• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jet Fuel

Aggie Boy

Banned
A
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
25
Now i realize this may not be worth its own thread. An observation i had was that the Texas A&M Bonfire when they had it. (For those who dont know it was not an average bonfire.) 60 ft tall wedding cake construction. It was doused in jet fuel. That thing burned for weeks and weeks. According to other people it would still be smoldering after christmas break. Which was about 2 months after it was lit. The fact that Jet Fuel would have been in the WTC could explain the "Hot spots" 6 weeks later. and why the wtc "Smoldered" for so long.
 
Aggie Boy said:
Now i realize this may not be worth its own thread. An observation i had was that the Texas A&M Bonfire when they had it. (For those who dont know it was not an average bonfire.) 60 ft tall wedding cake construction. It was doused in jet fuel. That thing burned for weeks and weeks. According to other people it would still be smoldering after christmas break. Which was about 2 months after it was lit. The fact that Jet Fuel would have been in the WTC could explain the "Hot spots" 6 weeks later. and why the wtc "Smoldered" for so long.
Click to expand...

Jet fuel was really just the initiator of the fires. The office materials are what really caused the weakening of the steel. The hot spots were just fires that became insulated by debris.
 
Aggie Boy said:
Now i realize this may not be worth its own thread. An observation i had was that the Texas A&M Bonfire when they had it. (For those who dont know it was not an average bonfire.) 60 ft tall wedding cake construction. It was doused in jet fuel. That thing burned for weeks and weeks. According to other people it would still be smoldering after christmas break. Which was about 2 months after it was lit. The fact that Jet Fuel would have been in the WTC could explain the "Hot spots" 6 weeks later. and why the wtc "Smoldered" for so long.
Click to expand...

The fact that it was constructed of over 8000 logs had nothing to do with the length of time it took to burn then? How long do you think the fuel took to burn off?
 
Aggie Boy said:
Now i realize this may not be worth its own thread. An observation i had was that the Texas A&M Bonfire when they had it. (For those who dont know it was not an average bonfire.) 60 ft tall wedding cake construction. It was doused in jet fuel. That thing burned for weeks and weeks. According to other people it would still be smoldering after christmas break. Which was about 2 months after it was lit. The fact that Jet Fuel would have been in the WTC could explain the "Hot spots" 6 weeks later. and why the wtc "Smoldered" for so long.
Click to expand...

Aggie Boy.

There are lots of reasons there were hot spots and smoldering for 100 days.

Like the fact that they didn't start firefighting for 2 full weeks after the collapse (when they were still looking for survivors).

The fuel of 2 110 story buildings would burn slowly underground...

The jet fuel just started the fires....

Of course twoofs love to say "they burned for 100 days" and then they usually say "thermite." But thermite burns fast, usually burning off in minutes and is cool to the touch in hours... So for there to be enough thermite to burn for months.... doesn't make sense. But that goes to show you the lack of chemistry knowledge (among other things) that truthers have.
 
Aggie,

The others are correct. Jet fuel would burn off very quick. NIST estimated that most of it burned off within 10 minutes. Most accelerators do. Charcoal lighter fluid is usually gone in a few minutes also.

A smoldering fire, such that you had at WTC, would explain the 100 day burn time. Not to mention, its hard to get water on a fire when you have to spray the water through a maze of beams and other crap just to put it out. It doesn't work well.
 
triforcharity said:
Aggie,

The others are correct. Jet fuel would burn off very quick. NIST estimated that most of it burned off within 10 minutes. Most accelerators do. Charcoal lighter fluid is usually gone in a few minutes also.

A smoldering fire, such that you had at WTC, would explain the 100 day burn time. Not to mention, its hard to get water on a fire when you have to spray the water through a maze of beams and other crap just to put it out. It doesn't work well.
Click to expand...

I thought it flowed down the elevator shafts causing the explosions that WRodriguez and others heard?
 
RedIbis said:
I thought it flowed down the elevator shafts causing the explosions that WRodriguez and others heard?
Click to expand...

Sure if you want to define "explosion" as "a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture," Rodriguez said.

Oh you Truthers Facters, always with the misrepresentations of the record.

Fail.
 
Aggie Boy, the jet fuel in the A&M bonfire was just an accelerant to get the fire going. After that it was the logs themselves that burned. And the reason they burned so long is that they were insulated by the layers of ash on top, which kept the heat in and it limited the amount of oxygen available. The rate fires burn is pretty much determined by how much oxygen they can get, so limiting that to a small value, while insulating it to keep it from cooling off below combustion temperature, makes for a long-lived fire.

And that IS just like what happened at the WTC.
 
RedIbis said:
I thought it flowed down the elevator shafts causing the explosions that WRodriguez and others heard?
Click to expand...

I attributed the "explosions" to elevators falling and backdraft and maybe other stuff exploading due to the fire caused by the fuel. Makes no sence to think it was bombs though.
 
RedIbis said:
I thought it flowed down the elevator shafts causing the explosions that WRodriguez and others heard?
Click to expand...
Still looking for a fact Red?

There wasn't enough oxygen in the towers to burn all the jet fuel. What didn't burn in the initial fireball flowed down, as liquids do. Once it reached an oxygen-rich environment again it was free to ignite once more.

Your boy Lyin' Willie Rodriquez understood this for 3 years, before he suddenly remembered bombs and realized he could collect money and tour the world by being a truther.
 
triforcharity said:
The others are correct. Jet fuel would burn off very quick. NIST estimated that most of it burned off within 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
I thought it flowed down the elevator shafts causing the explosions that WRodriguez and others heard?
Click to expand...

Dave Rogers said:
Yes, because jet fuel, being a distinct and solid entity, can only do one thing at a time.
Click to expand...

And apparently in the Truther thesaurus "most' and "all" are listed as synonyms.
 
Careful, Dave. RedIbis hates it when we argue semantics* because apparently that's all we have.

*argue semantics = point out RedIbis is wrong.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Still looking for a fact Red?
Click to expand...
Red's not looking for facts, he's not looking for the truth, he's not giving a flying fig about what really happened on 9/11, he's looking to find anomalies and contradictions between posters here on JREF. What a sad life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom