On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)

[KreeL]

Apparently, he hasn't quite gotten the concept of "accelerant," eithr.

The kerosene would actually not make the fire a bit hotter, per se. Kerosene burns at a relatively low temperature. It is useful for things like cooking stoves, space heaters and lamps specificly because it burns relatively cleanly and completely while producing moderately intense heat.

Coal, wood or plastics will produce a great deal more heat when they burn, but take a bit longer to ignite. It also takes a bit of time for a fire to spread entirely over the surface of a solid fuel source. Kerosene just gets the fire going everywhere at once.

One more question for you. Does the fact of more accelerant mean faster consumption of the available tinder?

 

[twinstead]

I do applaud the ability to argue an untenable position forever, KreeL. You keep on keeping on.

 

[Disbelief]

One common characteristic of these truthers. Lack of grasp of basics.

How many times have we seen "free fall speed"?

I love asking truthers about this, with the typical result being like Kreel's response.

 

[Sabretooth]

Are you acknowledging that the common expectation was that a tall building considered to be at risk of collapse due to fire, was that [drumroll] it would topple?

MM

No. The buildings were not constructed of Jenga blocks.

Way to completely misrepresent his explanation, though. Is doing this part of the truther creed or something?

 

[000063]

I do applaud the ability to argue an untenable position forever, KreeL. You keep on keeping on.

Does simply questioning everything and making snide personal attacks count as an actual "argument", really?

 

[NoahFence]

Thanks for proving that you don't know what you are talking about.

THat actually happened a long time ago.

 

[twinstead]

Does simply questioning everything and making snide personal attacks count as an actual "argument", really?

Perhaps not, but it's probably the only way he has to keep the discussion going.

 

[triforcharity]

One more question for you. Does the fact of more accelerant mean faster consumption of the available tinder?

Actually, that is not always true. In fact, quite often it's not.

Here's a little experiment for you.

Take a piece of paper. Soak it in lighter fluid. Be careful, it's hot.

Light it on fire.

How long does the paper take to completely burn away?

Now, do that minus the lighter fluid.

Compare.

 

[leftysergeant]

One more question for you. Does the fact of more accelerant mean faster consumption of the available tinder?

All of the fuels available will burn at the same rate, releasing the same amount of total energy.

There is an upward limit to how much heat jet fuel will produce. The same applies to any of the Class A fuels present in the towers.

In an ordinary office fire, the papers and furnishings would have started burning from one or two locations and then spread throughout the building, producing a lot of heat locally for a limited time. Normally, much of the heat would have been dissipated by convection through the air or by radiation as infra-red light to the outside, or by conduction through the steel itself. Steel is a reasonably good heat sink up to a point. A good illustration of this is an old fashioned branding iron heated in a wood-fuel camp fire. The handle will get a bit hot, but leather gloves will shield a human hand from it, while the glowing red end of it will sear a mark into the tough skin of a cow.

What the use of an accelerant (in this case, kerosene) did was to initiate the fire from multiple and wide-spread points so that they quickly merged into a very few intense fires. At this point the heat energy from combustion of both the remaining Class B and the newly-ignited Class A fuels will be released throughout the area, probably faster than it can be lost to convection, radiation or conduction.

This, of course, will mean that any exposed steel will be heated more rapidly to the point of failure.

The sheet rock and spray on fire resistant material would normally shield the steel from most of this heat, but only for about two hours, the expected time required for fire fighters and/or installed sprinklers to extinguish the flames.

However, the impact of the aircraft removed a great deal of the SFRM and the sheet rock at the same time that the fires started and broke water standpipes so that there was no water available to fight the fires.

Thus, the principle effect of the accelerant, in this case, was to do in an hour or so the same amount of damage that one could have expected over the course of five to ten hours.

Steel will, eventually, fail in an intense fire.

This one, because it went from zero to balls-to-the-walls hot within minutes, was very intense.

The steel failed.

This is Fire Science 101 stuff.

 

[KreeL]

"There is an upward limit to how much heat jet fuel will produce. The same applies to any of the Class A fuels present in the towers."

Thank you for being honest. In fact the temperature maximum limit of kerosene and combustibles is the same regardless of how much is applied. Some areas will reach the maximum, some will not depending on the conditions. In conclusion, and it's easy to see, more kerosene doesn't mean more temperature, it just means more fire. Some arguments here like to suggest that the amount of kerosene means a higher temperature, when in reality it doesn't.

 

[beachnut]

"There is an upward limit to how much heat jet fuel will produce. The same applies to any of the Class A fuels present in the towers."

Thank you for being honest. In fact the temperature maximum limit of kerosene and combustibles is the same regardless of how much is applied. Some areas will reach the maximum, some will not depending on the conditions. In conclusion, and it's easy to see, more kerosene doesn't mean more temperature, it just means more fire. Some arguments here like to suggest that the amount of kerosene means a higher temperature, when in reality it doesn't.

