Why is WTC 7 as hot as WTC 1 & 2???

Take a look at this thermal image taken on 09-16-01;



The reason given for the hot spots under WTC 1 & 2 are jet fuel fires & the friction of the buildings themselves collapsing. Now if this is true then why are there hot spots under WTC 7 at a similar temperature?

WTC 7 did not have any jet fuel fires melting aluminum, etc., and the building was only half as tall as the towers so it should have caused much less heat due to friction when it collapsed.

Therefore why are the hot spots all the same temperature if the circumstances & metrics of the three buildings collapsing are different?

Thoughts?

2PacSade-

well, first you'll need an energy input, located under the building masses, that generates 1300+ degree hotspots under the rubble piles for weeks on end.

This energy source is obviously massive. Just what it is, I don't know, but it sure ain't friction or jet fuel.

Yeah, I'll flag this, it's a good point which should require official explanation, but at this stage it's just another nail in a coffin which already has more than enough nails afaic.

This is a very good point. Why Indeed?

To me WTC7 is the biggest smoking gun of the whole 9/11 issue.

The more I look into WTC7 the more I know this was indeed a false flag op.

Therefore why are the hot spots all the same temperature if the circumstances & metrics of the three buildings collapsing are different?

Because all three buildings were on fire when they collapsed - the furnishings in
the building, much of it being plain old paper was buried under the rubble
where it continued to smolder. The fires in the Twin Towers rubble burned
for over 3 months. The jet fuel from the aircraft impacts was consumed fairly
quickly - what burned was all the office furnishings. It was very dangerous
for rescue personnel as fires would often flare up suddenly when piece of
rubble was moved.

I'm not sure how they can claim friction caused the heat when it's a fact that no friction was present in the collapse?

Friction is the resistive force acting between bodies that tends to oppose and damp out motion. Friction is usually distinguished as being either static friction (the frictional force opposing placing a body at rest into motion) and kinetic friction (the frictional force tending to slow a body in motion). In general, static friction is greater than kinetic friction.

The force due to kinetic friction is generally proportional to the applied force, so "a coefficient of kinetic fiction" is defined as the ratio of frictional force to the normal force on the body.

Source

There was NO resistance in the collapse of all 3 buildings...The fact that the collapses, all 3, showed NO sign of slowing down during the collapse, the actual speed is irrelevant. Simple laws of physics.

The fundamental difference between smouldering and flaming combustion is that smouldering occurs on the surface of the solid rather than in the gas phase. The characteristic temperature and heat released during smouldering are low compared to those in the flaming combustion (i.e., ~600°C vs. ~1500°C).

Source

So even if there was smoldering debris how did it get hot enough to melt steel?

video.google.com...





[edit on 23/12/2007 by ANOK]

reply to post by thedman


well apparently steel melts a lot cooler than we thought, and they made those buildings very weak.... don't set your work desk on fire or your whole office will collapse....we all saw it.


yeah right...

great point...sorry for the sarcasm....couldnt resist

reply to post by thedman


well apparently steel melts a lot cooler than we thought, and they made those buildings very weak.... don't set your work desk on fire or your whole office will collapse....we all saw it.


yeah right...

great point...sorry for the sarcasm....couldnt resist

reply to post by 2PacSade


I'm with you OP, but before I comment can you please tell me where the picture is from, and who took it? I think it's a government image that was used as evidence during the investigation, and held at the Library of Congress.

Obviously the same type of explosives were used on all three of the buildings.

Very good find OP... starred and flagged!

[edit on 23-12-2007 by yankeerose]

Hi all,

This is a very interesting topic that needs explaination....

I recently recieved a DVD called 9/11 DVD. Im not sure if this is the real name of the DVD , but it actually has 3 different "movies" on it.

They are 9/11 Mysteries - Press for Truth - Great Conspiracy.

Anyway all the questions that ATS readers have, some of these will be answered. Its a very interesting DVD. ATS readers can watch all of these free of charge from the following links:

9/11 Mysteries :video.google.com...
9/11 Press for Truth :video.google.com...
The Great Conspiracy : video.google.com...

I'm not sure how they can claim friction caused the heat when it's a fact that no friction was present in the collapse?

Who said anything about friction - the buildings were all on fire when
collapsed. Or did you you miss that?

Originally posted by thedman
Who said anything about friction - the buildings were all on fire when
collapsed. Or did you you miss that?

No but you must have missed this, from the OP...

The reason given for the hot spots under WTC 1 & 2 are jet fuel fires & the friction of the buildings themselves collapsing.

Oh it's all so simple and black and white isn't it? No need to consider all the fuel that was feeding the fire was exploding outwards and turning to dust as the building collapses. All you're doing is blowing off the hard questions with excuses that don't take everything into consideration.

So again I ask how does fire survive the collapse and how does smoldering, what I don't know cause all the fuel was turned to dust and spread over Manhattan, get hot enough to melt steel? I have already proved it's impossible for any smoldering fire to melt steel, so how do you account for it?

[edit on 23/12/2007 by ANOK]

What was burning were the building contents - all the office furnishings and
equipment along with tons and tons or paper stored in the offices. When the
buildings collapsed all this fell into the basement where it continued to
burn. The debris covering it insulated the burning materials and voids
allowed sufficient air to support combustion. I know several cops/ff who
worked the recovery and described the scene as being akin to hell on earth

Originally posted by thedman
...I know several cops/ff who worked the recovery and described the scene as being akin to hell on earth

The fact that it was 'hell on earth' is not in question. What is in question is how does office furniture that's been pulverized into dust smoulder/burn, and get hot enough to melt steel?

www.youtube.com...

