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 )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Jet Fuel Burn Rates

rob balsamo
post Aug 25 2006, 09:22 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Im suprised people still think it was jet fuel burning in the towers. Has anyone ever lit jet fuel on fire? I have. It burns up REAL quick. We do training every six months and light fires with jet fuel to put them out.

with that said, jet fuel wasnt burning in that building.. Office debris was. Office debris that is fire coded for a 110 story skyscraper (read: non-flammable).

Jets burn about 1000-5000lbs per hour depending on airframes, powerplant... weight.. etc. And thats in a controlled environment with jet fuel being fed into the engine. Imagine you light it ALL on fire all at once... its gone.

So, the argument of jet fuel burn temps is moot. And i wont buy the fact that pools of jet fuel were burning. Pools of jet fuel were found in cars on the streets below.. not burning.

Try it, Get some Kerosene (even though it burns slower than jet fuel), put it in a coffee can and throw it on a fire... Stand back though....lol. Cause this is what happened when those planes hit. Then you may want to throw some unburned kerosene on a tree.. or steel.. whichever... hey.. try a coke can. And light it. I bet it doesnt even melt the coke can it burns so quick. (although it may, havent tried it myself)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MichaelMR
post Sep 13 2006, 09:10 AM
Post #2


Veteran


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 737
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 46



Some interesting information..

-1535C (2795F) - melting point of iron
-1510C (2750F) - melting point of typical structural steel
-825C (1517F) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800C.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.


Maximum jet fuel burn temperature is 825 Celsius.

Temperature needed to melt structural steel is 1510 Celsius.

Compare this.

On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700C (1,292F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."

Sources: New York Times, Saturday 15th February 1975
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NJcpaTOM
post Nov 1 2006, 10:26 AM
Post #3





Group: Banned
Posts: 71
Joined: 28-October 06
From: Maywood, New Jersey
Member No.: 175



BUT the 2nd plane's jet fuel sure looked pretty burning outside the tower.
You might say it burnt an impression in the minds of everybody who saw it.

Is there any way to judge the quantity of jet fuel from the explosion ?

Apparently the missle that was fired just before impact worked to well. Parts from the plane went out the other side of the tower.

I don't believe that this was a standard passenger flight. It had something mounted on the bottom.

I got started with "911: In Plane Site" which used to be available at Google. It is in 3 parts and located Question911.com - Download pages

The more I looked the more I became a believer. As they say on the Power Hour - We Will Not Stop.

yes1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lederhosn
post Nov 1 2006, 11:12 AM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 62
Joined: 28-October 06
Member No.: 176



From FEMA/NIST (I think both stated that) we know that "most of the jetfuel was consumed by the explosion of the initial impact".

NIST states in 2005 (read or watch Kevin Ryan therefore please) that from 16 steel columns tested in burning with jetfuel and interiors only 3 reached a maximum temp. over 250C. NIST also states that there`s no evidence that anyone of the steel columns near fire reached ever 600C. This temp. is the critical temp. for the guys claiming steel will loose half its strength at. No way.

NIST says that all test units withstood the fires more 2 hours easily. Compare it to that: NIST states that the fires initiated by jetfuel inside the WTC on 9/11 burned each approx. for 20 minutes with a heat of 1000-1100C and after that it burned "500C or below". Not roughly 2 hours, but failing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StevenDC
post Dec 30 2006, 11:51 AM
Post #5


Nitpick


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26-December 06
Member No.: 374



Am I missing anything here? All critical analysis welcomed.

I believe all will concede that 1.) the planes that struck the WTC had fuel on board; 2.) the fuel was dispersed in and on the WTC; 3.) fuel will burn until it is consumed or extinguished; 4.) the fuel contained on board would have been disbursed at the point of impact, i.e. left wing tank at 78th floor; 5.) fuel will pool or flow downward, not upward, due to the effects of gravity.

Any problems with the assumptions?

During the Hardball video, the OCTer was presented with question of how the woman was standing in the hole the plane made in the WTC on the 78th floor, assuming that 1.) the fuel from the plane would have been where she was standing, 2.) burning at 1100 degrees (NIST report) which was hot enough to weaken the floor trusses, 3.) and, this caused the collapse.

The OCTer's answer was to the effect of "that" fire must have gone out. The woman seen standing in the gash was identified as Edna Cintron. There is video footage of her waving, but the footage only lasts 2 seconds. Replay it a few times and you can definitely see her waving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jRwTYbtgK8&NR

So, the fire must have gone out how? Consumed fuel or extinguished fuel? Did the fuel supply move itself up 2 floors? Or was the fuel contained only in the right wing (this balancing act is possible, but highly improbable) which struck the upper floor?

