IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Video: 9/11 Firemen Secondary Explosion Testimony

Quest
post Oct 6 2010, 09:26 AM
Post #1





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Methinks the 3rd fireman whose testimony of a "surreal black plane" is a fraud and that the release of this video is to support the "plane strike" official story. Just my humble opinion.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-video-911-...-testimony.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o...layer_embedded#!

This post has been edited by Quest: Oct 7 2010, 01:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 6 2010, 03:04 PM
Post #2





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



He calls them secondary explosions (whatever that means) and mentions a few of them. Once the plane had struck and the fuel entered the building it is reasonable to expect various sorts of explosions from HVAC equipment, refrigerant and so forth even if the setting of explosives or incendiaries were up at the top and caused a "natural gravity driven collapse" one would expect all sorts of crazy stuff to happen all through the lower floors as a result of what was going on up top. Whatever the explosion was in the lobby it did no structural damage to the lobby aside from blowing out glass and dislodging marble cladding on the walls, probably some elevator doors and ceilings. That was a pretty big blast but it clearly was not going to take the towers down. A truch full of explosives didn't do it in 93.

It seems as if four or 5 or ten explosions is not likely enough to take the towers down as we saw.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Oct 6 2010, 05:24 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



We also have to remember the severe lower basement destruction described by witnesses when the plane first struck.

The towers' destruction argument is way over my head but this video always stuck with me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYhLLUXc-9I

Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a jet fuel conflagration.

Where have I heard the "black plane" analogy before?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Oct 6 2010, 05:51 PM
Post #4





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 6 2010, 08:04 PM) *
He calls them secondary explosions (whatever that means) and mentions a few of them. Once the plane had struck and the fuel entered the building it is reasonable to expect various sorts of explosions from HVAC equipment, refrigerant and so forth even if the setting of explosives or incendiaries were up at the top and caused a "natural gravity driven collapse" one would expect all sorts of crazy stuff to happen all through the lower floors as a result of what was going on up top. Whatever the explosion was in the lobby it did no structural damage to the lobby aside from blowing out glass and dislodging marble cladding on the walls, probably some elevator doors and ceilings. That was a pretty big blast but it clearly was not going to take the towers down. A truch full of explosives didn't do it in 93.

It seems as if four or 5 or ten explosions is not likely enough to take the towers down as we saw.


The problem here is that many witnesses, including WIlliam Rodrgues, reported an explosion in the basement mere seconds BEFORE the impact. My guess is that was the 911 magician's slight-of-hand forcing would-be witnesses to no-plane-impact to look down before the planted explosives in the 81st floor that were to form the "gash" went off.

This post has been edited by Quest: Oct 6 2010, 07:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
truthmatters
post Oct 6 2010, 10:19 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 87
Joined: 19-February 09
From: California
Member No.: 4,145



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o...layer_embedded#!

Background scenes in this Youtube posted by Quest seem not quite right at the point where the camera is switched from the two firemen to the third man who talks about the black plane. Based on the positioning of the FDNY Hazardous Material vehicle during the interview with the first guys, I don't see how it can be behind the third guy in the way it shows.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Oct 7 2010, 12:58 AM
Post #6





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (truthmatters @ Oct 7 2010, 02:19 AM) *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o...layer_embedded#!

Background scenes in this Youtube posted by Quest seem not quite right at the point where the camera is switched from the two firemen to the third man who talks about the black plane. Based on the positioning of the FDNY Hazardous Material vehicle during the interview with the first guys, I don't see how it can be behind the third guy in the way it shows.


I agree. Something very fishy about the third fireman. Not just his testimony, but the background, the way the camera pans to him, his commentary - everything about him seems bogus. He comes off like a paid actor. Not at all surprising considering that there were more than a few fake witnesses that day, not the least of which was "Harley guy" in 911 Mysteries.

This post has been edited by Quest: Oct 8 2010, 10:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 7 2010, 05:46 AM
Post #7





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



As far as Rodriquez goes he maintains it was before the impact, but he was in the basement and I am not certain if he could actually hear or sense it from down there. I am not saying he couldn't, but for sure he couldn't SEE it so he would have had to have heard it or felt it.

