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)

Some interesting information..

-1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
-1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
-825ºC (1517ºF) - 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 800ºC.
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 700°C (1,292°F) 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

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.

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 250°C. NIST also states that there`s no evidence that anyone of the steel columns near fire reached ever 600°C. 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 1000-1100°C and after that it burned "500°C or below". Not roughly 2 hours, but failing.

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? (Occam’s 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” gov’t 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 gov’t theory that the 5/8 “ bolts holding the trusses to the support columns sheered. So now, with a yet a third gov’t theory, we must ask: How did the center support columns, designed to be stand-alone, fail? If the gov’t 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?

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:

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/

Ok. This is my Favourite

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 250°C.
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 600°C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250°C, 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"

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. ( )
www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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]

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.

..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!?!...

OK, assuming that you are right. Let’s 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.

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

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.

Yeah, but there are codes that have to be met to make stuff - ever drop a cigarette on a carpet without noticing? The carpet doesn't catch fire. The point is, office furniture fires don't endanger steel-framed structures. The whole much-repeated idea that it was all that jet-fuel that made these fires extraordinary is a fallacy.

I'll be watching this thread, I really don't want to put it in the debate forum, because this is a relevant topic for people just browsing here that don't have access there. (i.e. Keep it civil, everyone. )

Tell that to the nine Charelston firefighters that died last year when the sofa store fire they were fighting caused the steel framed roof of the building to fail and collapse on them.

Was the sofa store a Class A OSHA Skyscraper?

Roarke, please review our forum rules. Enjoy your vacation.

Ummm, isn't heat energy measured in joules (J), calories, or BTU's?

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/energy.html

http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html

There's a flux capacitor joke to be made here, but I'll let it slide this time...

Well if there's no "heat accumulation"- would there even be a fire in the first place? As in no heat means no fire- period. See the "Fire Triangle":
http://ehs.sc.edu/modules/Fire/01_triangle.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle

Maybe "heat accumulation" means specific heat-
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/spht.html

Maybe "heat accumulation" means Heat of Combustion-
http://www.webmo.net/curriculum/heat_of_co...ustion_key.html
[I'll let Roark look this one up for jet fuel specifically- it was Roark's assertion here after all]

http://www.colorado.edu/Chemistry/chem4581_91/HCF.pdf

Pray tell, what P & T conditions exactly did exist inside the WTC 1, 2, 7 "structure fire"(s)? So it's no longer a fuel fire then? Or office furnishing fire? Or ?? [Ed: weren't the structure(s) made of steel? Now there's an ignition temperature for you, unless thermite/thermate is involved. ] I haven't seen any documented, instrumented data on that before.

I'm fairly certain that structural steel would melt LONG before it reached its ignition temperature [tensile or yield strength(s) not really relevant in this context BTW]- it is often called a "foundry," or "steel mill" and that's where structural beams and "columns" come from.

Here are some pictures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_mill

http://www.backyardmetalcasting.com/

EDIT: Steel temperature charts at:
http://www.beautifuliron.com/usingthe.htm

http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm

GLITTERING GENERALITY ALERT:
Thanks for the link Roark (that painter already gave us up-thread BTW),

Here are another 2 posts up-thread that you may have missed. Care to provide calculations for heat (or temperatures- that would probably be easier BTW) for "a lot of heat" inside WTC1, 2, and 7? 10,000 pages really is a lot to sift/glean through- have you read the entire thing personally? Page numbers or section numbers can be helpful when citing references.

APA Internet Reference style:
http://linguistics.byu.edu/faculty/henrich.../apa/APA09.html

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....t&p=7152283

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....t&p=7160727

Unfortunately, it's from Wikipedia (SOURCED input from the lurking debunkers that refutes this is welcome on this one point for commercial Jet-A and Jet-A1).

"JET A-1

Flash point: 38 °C
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C
Freezing point: −47 °C (−40 °C for JET A)

Open air burning temperatures: 260–315 °C (500–599 °F)
Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C (1796 °F)

Density at 15 °C (60 °F): 0.775–0.840 kg/L"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the interior of the WTC Twin Towers and Pentagon be considerably less aspirated than "open air?"

