Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tree99

How Hot?

Recommended Posts

Is there a physics question here, or some other reason not to move this to speculations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those that wish to believe the official truth of 911 will go to the most extraordinary lengths to defend their position, as it represents, at a deep psychological level, a defence of all they hold true. It is in effect a defence of their reality.

 

This vid could be a fake of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Those that wish to believe the official truth of 911 will go to the most extraordinary lengths to defend their position, as it represents, at a deep psychological level, a defence of all they hold true. It is in effect a defence of their reality."

 

Interestingly, the same is true of those who wish to believe the conspiracy theory.

Since it's clear that nobody is going to change their mind about this, I wonder what this thread can hope to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the wind and the fact that the only visible fire is two floors above her, not too hot at all.

 

It amazes me that some people can't seem to believe that thousands of gallons of jet fuel and burning office fittings can get hot enough to weaken steel so that it deforms under pressure when a blacksmith does it with hand bellows and 4 pounds of coal.

 

Getting things hot enough to bend steel is not hard. We've only been doing it for a thousand years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that if she's standing there, it can't be hot enough to melt anything.

 

Which conveniently ignores (a) wind direction and (b) the fact that she's standing on the outside of the tower, and the fires are on the inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering the wind and the fact that the only visible fire is two floors above her, not too hot at all.

 

It amazes me that some people can't seem to believe that thousands of gallons of jet fuel and burning office fittings can get hot enough to weaken steel so that it deforms under pressure when a blacksmith does it with hand bellows and 4 pounds of coal.

 

Getting things hot enough to bend steel is not hard. We've only been doing it for a thousand years or so.

 

Its easy to do that with a Bunsen Burner. One does not need to have thousands of gallons of fuel to accomplish this task.

 

 

 

It seems to me that the pictures could have been modified because the original pictures don't display anything that looks like a person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its easy to do that with a Bunsen Burner. One does not need to have thousands of gallons of fuel to accomplish this task.

Exactly. In the minds of most a steel girder is unbendable without great force. Never having worked metals they don't know how easy it is to bend steel once a bit of heat is applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Those that wish to believe the official truth of 911 will go to the most extraordinary lengths to defend their position, as it represents, at a deep psychological level, a defence of all they hold true. It is in effect a defence of their reality."

 

Interestingly, the same is true of those who wish to believe the conspiracy theory.

Since it's clear that nobody is going to change their mind about this, I wonder what this thread can hope to achieve.

 

Yes, I would agree with that. The difference though is that those who believe in the conspiracies are often dubbed whackos (and many probably are of course!) but those who refute all such theories are thought of as being level headed.

 

As a fortean I find both positions suspect!

 

Considering the wind and the fact that the only visible fire is two floors above her, not too hot at all.

 

It amazes me that some people can't seem to believe that thousands of gallons of jet fuel and burning office fittings can get hot enough to weaken steel so that it deforms under pressure when a blacksmith does it with hand bellows and 4 pounds of coal.

 

Getting things hot enough to bend steel is not hard. We've only been doing it for a thousand years or so.

 

I think almost all the fuel would have been consumed on impact in a flash. Jet fuel is highly flammable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think almost all the fuel would have been consumed on impact in a flash. Jet fuel is highly flammable.

 

That does not correlate with the video evidence, which shows plumes of smoke for a long period of time. For fuel to explode or burn up rapidly, there must be sufficient oxygen in mixture with the fuel vapor. The confined space of a tower would almost certainly not offer enough, and the fuel would exist at least partly in liquid form, which does not burn as rapidly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does a puddle of gasoline burn up in a flash? NO, its only the vapors that ignite, as it is with jet fuel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That does not correlate with the video evidence, which shows plumes of smoke for a long period of time. For fuel to explode or burn up rapidly, there must be sufficient oxygen in mixture with the fuel vapor. The confined space of a tower would almost certainly not offer enough, and the fuel would exist at least partly in liquid form, which does not burn as rapidly.

 

That would most likely have been office furniture, curtains, blinds and carpets (wood, plastic, rubber) burning after the fuel had ignited it all.

 

Does a puddle of gasoline burn up in a flash? NO, its only the vapors that ignite, as it is with jet fuel

 

A puddle of gasoline is different. Have you ever seen a flamethrower being used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A puddle of gasoline is different. Have you ever seen a flamethrower being used?

 

Either irrelevant, a non-sequitur, or an Inigo Montoya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A puddle of gasoline is different. Have you ever seen a flamethrower being used?

I never knew airplanes had fuel atomizers and igniters installed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not directly related to the topic but more or less a point on fire. If you happen to simply breathe in super heated air it will destroy in a fatal way various tissues. I know you see movies that go contrary to the point I am trying to make, but if you inhale a breath of super heated air you basically happen to be dead after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing as that bit of the building isn't on fire and is on the outside and facing into the wind(otherwise it would be swamped with smoke) then it is probably cool enough for a person to stand there. it could even be chilly.

 

this still won't change the fact that in other areas it would be hot enough to significantly affect the structural integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never knew airplanes had fuel atomizers and igniters installed...

 

A plane travelling at hundreds of miles an hour and crashing into a skyscraper would be plenty to effectively disperse the fuel and enable it to be consumed in seconds.

 

The engines would have been very effective igniters, along with the sparks created by the impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A plane travelling at hundreds of miles an hour and crashing into a skyscraper would be plenty to effectively disperse the fuel and enable it to be consumed in seconds.

 

Assume that your say-so is insufficient. Any science to back this up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A plane crash might not disperse all the fuel but it does a good enough job that the videos of plane crashes show fireballs.

I think this is sufficient to bring the previous unsuported statement "I never knew airplanes had fuel atomizers and igniters installed... " into question. I think that's all bombus was pointing out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point of contention was the "gone in a few seconds" claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, no doubt a good chunk would have burned off in that time but it is conceivable for some of the fuel to have hung around for maybe up to 15 minutes afterwards.

 

depends if there was anywhere it could have puddled, like a gouge left by bits of a plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assume that your say-so is insufficient. Any science to back this up?

 

Absolutely none whatsoever.

 

I think, as has been said above, a fireball is a pretty good indicator. I cannot imagine how the fuel could have pooled in sufficient quantities to burn for a prolonged period considering the speed and force of the impact.

 

Most of the burning I'd bet was 'furniture'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.