9-11 HELP FOR PHIL - THE FUEL FIRES
Obwon
Just in case you're having too much trouble or lack
the time to find something about the temperatures
of burning jet fuel, I'm posting this bit of help.
Obwon
=======================================
THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into
collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet
fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire
quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World
Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no
hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by
conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of
time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate
the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.
"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel
and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had
approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from
Government sources)."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two
(Chapter Two).
Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they
would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft
have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just
enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember,
that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying
passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between
Boston and New York.
"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed
in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact
floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on
the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on
the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two
(Chapter Two).
What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet
fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that
the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot
gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by
conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in
reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor
could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise
of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably
lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable
us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.
Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500
gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.
Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum
distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp
oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.
It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and
aviation fuel.
It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The
hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.
It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).
And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).
Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three
chemical reactions:
(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O
(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O
(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O
Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being
burnt, as for example, in jet engines.
Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When
reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame.
This makes the smoke very dark.
In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with
the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly
mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of
air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was
turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will
assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool
fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3).
Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to
reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building
was quite limited.
Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the
fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that
is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even
though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will
give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual
temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.
We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt
via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the
amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the
higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum
temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being
outrageously generous in our assumptions).
For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also
assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of
the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result
and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a
slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:
(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O
However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is
proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.
Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a
moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the
other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.
So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1
: 3.76. In molar terms:
Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.
Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the
equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride"
and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need
to use the equation:
(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2
From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the
products is:
CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs
In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic
weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16
respectively.
Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is
an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the
bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper
floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we
estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and
the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ? 500,000 kgs. We will
assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower
estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the
quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher
estimate of the maximum temperature.
Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207
feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were
constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x
207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of
lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed
714,150 ? 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed
some 1,400,000 kgs.
So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature
to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We
will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet
fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel
will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.
This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients
to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we
first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the
ingredients.
That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:
39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.
To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need
their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount
of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree
centigrade.
Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845
Lightweight Concrete 800
Steel 450
Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:
39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the
water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon
dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the
nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel
from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete
from 25° to T° C.
The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the
temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out
to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this
assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the
specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We
have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C.
The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.
So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature
T° C is
= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 +
1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 +
1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.
Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is
477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that
1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000
Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282°
C (540° F).
So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282
- 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire
that developed.
Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things)
it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time
to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over
in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and
steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have
been vented to the outside world.
"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the
upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were
evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool
that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two
(Chapter Two).
Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence
that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.
Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one
of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has
been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit
the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked
down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open.
The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."
Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane
impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my
shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this
rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is
wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."
Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people
alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out
later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I
got so burned."
Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked
by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.
Summarizing:
We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined
to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt
with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no
heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete
had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the
temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin
explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C
(1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere
near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying
media.
"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."
Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).
Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage
from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude
that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little
extra damage to the towers.
Conclusion:
The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World
Trade Center.
So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?
jmcgill
> Just in case you're having too much trouble or lack
> the time to find something about the temperatures
> of burning jet fuel, I'm posting this bit of help.
> Obwon
I have seen steel soften in a propane-fueled forge literally in my back
yard. I have also seen iron reach a temperature where it can be welded
with just a hammer, on a coal fire.
Having a blacksmith for a housemate helped me understand metals as
things that can be easily formed and shaped and destroyed.
visions of effty
"jmcgill" <jmc...@email.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:CedTg.463$rS.288@fed1read05...
This open air forge thing, was it made of a material like steel that acted
like a heat-sink, or was it made of some material that acted like an
insulator?
Was the area to be heated rather large and open, or rather small and
confined?
Was the fire supplied with fresh air somehow, or was the fire left to
smolder?
Do you see any differences at all between the subject of the post and the
thing you are talking about?
Really, I'm very curious.
~e.
Freedom Fighter
>> Just in case you're having too much trouble or lack
>> the time to find something about the temperatures
>> of burning jet fuel, I'm posting this bit of help.
>> Obwon
>
> I have seen steel soften in a propane-fueled forge literally in my back
> yard. I have also seen iron reach a temperature where it can be welded
> with just a hammer, on a coal fire.
Propane and some other combustables, with a plentiful supply of oxygen, can
burn MUCH hotter than the temperatures attained by jet fuel burning in an
oxygen-starved environment. The black smoke proves the fires in the towers
were oxygen-starved. And there was NO JET FUEL AT ALL in building 7!
> Having a blacksmith for a housemate helped me understand metals as
> things that can be easily formed and shaped and destroyed.
