lies, check out the physics yourself.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Both, but my point is that the fires WERE COOLING. I'm not arguing anything else right now.

Originally posted by bsbray11
the black smoke indicates a dying fire in this case

So right now your arguing that the fires were cooling.

But earlier you were arguing that the fires were dying.

Well golly gee! I wasn't even arguing that the fires were about to go out. I was arguing that they were cooling because of the shift towards a bad fuel to air ratio.

Perhaps you missed this part where you said.

the black smoke indicates a dying fire

The dark smoke does not indicate a dying fire, that's all I've been trying to say. You are making way too many assumptions from the smoke, and trying to fit it into your demo theory.

Then you can't even remember what you said a few posts ago.

The dark smoke can mean more than one thing. But it certainly doesn't mean the fire is dying. Unless of course you follow Maosoar's definition of dying which means it still lasts a couple of days.

According to that definition this is a dying fire.



Look at how dark that smoke is, man that fire sure is dying.

Edit: and come to think of it, fuel was being constantly added to the fire. As it spread it found more fuel. Every time it spread to a new office, there was a whole mess of wood furniture, paper and plastic.

Perhaps all the black smoke means is that's when the jet fuel was spent, and now it was just a run of the mill raging office fire.

I'm certainly not going to just take your word for it.

There are multiple possiblities, but none of them point to a fire that was about to go out on it's own.

At least you can admit that.



[edit on 5-6-2006 by LeftBehind]