Conspiracy Theory 9/11 and the Europhysics News - Controlled Demolition

Feb 24, 2013
45,365
37,740
The GoldenBrown Heart of Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
You should be the last to laugh. Your posting history is the most laughable. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, we all know how it goes.

Not even a humble little footy forum conspiracy board is left sacred from em...….Pathetic really.....They're Desperation to control the narrative in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is manic.
 

BustedWing

Premiership Player
Aug 29, 2013
3,091
2,038
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'm curious...

When you said:
I'm agnostic on the issue.

Did you mean it?

I mean...if you really arent entrenched in a specific position on this topic, did what was presented to you about the number one issue you had with the official story, the melted steel/iron/thermite stuff, when that was shown to be incorrect, did the needle move for you at all?

If what I've presented to you is wrong...where is it wrong? Why is it wrong?

I'm not trying to be a dick about this...I'm genuinely curious about your stance now...
 
Last edited:
Aug 1, 2008
15,149
25,674
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I dont doubt for a second there was molten metal in the debris, and while none of the molten metal (to my knowledge) was tested and confirmed to be steel, if it WAS steel, that wouldnt shock me either.

The fires in the debris pile were sustained for weeks by all sorts of different types of fuel...imagine what was in those buildings that was flamable, and that was able to sustain the fires. Cars in the parking lot. 220 floors of office space with all sorts of things. Generators for elevators, heating and AC checmicals...the list is literally endless.

What was sustaining those fires, and what temperature those fires burned at once the collapse was done, is another discussion for another day. But to be clear - melted steel, if it was there in the weeks post collapse doesnt mean thermite.

For those you mentioned that imply it could ONLY mean thermite....I mean...how much do they think was in there? Why would it be in the basement, when the towers clearly collapsed from point of impact?

There are so many holes in the thermite argument its a non starter in my opinion. I encourage you to watch that video I posted earlier...good explanation on it all and why the evidence is overwhelming that none was found (and that there is no way it could explain the melted steel weeks after collapse).

WE can chat about that if you like, but first...aluminium...what do you think? More likely?
Strawberry Ice Cream - you know it is
 
Aug 1, 2008
15,149
25,674
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
You still popping into these parts Yebiga!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
To be honest, I am in a unit where by happenstance we examined your sophistry on this board in detail.

Who could imagine such a thing? Might see if I can post some of the kinder passages from the class.

We all think the busted moniker is perfect
 
Sep 23, 2006
10,593
14,967
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
I'm curious...

When you said:


Did you mean it?

I mean...if you really arent entrenched in a specific position on this topic, did what was presented to you about the number one issue you had with the official story, the melted steel/iron/thermite stuff, when that was shown to be incorrect, did the needle move for you at all?

If what I've presented to you is wrong...where is it wrong? Why is it wrong?

I'm not trying to be a dick about this...I'm genuinely curious about your stance now...


I was agnostic about it. Less so now after digging into it more when discussing the issue with you. As far as the aluminium issue goes, the key is what colour it is when molten. My post #1,018 sealed it for me. You came back with pictures purported to be molten aluminium orange in colour, the temperatures you would need to produce molten aluminium at that colour could only be achieved in a foundry.
 

BustedWing

Premiership Player
Aug 29, 2013
3,091
2,038
AFL Club
Collingwood
I was agnostic about it. Less so now after digging into it more when discussing the issue with you. As far as the aluminium issue goes, the key is what colour it is when molten. My post #1,018 sealed it for me. You came back with pictures purported to be molten aluminium orange in colour, the temperatures you would need to produce molten aluminium at that colour could only be achieved in a foundry.

Can you elaborate?

What temperature does aluminium need to be to appear that colour?

Why is that temperature only possible in a foundry?

Why is it not possible at the temperature observed at the impact sites?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

BustedWing

Premiership Player
Aug 29, 2013
3,091
2,038
AFL Club
Collingwood
Can you elaborate?

What temperature does aluminium need to be to appear that colour?