I'd be curious to hear from other witnesses from down in the towers if they felt or head the impact. You'd think it would be heard and felt by everyone in the building, but maybe not. But the same goes for the pre impact explosion. If it was so massive would people who were down in the building have heard it also and before they heard the plane strike?

Rodriquez may be accurate in his account, but shouldn't there be others to corroborate his time line? It was when thousands of people were arriving for work from the subway and the plaza. There should be more witnesses to his time line.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Voltaire
post Oct 7 2010, 07:47 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 163



QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 6 2010, 07:04 PM) *
He calls them secondary explosions (whatever that means) and mentions a few of them.


I think that was secondary explosions in comparison with the first explosion of the plane.


QUOTE
Once the plane had struck and the fuel entered the building it is reasonable to expect various sorts of explosions from HVAC equipment, refrigerant and so forth

explosions from refrigerant, HVAC. That's ridiculous. kerozene is not an explosive. And we speak of the lobby , that is 350 meters lowers than the crash.


QUOTE
even if the setting of explosives or incendiaries were up at the top and caused a "natural gravity driven collapse" one would expect all sorts of crazy stuff to happen all through the lower floors as a result of what was going on up top.

This happened well before the collapse, because the firefighters had time to go out. No crazy stuff to expect 350 METERS below the crash.
I think Naudet's video took place after these explosions.


QUOTE
" Whatever the explosion was in the lobby it did no structural damage to the lobby aside from blowing out glass and dislodging marble cladding on the walls, probably some elevator doors and ceilings."

You speak , but you know nothing about this. A workshop was destroyed at the first basement. One witness said columns were broken. Others Firefighters said they found a security guard dead on his chair, before the doors of the elevator, which were opened from the low side.
Explosions were located in the lift shaft, and could have made big damage.


QUOTE
" That was a pretty big blast but it clearly was not going to take the towers down. A truch full of explosives didn't do it in 93."

In my mind, this was made in order to weaken the structure.

QUOTE
It seems as if four or 5 or ten explosions is not likely enough to take the towers down as we saw.

To take the towers down, you have to break the core. But weakening structure can ensure to prépare the final démolition
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 7 2010, 12:33 PM
Post #9





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Voltaire,

I was referring to an explosion which I though these men said occurred IN the lobby when THEY were there. This would be well after the Rodriguez incident which he reported to be in the 3rd basement and before the plane crash and before the FDNY was on the scene.

There was massive HVAC equipment with tons of compressed gas on the floors just above the lobby and again just below the two sky lobbies and at the very top of the tower. All of them had equipment which could and probably did explode. Explosions can be set off from sparks or from fires.

There is speculation that jet fuel came down the express shafts which extended all the way to the top. This might have caught fire and as you saw the jet fuel explode OUTSIDE the towers it is certainly possible for a similar explosion from the jet fuel to occur INSIDE the towers. You did see that huge expanding ball of flames after the plane hit tower 2?

If you carefully observed the destruction of WTC 1 for example, you see that both the facade columns and the core columns were not crushed and most of them were mangled when they fell to the ground. There is little to no evidence of columns exploded at the base. And many of the core columns stood for a brief period AFTER the floors collapse and this was called the spire. If it survived the collapse of the floors, it could not have been the cause of their collapse. YES it is possible to destroy the floors and cause them to collapse by destroying (not weakening) the columns at the base of the structure. But that did not happen in wtc 1 and 2. It may have happened in wtc 7.

The plane assault, the subsequent fires and MOST PROBABLY some explosives and incendiaries up above the crash zones caused havoc throughout the building and caused the tops to break up and overload the floors and collapse them to the ground. The connections to the columns failed and the floors went down. The columns were not destroyed... to cause the collapse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Oct 9 2010, 04:35 PM
Post #10


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



can anyone pinpoint what time this video is from? it would help to understand the context of some of the things the firemen divulge.

also, if anyone's curious, the 2 guys sitting down are from either engine or ladder 24 (which are based out of (and kept) at different firehouses).


re: the "suspicious" 3rd fireman, i disagree that there is anything unusual about him. to the 2 on the left, the most exciting or noteworthy thing to mention, was the massive explosions they were privy to that rocked the lobby (and appear to have broken the guy on the right's nose). the guy standing on the right, he witnessed the plane and is therefore opting to relay that account, since presumably, that was the most memorable or noteworthy thing he had witnessed. to me, the plane being black is plausible and explainable: the smoke from the towers was thick enough and covered enough of a surface area to block sunlight and cast a giant shadow over the plane (this is visible in photos and video of the event), hence from his vantage point it appeared black.