How can office furniture burn for weeks? If the temperatures were high enough to melt metal the fuel wouldn’t last very long.

Do you have any pics of the buildings contents that were not turned to dust?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by thedman
What was burning were the building contents - all the office furnishings and
equipment along with tons and tons or paper stored in the offices. When the
buildings collapsed all this fell into the basement where it continued to
burn. The debris covering it insulated the burning materials and voids
allowed sufficient air to support combustion. I know several cops/ff who
worked the recovery and described the scene as being akin to hell on earth

" Fell into the basement?" Are you kidding? There was a rubble pile, since you obviously have not looked at any pictures of ground zero, several stories high, comprised of the remains of 110 floors, or what was left after the majority of it turned to dust on the way down...but NO WAY did any upper floors or office fires find a way to get into the basement levels..impossible. They were BELOW ground level, and the pile was on TOP of the ground level..get it now?

The fires were put out as the Towers exploded..We all can watch the films and see the Towers being shredded and blown outwards, and upwards, turing into fine dust, fine as flour. That much dust would squelch any fire due to air being cut off, and even if some smaller fires remained after the ' collapses ', they would be at the upper levels, not down below.

There is nothing at all in the lower levels that could have produced the heat needed to melt steel. Gravity is not even a part of it: The friction could produce no heat but minor amounts..not enough to do anything. The FACT is that under all three buildings there were huge energy sources that melted steel, and they CANNOT be attributed to either fire or gravity. They are from the purposeful destruction of the buildings by use of advanced explosives and other means, such as DEW.

People WANT to believe the government, are desperate to do so as they cannot imagine things being as awful as they are: this is a comfort and safety thing psychologically, and means that many people will believe ANY loco story the perps put out so their world is not turned upside down.

reply to post by eyewitness86


It would only take a small source of ignition to get things going. What that was, is indeed questionable.

But "dust" can't choke out a fire. Dust, when suspended, is suspended in AIR..... the very thing needed for combustion, right? If you disagree, then try to explain away wheat mill fires that start when the wheat dust explodes. Kinda throws a monkey into that wrench, yes?

Now, it IS agreed that one can plop a load of combustible "dust" (ground up paper, plastics, carpeting, etc) onto a fire and it will smother it out. But if you take that pile sitting on the ground, and put an ignition source to it, on the OUTSIDE of the pile, it will alight. Agreed?

And a typical office fire, with plastics as a part of the combustibles, burn at a typical temp of around 1000C. Which is enough to turn steel red and glowing, like is found in the photo of the excavator pulling a beam out of the rubble pile. However, red steel DOES NOT mean that there was molten, flowing steel, like is asserted by many. It could have been virtually any of the various metals found in the 3 sites.

Originally posted by MikeVet
And a typical office fire, with plastics as a part of the combustibles, burn at a typical temp of around 1000C.

Actually that's not quit the full story...

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Source

reply to post by ANOK



Thanks for the info about jet fuel fires. But I stated office fires. Materials found in offices would also be available as fuel for any fires started under the rubble.

read this:

The standard fires do not always represent the most severe fire conditions. Structural members having been designed to standard fires may fail to survive in real fires. For example, the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire.


www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

a graph to go along with that statement:

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

And to counter the lack of air argument:

Traditionally the fire resistance of structural members has been determined in Standard Fire Tests. The time-temperature environment in the Standard Fire Test represents a more severe heating condition compared to that in many typical natural fire compartments. In a well-ventilated compartment the duration and/or the severity of the time-temperature environment is generally less than in a Standard Fire Test. The effect of ventilation and fire load on fire severity is illustrated in Figure 2. Fire tests were conducted in compartments where the fire load and the natural ventilation were varied. The well ventilated compartments experienced lower temperatures and fires of shorter duration. In Figure 2 the numbers identified with each curve indicate the fire load density in kg/m2 (ie 60, 30 or 15) and the ventilation area as a proportion of the façade area (ie ½ or ¼).

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

With a graph to explain that statement:

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

The fact that it was 'hell on earth' is not in question. What is in question is how does office furniture that's been pulverized into dust smoulder/burn, and get hot enough to melt steel?

The dust you keep babbling about was from the sheet rock and ceiling tiles
that was pulverized by the collapse -ever cut or drill a piece of sheet rock?
Produces a lot of lot from just that action. Look at pictures of the scene
and will see nothing but paper all around. That combined with office furniture
most of which is synthetic (plastic) burned under the rubble for months.

Originally posted by thedman

The dust you keep babbling about was from the sheet rock and ceiling tiles
that was pulverized by the collapse -ever cut or drill a piece of sheet rock?
Produces a lot of lot from just that action. Look at pictures of the scene
and will see nothing but paper all around. That combined with office furniture
most of which is synthetic (plastic) burned under the rubble for months.

Ok, let's see if I've got what you're saying right: the dust is essentially pulverized sheetrock (which is going to snuff out fires, not feed them), and the thermal hotspots--which melted steel and could be recorded by satellite and which lasted for months--were caused by burning office contents (carpets, furniture, etc--none of which was every found in the wreckage, so it all must have fallen into the sub-basements, where it all burned furiously hot to the point of total consumption) but these fires, fed by sheetrock and building contents, did not set all that paper inside the buildings on fire.

Sorry if I also appear to be babbling, just trying to follow you.