Why is that temperature only possible in a foundry?

Why is it not possible at the temperature observed at the impact sites?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

These are important questions Crankitup, you shouldn’t ignore them.

You’re making a bold claim. It important you back it up with facts....


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Aug 1, 2008
15,149
25,674
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
These are important questions Crankitup, you shouldn’t ignore them.

You’re making a bold claim. It important you back it up with facts....


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Back in 1979 a secret unit was established by the most gifted minds within the U.S. Army. Defying all known accepted military practice -- and indeed, the laws of physics -- they believed that a soldier could adopt a cloak of invisibility, pass cleanly through walls, and, perhaps most chillingly, kill goats just by staring at them.
Entrusted with defending America from all known adversaries, they were the First Earth Battalion. And they really weren't joking. What's more, they're back and fighting the War on Terror.
With firsthand access to the leading players in the story, the evolution of these bizarre activities over the past three decades and shows how they are alive today within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and in postwar Iraq. Why are they blasting Iraqi prisoners of war with the theme tune to Barney the Purple Dinosaur? Why have 100 debleated goats been secretly placed inside the Special Forces Command Center at Fort Bragg, North Carolina? How was the U.S. military associated with the mysterious mass suicide of a strange cult from San Diego? The Men Who Stare at Goats answers these and many more questions.
Them: Adventures with Extremists, is a highly classified document. These Men Who Stare at Goats reveals extraordinary and nutty military secrets at the core of the collapse of the WTC on 9/11 and George W. Bush's War on Terror.
 
Sep 23, 2006
10,593
14,967
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
Can you elaborate?

What temperature does aluminium need to be to appear that colour?

930°C - 1100°C.

Why is that temperature only possible in a foundry?

OK I'll concede there are possibly other places that could get it hot enough, although none rapidly spring to mind, except maybe inside a volcano but certainly not in a jet fuel fire.
 
Last edited:

BustedWing

Premiership Player
Aug 29, 2013
3,091
2,038
AFL Club
Collingwood
930°C - 1100°C.



OK I'll concede there are possibly other places that could get it hot enough, although none rapidly spring to mind, except maybe inside a volcano but certainly not in a jet fuel fire.

The fires at the impact sites were recorded at approximately 1100°C.... so right at the appropriate temperature according to you.

Why again could this not happen, according to you??


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Sep 23, 2006
10,593
14,967
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
The fires at the impact sites were recorded at approximately 1100°C.... so right at the appropriate temperature according to you.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Who did this 'recording'?

Even NIST (who have admitted their errors regarding other crucial elements relating to that day) have only speculated that isolated pockets of the fire may have just got to 1000°C and if so, it was probably for a short time.
 

BustedWing

Premiership Player
Aug 29, 2013
3,091
2,038
AFL Club
Collingwood
Who did this 'recording'?

Even NIST (who have admitted their errors regarding other crucial elements relating to that day) have only speculated that isolated pockets of the fire may have just got to 1000°C and if so, it was probably for a short time.
NIST, yes: https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

From the link:

14. How did NIST derive the temperatures in the WTC towers and how valid are they?

Using all the visual and physical evidence available, NIST conducted simulations of the fires in each of the towers from the time of airplane impact to the collapses. The computational model used to simulate the fires was NIST's Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). This model had been validated in numerous experiments and fire recreations prior to the NIST WTC investigation. Additional large-scale experiments conducted during the investigation (NIST NCSTAR 1-5) provided further assurance of the validity of the model output. This output was in the form of maps of the air temperatures on each of the floors over the duration of the fires (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F).

In a following set of computations, the evolving temperatures of the concrete and steel structural components of the towers were calculated by exposing them to the mapped air temperatures (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).

Both sets of computations are based on the fundamental laws of combustion, heat transfer, and air flow. The methods have been documented extensively and have been successfully subjected to technical peer review and published in professional journals.

15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

******************
At this point, I feel its really important - if you're going to say NIST is lying, or wrong, you're going to have to show us where, and show us how.

Where are you getting your information from that says the fires were not that hot?

Why are you believing them over any other source of information?

You may also want to make sure you understand the difference between temperature and heat in this discussion.
 
Sep 17, 2019
21,988
34,988
AFL Club
Richmond
Who did this 'recording'?

Even NIST (who have admitted their errors regarding other crucial elements relating to that day) have only speculated that isolated pockets of the fire may have just got to 1000°C and if so, it was probably for a short time.

A box of candles could hit that temperature on a cold day.

1571271454584.png
 
Sep 23, 2006
10,593
14,967
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
NIST, yes: https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

From the link:

14. How did NIST derive the temperatures in the WTC towers and how valid are they?

Using all the visual and physical evidence available, NIST conducted simulations of the fires in each of the towers from the time of airplane impact to the collapses. The computational model used to simulate the fires was NIST's Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). This model had been validated in numerous experiments and fire recreations prior to the NIST WTC investigation. Additional large-scale experiments conducted during the investigation (NIST NCSTAR 1-5) provided further assurance of the validity of the model output. This output was in the form of maps of the air temperatures on each of the floors over the duration of the fires (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F).

In a following set of computations, the evolving temperatures of the concrete and steel structural components of the towers were calculated by exposing them to the mapped air temperatures (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).

Both sets of computations are based on the fundamental laws of combustion, heat transfer, and air flow. The methods have been documented extensively and have been successfully subjected to technical peer review and published in professional journals.

15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

******************
At this point, I feel its really important - if you're going to say NIST is lying, or wrong, you're going to have to show us where, and show us how.

Where are you getting your information from that says the fires were not that hot?

Why are you believing them over any other source of information?

You may also want to make sure you understand the difference between temperature and heat in this discussion.

So you said in post #1,064 that "The fires at the impact sites were recorded at approximately 1100°C .." which turns out to be an error. What you've just posted says that NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius.

Regarding NIST lying or being wrong - all I said was they have admitted their errors regarding other crucial elements relating to that day. Is this news to you? You've never heard that before? Want me to go into detail? I'll be pretty annoyed if I do so and it subsequently turns out I've wasted even more time because you knew about the errors all along. Even more so if your acknowledgment of said errors is already documented somewhere earlier in this thread.
 

BustedWing

Premiership Player
Aug 29, 2013
3,091
2,038
AFL Club
Collingwood
So you said in post #1,064 that "The fires at the impact sites were recorded at approximately 1100°C .." which turns out to be an error. What you've just posted says that NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius.

Regarding NIST lying or being wrong - all I said was they have admitted their errors regarding other crucial elements relating to that day. Is this news to you? You've never heard that before? Want me to go into detail? I'll be pretty annoyed if I do so and it subsequently turns out I've wasted even more time because you knew about the errors all along. Even more so if your acknowledgment of said errors is already documented somewhere earlier in this thread.

What I want you to do is DEMONSTRATE how the fires couldn’t have reached the required temperature to melt aluminum to the appropriate temperature.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Sep 23, 2006
10,593
14,967
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
What I want you to do is DEMONSTRATE how the fires couldn’t have reached the required temperature to melt aluminum to the appropriate temperature.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Gotta go. Hopefully this will do for now.

Generally, high rise fires burn at about 593 Celsius
https://skysaver.com/blog/hot-can-fire-get-skysaver-rescue-backpacks/?v=7516fd43adaa


THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

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.


SubstanceSpecific Heat [J/kg*C]
Nitrogen1,038
Water Vapor1,690
Carbon Dioxide845
Lightweight Concrete800
Steel450
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.
https://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
 
Sep 23, 2006
10,593
14,967
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
I'll add one more point. The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 290C. Also consider that regardless of whether we can definitively prove exactly how hot it got and how much the structures holding capacity may have been changed as a result, the crucial thing to remember is that the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load. So even if the steel got hot enough to reduce it's holding capacity to 20%, it should still have remained standing.
 
Back