***


sanderO, if you read some of the firemen accounts:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html...es_full_01.html

-upon arrival they saw people on fire in the lobby or exiting it. they saw poeple frozen at their locations (like a at desk behind a computer) thanks to the heat flash and impact of some sort of explosive, or others who were walking around completely singed/burned but completely confused as to how they were fine one second, then completely fuct up the next. hvac explosions wont do that*, and neither will jet fuel thats already exploded some 1000 feet above the lobby. explosives placed and detonated near these people on the other hand, will indeed set them on fire as was witnessed.

although its a debunker using the following quotes to substantiate "a jet-fuel falling down the elevator shafts caused the lobby to explode" theory, he has compiled a good list of lobby fire/explosion witnesses here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...=us&strip=1

- the only distinction is that jetfuel falling down elevator shafts wont do any of the things the debunker or the unwitting / uninformed firemen attribute to it - explosives will.




*in a search for hvac explosions, i instead found all the results pointing to explosion-proof hvac equipment:
http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=e...sa=N&tab=iw


plenty of them available pre-2001:
http://www.google.com/search?q=industrial+...F2001&tbo=1


an industrial-sized example:
http://www.berg-group.com/ExplosionProofChilling.htm


-and the hvac equipment in the wtc's wasNt kept in the lobby, nor placed in some thin-walled thin-floored room, so it could never cause the devastation witnessed there (in the lobby). if you doubt it, please read the individual accounts of the fireman (linked above) which very sepcifically describe the kinds of damage they saw (to people and infrastructure). so please (sanderO) find one example of an hvac explosion that devastated or blew up a building, so we can compare and contrast it to the wtc event.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 10 2010, 02:29 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Very good analysis Paranoia--I'm with you on those firemen and their stories.

They looked EXTREMELY legit to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Oct 10 2010, 10:26 PM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Paranoia, do not misundertsand me. I am merely sugggesting that I think the 3rd fireman is a fraud in that I believe he is lying reagrding his plane strike testimony. There is no more proof of a plane hitting the 2nd tower than proof of a plane hitting the Pentagon. We have debris that could have easily been planted, at least a few phoney witnesses (see the "Harley t-shirt guy" from 911 Mysteries) and we have what many believe to be phoney videos - sounds a lot like the Pentagon to me and it would also be consistent with (no plane hit) Shanksville. Believe what you wish but there is no consensus on the supposed WTC strikes and nor does there have to be given the overwhelming evidence of WTC controlled demolition as well as no-plane-hits at the Pentagon and Shanksville. On suppossed WTC "hits" we'll have to agree to disagree.

This post has been edited by Quest: Oct 10 2010, 10:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 10 2010, 10:50 PM
Post #13





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The floors just above the lobby (which was 1 -7) - 8 and 9 contain HVAC equipment which supplied air to the lobby and had return air ducts from the lobby.

I don't know what the refrigerant used in the WTC HVAC system was, but if you know anything about how these systems work gas is compressed to its liquid form with compressors and the liquid "boils" off to gas by using the heat from the air. Long and short of this there was a lot of pressurized gas. Not these were not in the lobby, but where just above the lobby.

There's no way of knowing how much jet fuel entered the building and was aerosolized and came down elevator shaft #50 the service elevator which went from the lowest basement to the top floor and was in the center of the core. We do know that people reported the smell of jet fuel after the plane strikes. This may have been burnt or unburnt fuel. I don't know. There was also motors and the possibility of arcing in those motors and relay which could ignite an explosive. Boats have been know to explode from gas fumes from fueling up ignited by a spark.

I am only saying that it is possible that there were explosions which were caused by the jet fuel which entered the express shafts and made it to the lobby. And this included several passenger and freight elevators going to WoW. And let's not forget the express elevators to the sky lobby on 78.