As a blacksmith he should be very familiar with horseshit, as we get from
the government re. 9/11.
Stan de SD
"visions of effty" <what_hap...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:a6fTg.38$gF3.0@trnddc02...
I see that you're an idiot trying to push your kook 9/11 conspiracy theories
as usual...
dasha...@aol.com
Freedom Fighter wrote:
> "jmcgill" <jmc...@email.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> news:CedTg.463$rS.288@fed1read05...
>
>>Obwon wrote:
>>
>>>Just in case you're having too much trouble or lack
>>>the time to find something about the temperatures
>>>of burning jet fuel, I'm posting this bit of help.
>>>Obwon
>>
>>I have seen steel soften in a propane-fueled forge literally in my back
>>yard. I have also seen iron reach a temperature where it can be welded
>>with just a hammer, on a coal fire.
>
>
> Propane and some other combustables, with a plentiful supply of oxygen, can
> burn MUCH hotter than the temperatures attained by jet fuel burning in an
> oxygen-starved environment. The black smoke proves the fires in the towers
> were oxygen-starved. And there was NO JET FUEL AT ALL in building 7!
Mayor Giuliani built his EOC (Emergency Operations Center) on
the 23rd floor of 7WTC. Mayor Giuliani also placed a 6,000 gallon
fuel tank about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby
elevators. The tank was meant to fuel generators that would supply
electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure.
The Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position
could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it
caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called
disaster.
Obwon
Well, then you might ask him weather or not
steel can be formulated to withstand 2,000 degree
heat for several hours, as Underwriters Laboratories
says the specifications for WTC were required to.
That'll do for a start.
Obwon
Obwon
Your dismissive reply buys "Jack" in the
scheme of this debate! Try again, this time
with feeling... Or, better yet, facts???
Obwon
jmcgill
> Well, then you might ask him weather or not
> steel can be formulated to withstand 2,000 degree
> heat for several hours, as Underwriters Laboratories
> says the specifications for WTC were required to.
This was accomplished by insulating the steel.
visions of effty
<dasha...@aol.com> wrote in message news:zAsTg.846$6S2.698@trndny02...
>
>
> Freedom Fighter wrote:
>> Propane and some other combustables, with a plentiful supply of oxygen,
>> can burn MUCH hotter than the temperatures attained by jet fuel burning
>> in an oxygen-starved environment. The black smoke proves the fires in the
>> towers were oxygen-starved. And there was NO JET FUEL AT ALL in building
>> 7!
>
> Mayor Giuliani built his EOC (Emergency Operations Center) on
> the 23rd floor of 7WTC. Mayor Giuliani also placed a 6,000 gallon
> fuel tank about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby
> elevators. The tank was meant to fuel generators that would supply
> electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure.
>
> The Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position
> could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it
> caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called
> disaster.
We've been through all of this, so please spare us.
http://www.langan.com/wtc7.asp
"7 WORLD TRADE CENTER
On 9/11 fiery debris from the collapse of the north and south World Trade
Center towers crashed into the 7 World Trade Center office building, which
burned and eventually collapsed. Con Edison had maintained electric
substation equipment within that building serving the west side of lower
Manhattan and according to NYSDEC records, a significant transformer oil
spill occurred. NYSDEC ordered Con Edison, and a building tenant, to perform
remedial investigations to determine the extent of impact. Langan was
retained by Silverstein Properties, the owner of 7 World Trade Center, to
oversee remediation of soil and groundwater impacts. Langan confirmed that
underground diesel oil storage tanks, owned and operated by Silverstein
Properties, were contained within an undamaged concrete vault and did not
leak. Langan then oversaw removal of two unprotected and heavily damaged
underground diesel oil tanks, owned and operated by a tenant. Langan is
currently overseeing demolition and removal of all remaining subsurface
foundation structures including substation cables, cable conduit, and
transformer oil-contaminated soil to a depth up to 25 feet below the
surface. Langan prepared a Contaminated Soil and Groundwater Management
Plan, approved by NYSDEC, and plans and specifications to address soil and
groundwater removal and disposal, health and safety protection for
construction workers and the general public. Our oversight responsibilities
include documentation of all activities, testing and evaluation of soil and
groundwater quality, waste classification sampling and analysis, air
monitoring and preparation of a final Closure Report."
This is from the website of the firm that cleaned up all the contaminated
soil under wtc7. They say the main tanks did not leak, but others did and
contaminated the soil to a depth of 25 feet.
I remember reading an article about some EPA studies that the oil and diesel
fuel in the soil spread far and wide and the cleanup required extensive
digging and excavation.
