Amount of fuel consumed during impact explosion on WTC
Last night, I promised a few folks I'd look at this. Here it is.
For those of you that missed it, the impetus for this post is that some people were claiming things like "90% of the fuel was burned up on impact", but, they didn't really have any basis for it. I thought I'd take a stab at trying estimate it analytically.
I had to make several assumptions. Basically, my calculation was just to figure out how much energy it would take to raise the temperature of a huge slab of air by several hundred degrees celsius. Then, I related that energy content to gallons of kerosene.
The final number is 6,000 gallons of kerosene. Based on this crude estimate, it looks like around 25% of the fuel on the aircraft was consumed in the impact fireball.
Does anyone want to actually see the calculation? If so, I'll take the time to clean it up a little and post it as a pdf somewhere. Otherwise, I will go ahead and retreat back behind my flame shield.
The Kerosene burnt off in less than 10 minutes...
Sustained fires in the same location does not work with office fires especially at those temperatures. It would burn through those contents very quickly and move to consume other contents.
Most likely the fires would get to certain point and flash over and peak for a short period at those incredible temps and then move due to the fact the there just isn't enough contents to act as fuel to sustain it in any given location. This as I have said before doesn't cause failure as it didn't in the 1975 WTC fires that burned on multiple floors for over 3 hours.
"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building. "
"It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced. "
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_1975_fire.html
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
WRONG
Sorry but what your doing is refered to as dry labbing. Which is assuming an outcomes then using the necessary protcals to reach the assumed number.
To get the actual numbers requires calculating kenetic force due to flight velocity. Which inturn will disperse the fuel largely as a fine mist/aerosol due to the velocity and sudden reduction of said velocity.
Your numbers are like saying it took 5kw of electricity to heat the metal plate so the car battery had to have done that. Since it was cause by the car battery!
Tottaly absurd and doctored to reach the conclusion YOU want.
The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare
BINGO
Then to top it off, he comes back with a tidy little summary patting himself on the back. and then tells bbagnall " let's be classy and not rub salt in the wounds", like he has wounded us with this drivel.
You can fan your physics tailfeathers, and show off your joules. but you don't seem to be convincing anyone.
Pooled kerosene and office supplies are not going to cause simultaneous immediate structural collapse of the lower part of the building. And it certainly didn't cause it in WTC 7
It didn't cause it in the Mandarin building either. Of course the building wasn't owned by Stanley Silverstein...
I will give you credit for trying though.
★★★★★★
The 2nd amendment.
The ORIGINAL Homeland Security
http://www.ronpaulbrochure.com/
http://www.dailypaul.com/donate
Please read the
whole thread. This was always intended to be an estimate only.
The assumptions I made were driven by what made it easy. I honestly had no idea what the outcome would be.
My God, Forge!
Please stop while you're behind!!! You make yourself sound so utterly asinine! I'm embarrassed for you...
I am wondering...
Who owns or publishes FP Magazine? If this is another Warren Commission report, or REAL studies...
I'm sure that we can all agree that "history repeats"....and the similarities between this event and those in the days of Stalin, Moussolini and Hitler during their rises to power is just waaaay too similar for me.
I have taken the blue pill, woken from my pleasant slumber and can now see the boundless evils of man.
------------------
BC
'No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.'
-- Samuel Adams (letter to James Warren, 4 November 1775)
------------------
BC
Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry
While you are calculating
Could you calculate the percentage chance that wargames involving hijacked planes would take place the same day actual planes are hijacked?
Also, how do the steel melting calculations work in consideration of the recent fire in the Chinese skyscraper that burned unchecked for hours with no failure? Was that fire less hot? Was it plain luck that there was no steel failure at such heat? How do these factors fit into your models?
_________________________________
My liberty-minded home base of thought:
www.ponderthis.net
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
Good questions...
I would add; What is the fuel source for the Beijing fire? Certainly not jet fuel! Carpets, toilet paper, drapes..???
h-daddy
What was the fuel source for WTC 1,2 & 7
desks, chairs, computers, printers Etc. The kerosene burnt off in less than 10 minutes.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
It is stated in the FPE analysis
that the jet fuel was relatively inconsequential to the fire damage, being only the initiator of the blaze, and the jet fuel burned out rather quickly. And NIST agrees.
They "real damage" is claimed to be done by the flaming office furniture.
I'm sure all offices have furniture, even the Beijing office building.
So... if the
Beijing Mandarin Hotel had plenty of fuel (it sure looks that way - an inferno!) then can we reasonably conclude that MAYBE there was plenty of fuel in WTC1, 2 and 7?
h-daddy
It would seem so.
But why didn't the Beijing hotel collapse, with much bigger blaze, and much longer burn time?
Indeed! The blaze appears to be
FAR more intense. I am surprised it didn't buckle and collapse. I am going to try and research the construction details with my Chinese students. Kemp's questions below need answers.
h-daddy
Yeah
Why didn't the steel weaken significantly and give out? That is the claim the "debunkers" ALWAYS make for the WTC towers - the steel weakened and gave out due to fire. Why did the Beijing steel not weaken and give out in a clear raging inferno? Was the fire less hot? Stronger steel?
_________________________________
My liberty-minded home base of thought:
www.ponderthis.net
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
An excellent question
One I'd like to have answered too. We really need to know more about the construction of the building. I'm especially interested in the floor construction.
Could be a million factors
But I'm really interested in finding out.
Does anyone have a link to structural data on the Beijing building?
I'd really like to take a look at it so we can start shooting some theories back and forth. All I'm finding are news reports, nothing regarding the actual construction.
Eric Hoffer
http://gplus.to/jamesrmoore
According to the FPE analysis
burning office furniture alone is sufficient to cause steel support truss rods to fail within 60-100 minutes, even if the steel is protected with specific fire insulation that meets or exceeds fire codes, such as the WTC met or exceeded codes. Regardless if there is any damage to the beams or insulation.
According to FPE, office furniture can cause truss rod failure temps of 770*C in an hour to an hour and a half, which will precipitate a building collapse.
I would expect then, that any major fire in a steel frame building will cause collapse within an hour and a half, without exception. Because clearly, according to the engineering analysis, buildings are not made to withstand any more than that.
If they KNOW that the steel rods will fail at 770*C, and that office furniture can get them that hot in 60 minutes time, and the fire insulation will not protect them any longer than that, then they ARE MADE to collapse at 60-100 minutes of fire time.
I'm gonna have to conlcude
The FPE analysis is full o' shit.
_________________________________
My liberty-minded home base of thought:
www.ponderthis.net
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
Well, it certainly is interesting,
because if what FPE says is true, we'd have steel buildings collapsing from fire every single day around this country.
But, equally as interesting, the only ones that did were at the WTC.
They've told us that it wasn't the planes that brought the towers down.
They've told us that it wasn't the jet fuel.
They've told us it was 56 minutes of office fire for one tower, and 104 minutes of office fire for the other tower.
The FPE is taking a controlled experiment to scew the data...
Sustained fires in the same location does not work with office fires especially at those temperatures. It would burn through those contents very quickly and move to consume other contents.
Most likely the fires would get to certain point and flash over and peak for a short period at those incredible temps and then move due to the fact the there just isn't enough contents to act as fuel to sustain it in any given location. This as I have said before doesn't cause failure as it didn't in the 1975 WTC fires that burned on multiple floors for over 3 hours.
"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building. "
"It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced. "
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_1975_fire.html
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
Just found this while looking for something else.....
Didn't have time to go through most of it but it looks like it may help you find some of the stuff you were looking for. Hopefully it helps.
http://www.yukon911truth.com/documents/Stephen_Badhwar-911_B...
___________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6pAcBXt2j8
"Not armies, not nations, have advanced the race; but here and there, in the course of ages, an individual has stood up and cast his shadow over the world."
Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Viva La Revolucion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmaTNf4YhEs
Recap
I think this has been a really good thread. I've learned some and maybe others have too. The fireprotection magazine article has been particularly educational:
http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=13&i=68
Several things have come out of this thread:
1. My estimate of 6,000 gallons of fuel consumed was a correct order of magnitude. FPmag estimates the quantity of fuel consumed to be closer to 3300 gallons. I'm certain their number is more accurate than mine as my calc was admittedly crude. Nice to know that someone has figured this one out though.
2. FPmag, however, reports that only 10,000 gallons were on the planes at the time of impact, leaving around 7,700 gallons to burn in the building. Not a trivial amount, but, not as much as some (myself included) thought might have been there. FPmag indicates that this fuel probably burned off rather quickly. That wasn't something I expected either. The fuel's most important contribution to the fire was to act as a catalyst for the widespread office fires.
3. Office fires aren't as benign as one might think. FPmag estimates the fire temperatures to be between 800 and 1000 C, well above the point that steel begins to weaken.
4. Fireprotection magazine did some calculations and found that the floor trusses, even including the effects of insulation, would begin to fail around 60 and 100 minutes (for south and north tower, respectively). This matches well with the observed failure times of 56 and 104 minutes.
4. FPmag, however, did not offer a final conclusion concerning the collapse. I, personally, suspect politics (as I describe elsewhere in this thread). Others are certainly free to (and I'm sure will) disagree.
Thanks for the discussion, all.... especially BigT and TheTruthWillSetYouFree
Couple of things that may have been forgotten ...
According to code ... on any area of exposed steel ...
there must be a sprinkler head within 18" and spaced no further apart than 12' ...
While the WTC1 & 2 had non functioning sprinklers due to the impact, maybe China has similar codes and the sprinklers prevented excessive heat.
The sprinklers could help reduce heat without putting out the fire.
Also ...
From the looks of the China building ....
there seems to be a lot of re-enforced concrete ...
just an observation ... not sure about that one.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Thank you for the discussion and your attitude...
3.Sustained fires in the same location does not work with office fires especially at those temperatures. It would burn through those contents very quickly and move to consume other contents.
Most likely the fires would get to certain point and flash over and peak for a short period at those incredible temps and then move due to the fact the there just isn't enough contents to act as fuel to sustain it in any given location. This as I have said before doesn't cause failure as it didn't in the 1975 WTC fires that burned on multiple floors for over 3 hours.
"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,........
Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building. "
"It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced. "
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_1975_fire.html
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
What I've learned
Nice summary. I hope the truthers will read it carefully and understand what it means.
What I've learned is that, when the evidence has truthers backed into a corner, they will reply with something like, "But just watch this video and you will see that we are right [insert link to video with dramatic music, questionable Michael Moore style editing and outright misinformation]"
Register as Republican and Vote for Ron Paul
There is no "evidence"
The "evidence" was destroyed or disposed prematurely, so that real investigations that might show information that counters the "fish story" would be impossible.
Even the FPE analysis is forced to include conjecture. The best they can do is guess, based on some general calculations and estimates.
We're all "experts" on 911.
There's no physical evidence. Only photos, video, and guesswork.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Typicall Heckling from BBAGofnoBALLS
Your favorite...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it9kpZHXhxI
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."
C'mon, now..
lets stay classy. No need to throw salt on wounds.
That article is pretty dense, both in technical content and writing style. It would be easy to misread it and allow it to support some wrong conclusions. But, hey.. that's why we talk about it, right? Everyone can be wrong... and everyone can change their mind, too. :-)
The fuel from the aircraft burnt out in the first 10 minutes...
Even NIST and FEMA have agreed with that. What caused the steel to melt and weaken? Office contents? As I have stated on other threads this isn't possible as they are spread out and sparse. The fire would have traveled around consuming not staying in the same place long enough to overcome the heat sink. Sorry but this is one of many smoking guns of 9/11 that I believe is irrefutable.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
"Human beings with love and compassion are some of the most beautiful creatures in the universe... Those without are a plague on us all."