The building did not come down from a weakened structure at the base. Many of the core columns survived the collapse so they could not have caused it. And this is applicable to the perimeter columns which supported the floor outside the core. The entire row 500 was part of the spire.

And if you DID destroy the 23 center core columns - the outside the core floors would remain standing as it was the 24 perimeter core columns supported the floors outside the core.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Oct 10 2010, 11:24 PM
Post #14


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



i hear ya quest, i knew what you meant, since we have been thru this often enough here that im quite familiar with your stance. and yes - we can agree to disagree - and respectfully we shall! both of our thoughts on the matter have been expressed (in this thread) so its there for people to decide on (for themselves). lets plz stay on topic about explosions and those 2 firemen and not divert into a debate about planes vs. no-planes.


mr.O, i have to respectfully disagree. im firmly of the opinion (and currently seeking further evidence to support it*) that nothing other than intentionally detonated explosives could have wreaked that exact sort of havoc that was unleashed on that lobby. not fuel coming down one of dozens of elevator shafts, and not hvac gases combusting. so we too shall have to agree to (respectfully) disagree...

eta:
ps - mr.O please find at least one example of an hvac-based or related explosion that we can use for comparison.




*by citing individual accounts/descriptions/recollections about the state of people and infrastructure in and around the lobby, as was relayed officially on the record (and is available at this link).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 11 2010, 06:55 AM
Post #15





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I can't cite examples of explosions in comercial HVAC systems, but I know that many are designed to mitigate against explosions hazards. We also don't have examples of the kind of catastrophe which happened to the twin towers - planes slamming into skyscrapers.

"Ammonia is commonly used as a refrigerant, due to its excellent
heat transferring properties, availability and low cost for large
commercial operations. However, ammonia (NH3) is classified as a
toxic gas, is a moderate fire risk and may cause an explosion when
mixed with air in the 16% – 25% range. Many underestimate the
danger presented by ammonia refrigeration systems and the
potential for serious property damage when these systems do not
have adequate safeguards against leaks and fire or if contingency
planning is lacking.

....

REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS
Ammonia refrigeration systems use a vapor compression cycle and three main
pieces of equipment: a compressor, a condenser and an evaporator. Mechanical
compressors may be reciprocating, centrifugal or rotary-screw types. When
compressed, the ammonia gas liquifies. It passes through condenser coils that
dissipate the heat from the liquid. It then passes through evaporator coils and
returns to a gaseous state as it absorbs heat from the space being cooled...."

There clearly were explosions which damaged the lobby and some of the basement, the former we see in vids and stills, and the later was reported by testimony. I am not prepared to say what they were caused by or rule out building equipment explosions at this date. They appear to be caused by something else rather than part of the cause of the building collapse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Oct 11 2010, 09:14 AM
Post #16





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (paranoia @ Oct 11 2010, 03:24 AM) *
i hear ya quest, i knew what you meant, since we have been thru this often enough here that im quite familiar with your stance. and yes - we can agree to disagree - and respectfully we shall! both of our thoughts on the matter have been expressed (in this thread) so its there for people to decide on (for themselves). lets plz stay on topic about explosions and those 2 firemen and not divert into a debate about planes vs. no-planes.


handsdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Oct 11 2010, 11:44 AM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I used to have a lot of research on the basement and elevator witnesses/survivors but I've lost them all sad.gif.

One witness who always stuck with me was Mike Pecararo.


http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

QUOTE
Mike Pecoraro (2nd floor subbasement)

Deep below the tower, Mike Pecoraro was suddenly interrupted in his grinding task by a shake on his shoulder from his co-worker. "Did you see that?" he was asked. Mike told him that he had seen nothing. "You didn't see the lights flicker?", his co-worker asked again. "No," Mike responded, but he knew immediately that if the lights had flickered, it could spell trouble. A power surge or interruption could play havoc with the building's equipment. If all the pumps trip out or pulse meters trip, it could make for a very long day bringing the entire center's equipment back on-line.

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. "We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working.

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said.


They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. "They got us again," Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993.

...

Mike Pecoraro and Arti made their way out of Tower One and went to Tower Two. They encountered a crowd of people standing outside the tower, not knowing what had happened. Apparently, they had witnessed a fireball come through the lobby after the second airplane had struck that tower, but they were entering directly from the subway underground and had as yet, no idea of what was happening.


