Sorry Ray, but this, re your: "so clearly written and unassailably correct that I feel this needs wider distribution" seems a near ultimate proof of your deceit and/or complete lack of critical thinking. How much of this crap has been debunked already with serious irrefutable and unrefuted science, already here on this thread? Eh Ray? Yet you actually have the gall to write the above quoted with a straight face? Who are you trying to kid? Oh, we see the names here, if we look...ok then, sorry, we already know who you are trying to kid.
In the Article referenced, we read of signs of not enough oxygen for the jet fuel to burn hot enough to bring the buildings down, but with a hole in the building, plenty of oxygen should have gotten in. We also learn that building engineers vented "cold" air IN (possibly compounding the problem, but here, it is claimed this would cool things down rather than make the fire burn hotter). We learn that there was lots of smoldering smoke, but have no reason to believe other than that fuel soaked carpeting and other combustibles strewn about to nooks and cranies NOT immediately open to sufficient oxygen, created this. We are told of a theoritical (and notably undocumented) burn rate of jet fuel spread over a single floor under ideal conditions, and asked to wonder why the corrections to prevent floor to floor fire movement - made in the building after the `75 fire - failed. In truth, as can be found in the article, the South Tower for instance, was hit in floors 78-84 simultaneously, pretty much explaining (along with further official explanation) the ludicrous sugesstion that "for some strange reason the modifications failed to perform on September 11, 2001." Again, NO reason is provided not to expect both very hot AND cooler smoldering fires simultaneously occuring over the space of numerous floors. Hence there is in actuality no reason given to believe the fire had to be only so cool as a smoldering one, as suggested.
This article, Ray, is horrendously assailable. Some Thought on "Some thoughts about the World Trade Center Tower fires (from various sources) (unnamed sources - Dan B.)"
1 Re: "One complaint is that much of the jet fuel burnt outside the buildings."
I say "much" is likely a smaller percentage of the fuel than is implied by the article.
Re: "This was particularly true in the case of the south tower. After the impact nearly all of the jet fuel would have been spread throughout the area as a flammable mist."
Who says? Who says the vast bulk of 10,000 Gallons of liquid fuel would necessarily become a mist, or that if such a total mist WERE made of the fuel, it wouldn't itself coalesce into liquid again upon contact with capeting and rubble. That's a lot of fuel, so why would there be enough oxygen for it all to burn where it lands, i.e. inside, instaneously in moments burst as is implied.
"When this mist ignited it would have emptied the building of almost the entire fuel load"
It's going to draw fuel which, by its fluidity is thrusting inward with impact, out of carpet and off of surfaces likewise moving inward? Oh really? If 10,000 gallons of liquid Jet fuel slams into a building its mass and fluidity dictates that it will be thrown INTO the building by and large.
RE: "which then "exploded" outside the building."
Well, "much" of the fuel, as mist and fumes, lit up outside of the building upon ignition. Hardly surprising, and nothing here tells us that the size of the burst was enough to somehow have rid the building of the bulk of the fuel. There just is no reason given not to expect that even instaneously flaming masses of jet fuel striking carpets and etc., wouldn't soak-in, and puddle up all over the place inside, long before burning off, and after which it would burn quite slowly.
"This is exactly what was seen in the videos of the impacts."
We now somehow know most all the fuel instaneously burnt up outside the building. Oh really? Who testified that the initial explosions seen in photos were large enough to consume all the fuel? Huh, not a mention of a soul.
2. RE: "If any quantity of liquid jet fuel did manage to accumulate in the building,"
If you are still "managing" to buy this malarky at this point, you have real problems I'll not surmount, IMO.
"then its volatility would lead to large amounts of it being evaporated and not burnt (pyrolysed) in the interior of the building.
Says who? "Large amounts" can again, be a small percentage of the fuel present. More to the point though, I do believe Jet fuel would evaporate more quickly than ordinary Kerosene, yet I'm also sure Gasoline would evaporate quicker than jet fuel. Acetone might evaporate before you turned around. But just how quickly does the writer expect us to believe this large can of jet fuel (kerosene) would evaporate after soaking carpet and building materials and puddling up and falling and flying around inside?
"This evaporated fuel would burn on exiting the building, when it finally found sufficient oxygen."
SOME certain quantity of THE fuel surely evaporated and DID burn upon exiting the building at moment of impact, along with SOME NOT YET evaporated fuel simply splashing back as a mist, more or less.
3. "The jet fuel fires were brief."
Says who?
"Most of the jet fuel would have burnt off or evaporated within 30 seconds"
Oh really?
"and all of it within 2-3 minutes..."
If so, then how could it be that...
"(if all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor as a pool, it would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes)."
Huh, 5 minutes under ideal conditions, but only 2-3 in these conditions. Bit of a PLAIN CONTRADICTION, RAY, don't you think?
"The energy, from the jet fuel, not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period,"
Oh, yeah, "brief" meaning 2-3 minutes after being spread throughout the rubble, rather than being in a single pool on a flat slab where it would take 5 minutes.
".. would have been vented to the outside world."