In other words, pretty much all of the liquid diesel on site was accounted
for and it is very doubtful that this was the source of any sort of
catastrophic explosion.
As romantic as it sounds, it's tricky to get diesel fuel to blow up. You
have to have the right vapor pressure. Most diesel tank explosions happen
when people try to clean or repair tanks they believe are empty, but are
actually full of explosive vapor.
Either way, three 275 gallon tanks on the 5th, 7th, and 8th floors exploding
don't explain the video that shows the penthouse floor falling into the rest
of the structure as it crumbles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4SejBwgbCw
Watch.
The left side of the penthouse crumbles before the rest of the building.
Then, as the building comes down, the penthouse falls into the roofline.
And this is caused by diesel fuel on the 8th floor???
Wow. That's a cool trick.
I hope this helps!
~e.
Obwon
That's a very good point... And it explains why
the fact that ALL the WTC, in every picture
available today, shows not a sign of insulation
clinging to it, huh??? It's all completely denuded
of insulation, go figure, eh? No explaination as
to how that might have been accomplished by
a mere gravatationally driven collapse. Could
it be the construction company simply forgot
to install any insulation at all?
Obwon
jmcgill
> Could
> it be the construction company simply forgot
> to install any insulation at all?
Could be. Do you have evidence?
danny burstein
>>This was accomplished by insulating the steel.
> That's a very good point... And it explains why
>the fact that ALL the WTC, in every picture
>available today, shows not a sign of insulation
>clinging to it, huh???
Bull. fucking. Shit. There were plenty of pieces
of steel with snippets of insulation still attached.
Do you have the slightest idea what it would look like?
Ask anyone who was actually there pulling the
wreckage apart.
But.....
> It's all completely denuded
>of insulation, go figure, eh? No explaination as
>to how that might have been accomplished by
>a mere gravatationally driven collapse. Could
>it be the construction company simply forgot
>to install any insulation at all?
But.... you're partially right in that a lot of it was blown off.
Why? Becuase the steel went up shortly after the
asbestos hysteria peaked, so instead of a concrete/asbestos
mesh overlay, which would have been far stronger and tighter
being applied, a hefty amount of the steel simply had
misc light duty insulation blown and glued into place.
Think, oh, cotton candy.
And... over the past decade or two, whenver there
was a rehab done, the older, solid, asbestos (where
present) was removed adn replaced by... cotton candy.
( that's if they even bothered. There are far, far, too
many reports of, umm, sloppy construction techniques )
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Orval Fairbairn
Obwon <ob1...@att.net> wrote:
The insulation was sprayed onto the steel, so it probably would not have
shown up as hanging out.
Of course, remember that WTC was built in NY, a place well known for its
corrupt practices, such as payoffs to building inspectors, contractors
substituting lower grades of materials than specified, and, yes, perhaps
skimping on the amount of sprayed-on insulation.
Civil engineering schools taught, in the 1980s, that WTC was an example
of how NOT to design a large building, due to marginal design practices.
Obwon
Hahaha... "Do I have evidence"?
No, I don't have the evidence, I didn't collect
the evidence! So, you ask, where is it?
It's all over the internet. Just go to any site
that has pictures of the WTC after the collapse
and look at the pictures.
BTW, please post the link, where you find
pictures of the WTC with insulation still sticking
to it. I've been searching and searching, but
I can't seem to find any. So your help will
be greatly appreciated.
Look, the point is not that we're questioning
the Official Story because we have something
that proves anything. What we do have, is what
we see, and what we see, appears to be so
questionable, so out of sync with what the laws
of physics, thermodynamics, and observeable
phenomena in the photos and videos of that
day, that we believe there should be some
serious investigating done, to discover what
these anomalies mean. They are real, they
exist, and rather than being given explainations
for them that are credible, the issues are simply
being avoided in hope that they might go away.
But, consider, if the Jets didn't bring down the
buildings, then something/someone else did.
That means that there are criminals out there
who are escaping punishment/discovery.
Obwon
Obwon
Good thinking... Now point us towards these
sources that are accusing the WTC builders of
having "cut corners" on the buildings. I can
find nothing in the 9-11 Commission report that
refers any such criminal activity to the Justice
Dept.
Obwon
dasha...@aol.com
Is there any reference to thermite in the 9-11 Commission report?
Obwon
NO, but the speculations about thermite or thermate
come in, because an explaination is needed for the
destruction of the hundreds of 4" thick concrete slabs
missing from the debris pile. Looking at the videos
of the collapse of the towers, show clearly that some
building material was turning into a very fine dust in
huge quantities.