Maybe on the face of it, the theory that fuel entered the elevators and within this confined space, a finely dispersed spray of jetfuel could very well lead to a detonation instead of a deflagration.
What I have serious doubts about is the subsequent alleged force of this detonation.

First you have an aircraft, the fuel load of which we don't really know as we don't really know anything about the aircraft in question used that day - apart from what we've been spoonfed.

We have the elevators themselves, of which only 3 elevators stretch from the upper levels to the basement. 50 (express freight) and 6 and 7 (to the "Windows to the World" restaurant on the upper floors)



The elevators were housed within the core structure.



Then we are supposed to believe that fuel almost simultaneously entered one of these shafts, two of which were "out of order" and the other in which there was an employee found unconscious inside at the B1 level.

QUOTE
Arturo Griffith was in a freight elevator when the building was attacked. The elevator dropped to B1 (the basement level), fell below the landing. He was trapped in the elevator beneath debris and unconscious. He remembers seeing a beam of light. He called out. The smoke was so thick; Arturo could not see his own hand. So his rescuers had to follow his voice to find him.

'I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.'
Source


Hardly condusive to the route of a detonation strong enough to destroy a "50 ton press"...and then some.

The following thread does more justice than what I'm saying (and I've waffled long enough - that thread is fascinating and is bringing back memories of when I first started hoking through this rabbit hole):

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...=18745&st=0

I highly recommend people look through it. At least to remind ourselves of how important the basement testimony is (and which has been buried over the years)

The "fuel in the elevators" leading to such destruction doesn't add up. At all.

Sorry for going OT guys.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 11 2010, 12:46 PM
Post #18





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



That design system concept of the elevators is not correct.

Also the individual elevator shafts were not enclosed so it's possible that fuel entering one can migrate to another so to speak lower down.

here is an example of a 50 ton press:

http://www.amazon.com/Grizzly-H6233-Ton-Sh...s/dp/B0007D2YJU

I don't know how they knew the weight of the door as 300#. But it likely was a metal door with a gypsum core and did not weigh 300#s. Why would this man know the weight of the door?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Oct 11 2010, 02:18 PM
Post #19





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Ammonia refridgerant ?!?!?! for air conditioning


are you f'ing serious ?

or are you just yanking our collective chains
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 11 2010, 02:38 PM
Post #20





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The Refrigeration Cycle

The refrigerator in your kitchen uses a cycle that is similar to the one described in the previous section. But in your refrigerator, the cycle is continuous. In the following example, we will assume that the refrigerant being used is pure ammonia, which boils at -27 degrees F. This is what happens to keep the refrigerator cool:

1. The compressor compresses the ammonia gas. The compressed gas heats up as it is pressurized (orange).
2. The coils on the back of the refrigerator let the hot ammonia gas dissipate its heat. The ammonia gas condenses into ammonia liquid (dark blue) at high pressure.
3. The high-pressure ammonia liquid flows through the expansion valve.

You can think of the expansion valve as a small hole. On one side of the hole is high-pressure ammonia liquid. On the other side of the hole is a low-pressure area (because the compressor is sucking gas out of that side).

4. The liquid ammonia immediately boils and vaporizes (light blue), its temperature dropping to -27 F. This makes the inside of the refrigerator cold.
5. The cold ammonia gas is sucked up by the compressor, and the cycle repeats.

or

Refrigeration Engineering and Contracting

Refrigeration Engineering & Contracting Co., Inc., a 2nd generation mechanical contractor in business for over 40 years, provides design, installation and refrigeration services to customers in the food and beverage, ice arena, cold storage, pharmaceutical, chemical and other manufacturing industries. Redefining refrigeration systems with green, innovative technology, RECCO has built a solid reputation for quality, performance, integrity and exceeding customer expectations. Our aqueous ammonia refrigeration and anhydrous ammonia refrigeration products and services are superior. Contact us today to speak with an industrial refrigeration or ammonia refrigeration engineering expert about your project.

I am not saying that the twins used amonia, as I don't know, but it is possible and there was a lot of compressed gas used for cooling.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th May 2020 - 02:30 PM