Or, is it physically possible that the majority of the fuel supply was consumed on impact in the fireball, fuel did not pool, the fire actually did go out, and the temperatures at the point of impact were in fact in range of tolerance for continuation of human life? And by implication, NOT in the range to weaken steel? (Occams razor?)

In order for the steel trusses to weaken from temperatures at 1100 degrees (that is the temp given by NIST) that temperature would be required to be maintained below the steel trusses. This is an engineering requirement because as we all know, the gaseous ambient temperature ratings in the room do not equal the internal temperatures of the steel.

I would find it questionable how a human being could find their way through a room that is maintaining a constant 1100 degrees (actually, 1100 degrees gaseous ambient temperature would not be sufficient to weaken the steel).
It is a fact that heat rises, that is why we are taught to crawl out of a fire. Maybe it was 1100 degrees at the ceiling near the trusses and below, let's say 150 degrees - the singeing temperature for human lung tissue - on the floor.

However, the fuel supply was a liquid and would not have been suspended just below the trusses. The fuel supply, following many laws - gravity for instance - would have been on the floor where the woman would have been crawling to gain access to the open hole area. Anyone who has ever stood beside a campfire or structural fire also would understand the laws of heat transference and would not attempt such an argument that a room could maintain temperatures of 1100 degrees and also support human life.

Now it seems the new govt theory is that the interior support columns were weakened by heat causing twisting and flexing. This is required because the footage showing the antennae during initial collapse shows that the center support columns failed at exactly the same time as the outer steel walls. Truss failure would not apply the needed force against the interior columns to cause complete failure, or at least according to the govt theory that the 5/8 bolts holding the trusses to the support columns sheered. So now, with a yet a third govt theory, we must ask: How did the center support columns, designed to be stand-alone, fail? If the govt theory is heat, from what source? How would the fuel reach the center equally from all sides? Or, did the wings remain intact following entry through the steel outer skin and cut 47 columns, also equally in time, force, and temperature?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StevenDC
post Dec 30 2006, 11:53 AM
Post #6


Nitpick


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26-December 06
Member No.: 374



QUOTE (lederhosn @ Nov 1 2006, 10:12 AM)
From FEMA/NIST (I think both stated that) we know that "most of the jetfuel was consumed by the explosion of the initial impact".

NIST states in 2005 (read or watch Kevin Ryan therefore please) that from 16 steel columns tested in burning with jetfuel and interiors only 3 reached a maximum temp. over 250C. NIST also states that there`s no evidence that anyone of the steel columns near fire reached ever 600C. This temp. is the critical temp. for the guys claiming steel will loose half its strength at. No way.

NIST says that all test units withstood the fires more 2 hours easily. Compare it to that: NIST states that the fires initiated by jetfuel inside the WTC on 9/11 burned each approx. for 20 minutes with a heat of 1000-1100C and after that it burned "500C or below". Not roughly 2 hours, but failing.

Can I ask for cites when given with quotes? I'm not one to repeat what I haven't seen first-hand at the source. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Dec 30 2006, 01:08 PM
Post #7


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (StevenDC @ Dec 30 2006, 03:53 PM)
<s>
Can I ask for cites when given with quotes? I'm not one to repeat what I haven't seen first-hand at the source. Thanks.

You are right.

PEOPLE! If you are going to put forward an assertion, you need to back it up with some sort of documentation. If you are QUOTING something, especially a government document, you should be precise in your quote AND include a link to that document if available.

Under FINDINGS -- "Characteristics of the Fires" in the NC STAR1-5 Executive Summary:
QUOTE
The dominant fuel for the fires in the towers was the office combustibles. On the floors
where the aircraft fuselage impacted, there was a significant, but secondary contribution from
the combustibles in the aircraft. Most of the jet fuel in the fire zones was consumed in the
first few minutes after impact
, although there may have been unburned pockets of jet fuel that
led to flare-ups late in the morning.

PG 14 (my emphasis added)

PDF: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers (Draft)

PS: Here are all the NIST documents: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Dec 30 2006, 11:35 PM
Post #8





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



Ok. This is my Favourite smile.gif

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels; however, these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors.

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250C.
These areas were:

WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse.

Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250C, were found for two core columns from the fireaffected floors of the towers.

Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.

wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

But...ups! It means nothing! Why ? Becaue:" ...these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors" wink.gif

So, they did a "four fire resistance tests conducted this month on composite concrete-steel trussed floor systems typical of those used in the World Trade Center"... and note that this test was supposed to suport the official theory. What happened ?