It means more heat, but you don't do chemistry, you post lies and delusions. You claim you are a troll. More fuel, means more heat energy. But you can't do the math, because trolls, don't do math, they post lies. You post lies on purpose. Pdoh

Kreel - Sat Apr 16 14:38:00
JREF was a fun place to troll. They get all pissy and stuff, but then you get banned. LOL

Fri Feb 10 16:20:30
Hahaha...I just got one of the hotdog JREFer shills to post that the
firemen never fought the fires in WTC7. So I followed that up with a
clarifying question as to what Silverstein meant with 'pull it'. The
dufus logged out after about 30 minutes and hasn't been back. I'll bet
he's trying to find Mackey. LOL - what are the odds?

You have no clue what firemen do. You were debunked, but then you don't retract your lies, you are a troll. At least you say you are. Are you?
You said you were banned from here, is that another lie?

more kerosene doesn't mean more temperature, it just means more fire.

wow, you don't cook things...

 

[twinstead]

KreeL: A legend in his own mind.

 

[leftysergeant]

In conclusion, and it's easy to see, more kerosene doesn't mean more temperature, it just means more fire. Some arguments here like to suggest that the amount of kerosene means a higher temperature, when in reality it doesn't.

I can't quite get my mind around the idea that anyone capable of writing a coherent sentence would entertain such a notion.

You have just increased the fuel load. The steel will be subjected to heating much more quickly, overcoming its heat sinking capability, thus heating it to the point of failure much sooner than would just a normal office fire.

 

[ozeco41]

I can't quite get my mind around the idea that anyone capable of writing a coherent sentence would entertain such a notion.

You have just increased the fuel load. The steel will be subjected to heating much more quickly, overcoming its heat sinking capability, thus heating it to the point of failure much sooner than would just a normal office fire.

He is seeing it as a matters of statics - so the temperature arises out of the nature of the fuel so it matters not how long it burns.

Whereas the temperature of the steel is a dynamic thing where heat input has to overcome heat sinking and any "leakage" (conduct out of the locality).

The basis of his problem seems to be what he revealed in his recent response to me. He doesn't understand the difference between amount of heat and temperature.

 

[Justin39640]

The basis of his problem seems to be what he revealed in his recent response to me. He doesn't understand the difference between amount of heat and temperature.

Most truthers have the same issue.

 

[Brass]

In regards to my question of:

Fires were reported on almost every floor, as well the building was making noises and it was titled. All of this is enough to know that it was brought down by unfought fires. If this wasn't the case, then why did FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro pull operations out of the building AND establish a collapse zone TWO HOURS before it really collapsed? Were they in on it?

Part of the comments section of this video on YouTube, user Ducksoup67 says that Daniel Nigro and the FDNY were in on 9/11.

To the degree that he was following orders, yes he was in on it. Maybe unwittingly. After all they weren't asking the Fire Chief to do was pull out his people and make a perimeter (5 blocks - which btw, was the exact perfect perimeter for a controlled collapse). It was an unnamed "group of building experts" who determined it was going to fall. Similar cautions were not in place for WTC 3, 4, or 5, all of which sustained massive damage but did not collapse.

You just can't make this stuff up, people.

 

[NoahFence]

I wonder if the perimiter is different for controlled demolition than it is for "HOLY **** GET OUT OF HERE!!!"

 

[KreeL]

Okay. I've been out of pocket for a few days, but it's time to set your minds straight on this subject.

A) More fire = faster consumption of tinder

B) Tinder burns up. Fires go out. Steel cools and regains its strength.

C) And most important. The fire scenario is conjecture on your part. NIST handpicked the steel to test, and their test is in black and white in their report. NIST does not support your theory.

Try another one.

 

[twinstead]

Okay. I've been out of pocket for a few days, but it's time to set your minds straight on this subject.

A) More fire = faster consumption of tinder

B) Tinder burns up. Fires go out. Steel cools and regains its strength.

C) And most important. The fire scenario is conjecture on your part. NIST handpicked the steel to test, and their test is in black and white in their report. NIST does not support your theory.

Try another one.

yea out of the pocket declaring your victory against the evil debunkers (read: the rest of the friggin rational world) in other forums?

Are you saying that when steel looses a portion of its strength from heat, when that heat is removed the steel regains its original strength? And speaking of theories, do YOU have one?

 

[KreeL]

yea out of the pocket declaring your victory against the evil debunkers (read: the rest of the friggin rational world) in other forums?

Are you saying that when steel looses a portion of its strength from heat, when that heat is removed the steel regains its original strength? And speaking of theories, do YOU have one?

Steel regains it's strength. Wait, isn't that what I said?