EDIT: Wiki has a broken Chevron-Texaco link. Try Ch.4 & Ch. 6 of :
http://www.chevronglobalaviation.com/docs/...arks&page=1

http://www.chevronglobalaviation.com/docs/...tech_review.pdf

Shell Aviation Products
http://www.shell.com/home/content/uk-om/sh...d_services.html

Exxon-Mobil
http://www.exxonmobilaviation.com/Aviation...cations2005.pdf

http://www.exxonmobil.com/AviationGlobal/F...lSpec2008_1.pdf

BP
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/a...ook_04004_1.pdf

Current US prices:
http://www.100ll.com/?gclid=CIiSxKGk6JMCFRghnAodGDW3Ww

EDIT: Well apparently according to NIST's Dr. Sunder, the Towers were now airtight, like pistons:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10747736

For a better source try this dMole :

http://www.apexoil.com/msdsjet.pdf

I was at Ansul (fire extinguisher manufacturer) They also make a 'foam truck' that sprays a pink fire retardant foam

I was there when they did a test for the Air force

They have a pond that measures about 50 feet X 50 feet that they filled with Jet fuel

they had to use an accelerant (heptane) to get it started, they poured about 15 gallons of it around the outside of the pool and lit that

it took about 20 seconds before it really got fully involved -- we were standing about 60 feet from the flame and it was warm but not hot

a wood bon fire seems much hotter IMO

The foam truck put the flame out in about a minute too -- very impressive

In regards to the WTC it looks as if most of the fuel flashed outside the towers

also relevent here is the famous picture of the woman standing in the gash with out being burned up

my 2 cents

C'mon O892,

I KNOW you've got some info to add here- still got any specifications or old books on the RN versions? I know the USAF used "flashier" JP-4 (NATO F-40) until about 1996.

EDIT: Courtesy of those humanitarians at BP, I just found something. While historical, it's pretty thin on specifications.

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do...contentId=57733

Also, I will take data on any fuel's lower and higher heating values (LHV & HHV) for other research.

There is a lot of sourced info at jakeogh's page- see under link "Jet Fuel":

http://nasathermalimages.com/

The Jet Fuel; How Hot Did it Heat the World Trade Center?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/how-hot.htm

Here is more MSDS and other info on Jet A fuel:

http://www.spragueenergy.com/documents/MSD...20Fuel%2006.pdf

http://www.intox.org/databank/documents/ch...fuel/cie768.htm

"Composition/Purity:
The most important aspect of evaluating the hazards of any petroleum distillate is accurate definition of the material in question. The source of the crude petroleum, the boiling range of the distillate and all of the processing and refining steps influence the composition and hazards of the resulting petroleum distillate. The composition of Jet A is established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) in consultation with manufacturers and users. The specifications are based primarily on performance characteristics. There is no standard formula for Jet A. The straight-run kerosene stream is used for aviation fuel production. Jet A and Jet A-1 are mixtures of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons with carbon numbers predominantly in the range of C9-C16 and which meet the requirements of ASTM specification D 1655.(24) Jet A and Jet A-1 only differ in freezing point. According to the specification, the maximum allowed level of aromatic hydrocarbons is 25% (by volume) and 3% naphthalenes (by volume). Total sulfur (0.3% by weight) and mercaptan sulfur (0.003% by weight) are present as impurities. Jet A has a distillation range of less than 205 to 300 deg C (401 to 572 deg F). The physical properties given in this review are either for specific products, from the specification or for straight-run kerosene (CAS 8008-20-6). The specification lists a number of additives that may be used in jet fuels. Typical additives include an antioxidant (e.g. 2,6-di-tert-butylphenol and tert- and tri-tert-butylphenols), a metal deactivator (e.g., N,N- disalicylidene-1,2-propanediamine), an electrical conductivity additive (e.g. Stadis 450), a static inhibitor, a fuel system icing inhibitor (e.g. diethylene glycol monomethyl ether), a corrosion of steel inhibitor, a lubrication improver, a biocide, a fuel lubricity additive, and a thermal stability improver. The presence of additives can contribute significantly to the overall hazards of a particular jet fuel product. Consult the manufacturer/supplier of your specific product for additional information."
----------------
DOT/FAA Jet A Volatility Survey

http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar0730.pdf

"An automated Grabner Instruments MINIVAP VPS vapor pressure tester was used to conduct the ASTM D 5191. Although the vapor pressure of Jet A is so low that there is no actual value given in the ASTM D 1655 Jet A fuel specification, it was determined that testing the samples for vapor pressure could be used as an alert. If any samples exhibited a significant reading from this test, it would indicate possible fuel contamination. The vapor pressure tests were conducted by FAA engineering technicians."

-----------------
Miramar Naval Air Station jet engine emissions test

http://www.areco.org/pdf/ParticulateEmissi...Engines1996.pdf

Combustion chemistry at Section 5.1 of:

http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/ara/arc/rm/2982.pdf

(The attempted equation paste was very ugly).

Those towers did not BURN, they EXPLODED

I guess Roark was a no-show, eh?

There is more good information on jet fuel at this page (but I found a typo that should be ft³ instead of "ft^2" when converting from gallons):

Jet Fuel

Here is a good units conversion and reference page:

http://www.convert-me.com/en/