NIST Tests Provide Fire Resistance Data On World Trade Center Floor Systems
Science Daily August 27, 2004 --

The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) today reported that results from a series of four fire resistance tests conducted this month on composite concrete-steel trussed floor systems typical of those used in the World Trade Center (WTC) towers showed that the test structures were able to withstand standard fire conditions for between one and two hours. The tests are part of NIST's building and fire safety investigation of the WTC disaster on Sept. 11, 2001.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040829130757.htm

Here is possible to see the result.

Table of results from Underwriters Laboratories August 2004 floor model tests, as presented by NIST in October 2004

wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf

Here is KEVIN RYAN talking about it:

NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.[14] NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th

www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-NIST-Lies30mar06.htm

And here are some "debunking"

The below test results are used by conspiracy theorists to suggest the collapse couldn't have happened because, if you note the test under "Failure to support load" there are three asterisks (***) which indicates that failure did not occur. What they don't stress is the fact that all four tests have fire proofing on the trusses. Note the fire rating with 1/2 inch spray on fire proofing is 45 minutes. Some trusses and columns in the towers impact zone had none. ( rolleyes.gif )
www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Dec 31 2006, 03:28 AM
Post #9


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (behind @ Dec 31 2006, 03:35 AM)
Ok. This is my Favourite smile.gif

Yep, that's it folks. All NIST has is the idea that asbestos got blown off the steel and THAT is what caused total structural failure of the entire building, perimeter and core columns, simultaneously.

TA DA!

The JFK assassination had the "magic bullet theory." 9/11 has magic everything: terrorists who avoid detection, planes (murder weapons) that completely disappear on impact, structures that explode into dust under the excruciating force of office furniture fires.

Amazing, ain't it. whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StevenDC
post Dec 31 2006, 12:48 PM
Post #10


Nitpick


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26-December 06
Member No.: 374



QUOTE (behind @ Dec 30 2006, 10:35 PM)
Ok. This is my Favourite smile.gif

The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) today reported that results from a series of four fire resistance tests conducted this month on composite concrete-steel trussed floor systems typical of those used in the World Trade Center (WTC) towers showed that the test structures were able to withstand standard fire conditions for between one and two hours.
NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

And what temperatures were these tests conducted at?

Whatever temperatures were applied during this test, that does not answer the question of what was the heat source in the towers to supply the testing temperatures?

So, no JP4 fueled fire. Are you going to tell me that burning desks and other goods in the WTC burned at a temperature in excess of 1100 degrees sufficient to weaken the trusses, thus initializing collapse? And if you care to discuss temperatures, then answer the obvious question that everyone is dancing around: How is a human being standing in a room that has a supposed gaseous ambient temperature of 1100 degrees????

So first, the towers could not reach a sustained 1100 degrees. But, let's just for S&G's allow that assumption. It is not an assumption that 1100 degrees gaseous ambient temperature is NOT sufficient to weaken steel - even given the ludicrous assumption that the impact conveniently dislodged ALL the fireproofing. If NO fireproofing had ever been applied, the temps still do not reach the required range to weaken the trusses.

Take away heat source and you take away the CAUSE of collapse initiation. Take away the given cause and you are left with our question to Congress: What caused collapse initiation?

And this is the final argument I will have on this or any other website, I have much better things to do than engage in an unprovable cat fight with people who place any credence in a government funded, impartial, biased-by-necessity, written by a Presidential Appointee who-would-like-to-keep-his-job, report.

But before exiting, answer this - Do you also place full credence in the EPA report that claimed the air was safe to breath?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 31 2006, 01:16 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



psst.. Steve... calm down buddy.. behind is on your side. He is making fun of the NIST report...


cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Dec 31 2006, 01:57 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (StevenDC @ Dec 31 2006, 04:48 PM)
And what temperatures were these tests conducted at?

Whatever temperatures were applied during this test, that does not answer the question of what was the heat source in the towers to supply the testing temperatures?

Totally agree.

There is no evidence of high temperatures in the tower... and even though they assumed the highest possible temertures in the test... Failure to support load did not occur!

The test did not support the official theory.

