+- Fearless Forums (https://fearlessrp.net)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Forum: Discussions (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: Archive (https://fearlessrp.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=481)
+---- Thread: 9/11 (/showthread.php?tid=39425)
RE: 9/11 - Toxic - 12-05-2013
I thought I just finished explaining that it's not an oxygen starved fire. The black smoke is a B class fire, the smoke standard when fuel's involved in the fire. Let's say, 50,000 gallons of it.
Melting points are not exactly what I was talking about. I was saying that the steel would experience a change in its bonds, breaking and reforming them to a weaker form of steel, causing it to weaken at the temperatures which jet fuel burns. Let's not forget the initial impact, the following explosion, which would weaken the structure of the tower. 400,000 pounds of fuel, and a 740,000+ pound total weight, smashing into the side of a building. Jet fuel gets to about 1790 max, so the steel won't melt, but it will lose about 60-80% of it's strength. More than enough for the building to collapse on itself.
RE: 9/11 - aviator - 12-05-2013
If you think about it.
A Boeing 767-200 (type aircraft which collided with WTC 1), has a typical ZFW (Zero Fuel Weight) of around 250000 lbs (113400 KG). You have that weight slam into the side of the tower at approximately 400 knots (465 MPH|205 M/S). That's bound to cause some damage, obviously not enough to cause a whole building to collapse.
Now we add about 85'000 to 95'000 lbs of fuel (10'000 US Gallons). Not only increasing the weight of the aircraft to 335'000 lbs to 345'000 lbs but also highly flammable liquid, that is, Jet A fuel (typically used on commercial airliners in the U.S).
Toxic has basically hit it that Jet fuel burns at high temperatures and certainly would have contributed to the weakening of the steel, along with the huge amount of energy released when the big bird hit the building.
The black smoke has nothing to do with oxygen starvation. As Toxic said, it is usually due to there being some sort of oil, gasoline, rubber etc.
RE: 9/11 - aviator - 12-06-2013
I also have another thing to add.
That nice image you posted with 4 steel structures which had fires occurring over a lengthy time did not have a commercial airliner slam straight into it.
RE: 9/11 - Holdem - 12-10-2013
Class B fires burn very aggressively, like in the picture you gave, Toxic, or in this one:
[Image: 297590494.jpg]
It burns violently but for a short period of time. Most of the fluid was burned off in contact, thus the giant fireballs you see when the planes impacted.
[Image: article-2035503-006B50B300000258-411_964x1065.jpg]
And this is how they were burning long before the collapse.
[Image: towers_on_fire.jpg] From my point of view, that is not a Class B fire for there is hardly a flame visible, but a fire lacking oxygen.
As said Toxic, and now Aviator, I would like for you two to explain what caused the collapse of WTC7, since there was no plane that hit it and it was "Hardly" on fire.
RE: 9/11 - Toxic - 12-10-2013
50,000 gallons. And for christ's sake, it's not about the flame. It's that giant black smoke plume you see.
RE: 9/11 - Holdem - 12-13-2013
(12-10-2013, 04:58 PM)Toxic Wrote: 50,000 gallons. And for christ's sake, it's not about the flame. It's that giant black smoke plume you see.
[Image: pns-building-fire-1.JPG]
[Image: 5pth.jpg]
[Image: 1312788237-fire-rages-on-causing-black-s...780240.jpg]
These pictures are of fires in buildings in which there is "Big dense black smoke" yet they weren't caused because of any type of fuel, therefore the "smoke plume" you see you actually see in just about every building that catches fire, therefore the theory that it was jetfuel burning I believe is not correct.
Also:
FEMA Wrote: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.
Also due to the size of the building and the "low ammount" of fuel that actually burned within the building, fuel couldn't of caused the "Collapse" of the two towers.
If you'd like to read more about it, please read here -> http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
Also people seem to be avoiding my question of what caused the collapse of WTC 7. There is no blinder man that one who does not wish to see.
RE: 9/11 - Toxic - 12-13-2013
Sorry? I thought that a jet ran into the side of a building as well. Must've been a mistake in my calculations. And if you REALLY believe FEMA when they talk about 9/11 theories, I suppose you also believe their theory about WTC 7. The fuel is merely a catalyst. Mostly the building falling on itself because of its loss in structural integrity was a key factor, as the support columns in the building were damaged. The buildings were designed to hold 1300 tons beyond its own weight weight. The towers each weighed 500,000 tons. However, due to the steel weakening in the explosion and the fire (phase shift, once again), brought down the weight of the 10 floors above the collision area, a whole 45,000 tons.
RE: 9/11 - aviator - 12-13-2013
Let me reiterate:
The twin towers had a commercial airliner slam into it at 400 KIAS generating a huge amount of energy.
If you don't think that a Boeing 767 will break or damage steel, please think again. It will go straight through it, and cause damage to the surrounding steel - thus causing it to buckle, after so long. Along with other factors (jetliner slamming into it, fires, extra weight) - an airliner would definitely cause just about any building to collapse.
Toxic and I aren't saying Jet A(1) fuel was the only factor, as I presume you know, with most things there are several contributing factors, and fuel was just one of those.
RE: 9/11 - Holdem - 12-13-2013
(12-13-2013, 04:58 PM)Toxic Wrote: if you REALLY believe FEMA when they talk about 9/11 theories, I suppose you also believe their theory about WTC 7.
No, I do not believe what any type of government/corporation agency has to say about this subject, the fact that I quoted them in one of my responses was using what you believe is "True" against your argument. In this case, you were talking about "50,000 gallons of fuel", yet according to FEMA (A side which you in theory believe since you don't believe that there wasn't any other key factors in the collapsing of the buildings apart from a plane slamming into it) there was only around 3,500 gallons, so really in theory there was 7% of the fuel you say there was, which in my opinion isn't nearly enough to bring a building down, yet damage it's steel structure.
(12-13-2013, 04:58 PM)Toxic Wrote: Sorry? I thought that a jet ran into the side of a building as well. Must've been a mistake in my calculations.
Aviator Wrote:Let me reiterate:
The twin towers had a commercial airliner slam into it at 400 KIAS generating a huge amount of energy.
As you both believe that a plane is enough to bring down a building collapsing onto itself and that it was CLEARLY the reason why they were brought down, let us discuss WTC 7. The tower that was not hit by any aircraft yet collapsed like a house of cards. Please tell me how this tower collapsed when there was hardly any fire in it.