Yeah, right! Indicative of nothing supportive of the theory at this point, but right. Trouble is, an all too great PLENTY of heat WAS certainly absorbed by the steel in the process, which was certainly not terribly brief. LOL.
This means that the jet fuel fire did not heat the concrete slabs or fire protected steel appreciably.
For SURE! LOL.
"Large columns such as the core columns would also not heat appreciably, even if they had lost all their fire-protection."
LOLROTHFFCRYING.
"Unprotected trusses may have experienced a more sizeable temperature increase."
Duh!
"The jet fuel fire was so brief"
Oh?
"...that the concrete and steel simply could not absorb the heat fast enough, and consequently, most of the heat was lost to the atmosphere through the smoke plume."
Right, it (the fuel) burned in 2-3 minutes, the heat rose in smoke, and it was just a hunky dory cool fire after that. DOH! LOL.
4. " Even if the fire-rated suspended ceilings and spray on fire-protection from the trusses was removed by the impacts and the trusses were heated till they had lost most of their room temperature strength, we know from the Cardington tests and real fires like Broadgate, that the relatively cold concrete slab will supply strength to the structural system, and collapse will not occur. Remember, that at Broadgate and Cardington, the beams/trusses were not fire-protected. Consider this quote: After the Broadgate Phase 8 fire and the Cardington frame tests there were benchmarks to test composite frame models. Research intensified because almost all the tests had unprotected steel beams (no fire rated suspended ceiling and no spray-on fire retardant) but collapse was not seen"
Let's just remember the Broadgate fire, for instance, didn't involve involve 10,000 gallons of Jet fuel. Nuff said, but this fuel in fact will not evaporate terribly quickly if a lack of oxygen causes it to fail to burn, and it will not necessarily all burn up very quickly when soaked into carpet, insulation, etc., even if plenty of oxygen surrounds these materials. The plain result of these crashes is in fact unavoidably a slowed version of a jet fuel burn deep inside the building.
5. "After the jet fuel fire was over, burning desks, books, plastic, carpets, etc, contributed to the fire."
A hint that the author knows the fuel remained a LARGE contributor too, long after the claimed 2-3 minutes of jet fuel burn? If he believes himself, he should be saying these materials were almost SOLELY the main remaining fodder of the fire after 2-3 minutes. Ahhh, but..
"So now we have a typical office fire."
Whoops! A plane impacts and kills people instaneously on 7 floors, spewing thousands of gallons of Jet fuel inside, manages to offset major support columns in the process (as the author elsewhere notes), and now we have a "typical office fire." LOL.
"The fact that the trusses received some advanced heating will be of little consequence. After some minutes the fires would have been indistinguishable from a typical office fire, and we know that the truss-slab combination will survive such fires, because they did so in the 1975."
LOL, the jet fuel, after some minutes, simply would still be burning in this rubble, indeed right through to building collapse in all liklihood (you will recall the 5 minute contraction under perfect circumstances noted earlier, yet the author persists to attempt to fool us here). Again, the '75 fire did not involve Jet fuel, nor numerous floors being impacted simultaneously.
Sigh, I'm tired of this exercise. Though one could easily go on through the rest of the points from the article (many of which are purely based upon what's already debunked above), isn't this enough for all believers to finally change their minds? Oughta be, IMO, don't you think so too Ray?
But, as for surviving Witnesses, they didn't hang around more than 10-15 minutes per the article, and were severely burned though in relative if temporary safe zones at that.
As for Firefighter conversations, one bunch faced a fire it couldn't get by without probably two hoses at the immediate location beyond which we are given no evidence of conditions, and the other bunch was "stuck" in an isolated location unable to join the first, due to localized conditions beyond which we are given no insight to. The conclusion that "firefighters did not consider the fires to be that serious, and were in fact able to get right into the impact region without being killed by the heat" simply is not supported by their statements. There is no evidence that any of them had somehow achieved a full overview of the impact region and all the fires before them, or that any of them thought "just two hoses" would put the fire out, as suggested.
In short, what a bunch of hooey this article is.
Ray, you've been unable to adequately respond to information such as the tempurature at which fuel actually burns (VS claims in such theories as this article represents), and the temperture at which steel actually weakens enough to fail to support the load of these particular buildings (VS the claims of articles like this). How can you possibly be saying, again, with a straight face, that this article is "unassailably correct."
LOL, Ray. I think it is becuase you are willing to lie to promote your rabidly mistaken agenda. I COULD be wrong.
I recall an expert given just a few minutes on Geraldo's CNBC show after the '93 WTC bombing, who informed listeners that many experts believed a bomb such as a plane strike near the top of the towers could have brought them completely down. Geraldo was so disturbed at hearing a fellow on his program spreading that information, that he basically shut him right down quickly, stating disgustedly that he didn't like hearing it (or something to that effect), and moved on quickly to finish his program another way. Perhaps if Geraldo hadn't given the guy such short thrift and by doing so encouraged others to feel as he did (sticking his head in the sand), some study would have been done, enough of one to PREVENT building engineers from adding oxygen to the fire as this article of yours, I recall, correctly notes they did.
Freedom Works,
Dan B. |