So, there is speculation that these clouds of dust are
quite simply explained, if the concrete, missing from
the debris pile, were somehow pulverized to the
consistency of flour, as the dust surrounding the
area proved to be. That dust has been analysed
and has been determined to be the product of
concrete, having turned back into it's constituent
products. So, working backwards, it would mean
that the concrete in the buildings was somehow
exposed to 900C.
Now, there wasn't fires on every floor, so what
was the heat source? Or, well... I'm open to your
theories about what happened. You do have
an explaination for why the debris pile doesn't
contain evidences of these many large concrete
slabs broken into peices?
Go ahead, inform us.
Obwon
govern...@comcast.net
>> Good thinking... Now point us towards these
>> sources that are accusing the WTC builders of
>> having "cut corners" on the buildings. I can
>> find nothing in the 9-11 Commission report that
>> refers any such criminal activity to the Justice
>> Dept.
>Is there any reference to thermite in the 9-11 Commission report?
No, but there's no mention of drooling spastics either, though
apparently there were plenty of them in the building that day taking
pictures of thermite encased steel beams, radio controlled detonators
and Navy seals in position to block stairwells and cut off the fire
suppression systems. Too bad the conspiratards didn't all die in the
fire but maybe someday those cameras will be recovered and we'll all
know the trooth!
Swill
danny burstein
> NO, but the speculations about thermite or thermate
>come in, because an explaination is needed for the
>destruction of the hundreds of 4" thick concrete slabs
>missing from the debris pile. Looking at the videos
>of the collapse of the towers, show clearly that some
>building material was turning into a very fine dust in
>huge quantities.
Duh. Go to top floor of skysraper. Take cinderblock.
Throw over roof edge.
Take a look at what remains after it hits ground.
> Now, there wasn't fires on every floor, so what
>was the heat source? Or, well... I'm open to your
>theories about what happened. You do have
>an explaination for why the debris pile doesn't
>contain evidences of these many large concrete
>slabs broken into peices?
>Go ahead, inform us.
>Obwon
dasha...@aol.com
danny burstein wrote:
> In <qvl7i295e1vljp3fu...@4ax.com> Obwon <ob1...@att.net> writes:
>
>
>> NO, but the speculations about thermite or thermate
>>come in, because an explaination is needed for the
>>destruction of the hundreds of 4" thick concrete slabs
>>missing from the debris pile. Looking at the videos
>>of the collapse of the towers, show clearly that some
>>building material was turning into a very fine dust in
>>huge quantities.
>
>
> Duh. Go to top floor of skysraper. Take cinderblock.
> Throw over roof edge.
>
> Take a look at what remains after it hits ground.
>
>
>
>> Now, there wasn't fires on every floor, so what
>>was the heat source? Or, well... I'm open to your
>>theories about what happened. You do have
>>an explaination for why the debris pile doesn't
>>contain evidences of these many large concrete
>>slabs broken into peices?
>
>
>>Go ahead, inform us.
Coca Cola dissolves concrete and also cleans toilets.
http://forums.dealofday.com/showthread.php?t=10359
The cleaning staff at WTC were cleaning toilets with
Coca Cola when they heard the first plane coming.
They ran out of the building, leaving the Coca Cola
in the toilets. The Coca Cola dissolved the toilets,
spilled onto the concrete floor, and dissolved 110
stories worth of concrete.
Were it not for the Coca Cola, neither the
indestructible concrete nor the indestructible
wallboard would have broken and the towers
would still be standing.
You see evidence of how indestructible concrete
is every day when silly men fruitlessly try to
break concrete by hitting it with sledge hammers
when they wish to replace a sidewalk.
>
>
>>Obwon
Obwon
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <qvl7i295e1vljp3fu...@4ax.com> Obwon <ob1...@att.net> writes:
>
>> NO, but the speculations about thermite or thermate
>>come in, because an explaination is needed for the
>>destruction of the hundreds of 4" thick concrete slabs
>>missing from the debris pile. Looking at the videos
>>of the collapse of the towers, show clearly that some
>>building material was turning into a very fine dust in
>>huge quantities.
>
>Duh. Go to top floor of skysraper. Take cinderblock.
>Throw over roof edge.
>
>Take a look at what remains after it hits ground.
>
Duh, have four inch thick concrete floors
fall ten feet onto the floor below and see
what it looks like, eh? Or didn't you read
the explaination about how the towers fell?
Clue: Each floor didn't fall freely all the way
to the ground, each floor was supposed to
have fallen onto the floor below, where it's
weight and momentum caused that floor to
fall.
You say "duh" like a pro, and you think like
a "duh" as well.
Obwon