Here is the test.

wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf

It is very interesting too see it. There is pitcure of the floor... and there people can see how strong the floors was.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StevenDC
post Dec 31 2006, 02:37 PM
Post #13


Nitpick


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26-December 06
Member No.: 374



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Dec 31 2006, 12:16 PM)
psst.. Steve... calm down buddy.. behind is on your side. He is making fun of the NIST report...


cheers.gif

ohmy.gif doh1.gif

What we have here, is a failure to recognize sarcasm...

thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StevenDC
post Jan 20 2007, 06:30 PM
Post #14


Nitpick


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26-December 06
Member No.: 374



So we have the evidence to play with, all circumstantial, but still evidence.

We have what by all accounts is the existence of molten steel;
We know that steel melts at +- 2750 degrees F;
We know that the hydrocarbon fires, even under the best of scenarios, could not have reached the temps required to melt the steel;
We suspect, without having a complete list of all items that were in the towers, that nothing in the towers could have been a fuel source to reach these temps.

So, by deduction, we know that something in the collapse reached that minimum temp;
And by scientific deduction, we know that either
A.) the temps reached far exceeded +- 2750 F enabling the "pockets" to remain molten even after cooling off with time, or;
B.) something was feeding the source of heat to maintain these temps, or;
C.) the "pockets were so well insulated that they maintained the temps.



My uninformed personal best guess is that the source far exceeded 2750 F and the pockets were insulated.

What is your best guess?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Mar 12 2007, 08:38 AM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



People who argue in favor of 600C+ fires also fail to take into consideration the effects of heat transfer throughout 200,000 tons of steel! Therefore, in order to heat areas of the steel to the point of failure, heat needs to be applied more rapidly than can be conducted away. The concept of thermal transfer throughout these structures was completely ignored by the NIST.

Steel has a thermal conductivity of 50.2 W/m K.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...s/thrcn.html#c1

For arguments sake, let's say that the temperature differential is 600C

By applying Fourier's Law, perhaps the offical fairytale huggers would like to explain exactly how much heat would need to be applied to even un-fireproofed steel to overcome the effects of thermal transfer; raising the temperature of the steel to the point of failure - all within the space of an hour! Maybe they would also care to explain exactly how long it will take for the structure and its surroundings to reach thermal equilibrium!

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Anyone who persists that fire caused the collapse of the Twin Towers is an idiot!! [laugh]

This post has been edited by Beached: Mar 12 2007, 11:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Edgar
post Jun 27 2007, 11:37 AM
Post #16





Group: Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: 25-June 07
From: Kansas City
Member No.: 1,248



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html

PBS from one of the gov't 9/11 investigators.

Pt. 4: Inferno

"Most of the jet fuel was burnt in a matter of a few minutes, maybe 5 or 6 minutes, but certainly less than 10 minutes."

I read somewhere (it was a while ago, I don't remember where I read it!) that the explanation of the woman was that the gaping hole was a vent for the fire - it was sucking in oxygen to feed off of, so it was cooler than near the middle. I know, it's a crock of BS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Nov 11 2007, 04:44 AM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



QUOTE
What we have here, is a failure to recognize sarcasm...

thumbsup.gif


..LOL!.... sorry!...that just made me laugh!

...tickled the right spot that did!... but it does highlight one problem that could be associated with any online forum... how easy it is to take things out of the context from what was intended!...if you know what i mean!?!... rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roark
post May 22 2008, 09:24 AM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 42
Joined: 21-May 08
Member No.: 3,397



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Aug 25 2006, 08:22 PM) *
Im suprised people still think it was jet fuel burning in the towers. Has anyone ever lit jet fuel on fire? I have. It burns up REAL quick. We do training every six months and light fires with jet fuel to put them out.


OK, assuming that you are right. Lets say that 4000 gallons of jet fuel burned up inside the building in 10 minutes.

That would equal 887 megawatts of heat energy released into the building or that average energy output of a typical coal fired electrical generating plant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roark
post May 22 2008, 09:29 AM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 42
Joined: 21-May 08
Member No.: 3,397



QUOTE (johndoeX @ Aug 25 2006, 08:22 PM) *
with that said, jet fuel wasnt burning in that building.. Office debris was. Office debris that is fire coded for a 110 story skyscraper (read: non-flammable).


Yes, office debris puts out a lot of heat when it burns also.

There is no such thin as a non-flammable office.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5C.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roark
post May 22 2008, 09:34 AM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 42
Joined: 21-May 08
Member No.: 3,397



QUOTE (MichaelMR @ Sep 13 2006, 08:10 AM) *
Some interesting information.. . . .snip . .
-825C (1517F) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)


That value is for an open pool flame with no heat accumulation and all the reactants at standard temperature and pressure. Those conditions do not exist inside of a structure fire.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 17th January 2020 - 09:48 AM