I refer of course to the fact that if it were 10,000 gallons, or 10 gallons, the end result remains the same. The towers fell due to fires and jet impact. Care to refute THAT?
Have you noticed how he will not answer these questions ...
I always get a good chuckle when one of you people has the audacity to say others won't answer questions. Very annoying feeling, isn't it? Maybe you and MT should try to answer more of them yourselves.
The whole things' been an argument between beachnut and femr over the amount of fuel that entered the buildings, not necessarily over what he thinks it's specific role was in the collapses. Either way I'm not sure how it's persisted this long...
There is 62,000 pounds of jet fuel in that statement.
But I see why you failed to see this, your past work is indicative of shallow research and shoddy analysis.
949 kg of TNT impact is the key.
That is about 2093 pounds of TNT
That is about 4,380,000,000 joules
Given Flt 175 at 277,580 pounds, at 590 mph, E=1/2mv2Subtracting the aircraft weight, cargo, and passengers leaves 62,000 pounds of jet fuel at impact. BINGO, got math? You were having problems with math in your video thread, but WD was helping you. You will pick it up as you mature. Like a puzzle, you can't figure out, like 911. I understand you have problems connecting the dots, setting goals, and making rational conclusions. Looks like WD is helping you, you are finding more good stuff so you can attack NIST more.
You mean there was 51,600 pounds of jet fuel in the impact zone, and some of it flowed away, to leave 25,800 pounds of jet fuel in the impact zone for feeding fires, or starting fires, which were already stated by the giant fireball? Or what? That means over 100 tons of TNT in heat energy was in the impact zone; what is that in joules? So you agree with the NIST numbers? Too bad there is not a video to go with this fuel stuff.
Here you go, some more fodder you can use to attack NIST and act all science like.
NIST NCSTAR 1-5
6.2.1 Assumptions and Fixed Parameters (page 105)
"40 percent of the jet fuel was available for combustion on the impact floors. The thermal properties were assumed to be similar to JP-4 and JP-5, whose values were obtained from the SFPE Handbook."
"Aircraft combustibles: The mass was 12,100 kg (25,800 lb) for WTC 1, 12,500 kg (27,600 lb) for WTC 2 (Table 3-7)."
Means NIST says fuel burning in the impact zone was 4058 gallons (but actually 27,600 lb), not 3778. Time to attack NIST again, you can get them on the 200 pounds, now that is significant and should help your inside job quest.
Are you reading NIST for the first time? Making change your web pages and keep the date as March 2009. Is that being honest, to backdate your pages, backdate stuff you posted yesterday?
You said 3700, NIST say 4000 gallons. How many gallons are you going to use? Would it be 3794 from NIST, or 3777.452? Are you using 6.8, or 6.83 lb/gal? Why not use pounds? What was the temperature of the fuel at impact time? How much jet fuel was recovered from the WTC?
You have to ask how long the fuel was consumed? You already posted your cherry picked few minutes, and failed to reference it, and failed to state how long all the fuel took to be consumed. On your web page you make up lies about how hot the fires would be, and failed to get it right, but your references explain how hot fire from jet fuel gets. If you look up jet fuel you can find studies on how jet fuel in less than 2 minutes melts Al aircraft skin, so your cherry-picked few minutes is more than enough to kill people and melt Al, and help destroy the WTC steel's strength.
At least you are learning what is in NIST, sure looks like this was the first time you read this stuff since you cherry-picked the bad data you had posted back in March 2009, now you are covering-up by changing your page. At least you are not keeping the failed junk like Balsamo does. http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1111Fuelddddddddddd.jpg
Are you upset 10,000 gallons of jet fuel is equal to 315 Tons of TNT in heat energy, what was that in joules? Not sure why Jones made up thermite when jet fuel has more heat energy. No wonder we use gasoline engines instead of TNT engines.
Why did Major Tom leave out the easy features? How many more features did Major Tom miss? How will his feature list support his inside job claim?
If the jet fuel burned off fast, no wonder the steel failed so quickly, that is a lot of heat energy, when combined with massive office fires the WTC were doomed quickly; especially with the major observable Major Tom can't model, loss of fire insulation, destroyed in the impacts, which were 7 and 11 times greater than design impact. Like Catch 22, the harder the inside job guys like you and Major Tom work, the more your fail. Your thin facade of science burns away quickly to failure.
'Tis the sum of the values in Table 7-7. As I said, I could drop it down to 62000, and reduce the other values accordingly. Which of the values do you think NIST rounded up ?
You mean there was 51,600 pounds of jet fuel in the impact zone, and some of it flowed away, to leave 25,800 pounds of jet fuel in the impact zone for feeding fires, or starting fires
I think the flow volumne may be a bit high, and it's not clear how to treat the initial volume within the tower with respect to formation of the fireball. Their estimation method was not great, as fuel particles could not *stick* to surfaces within the simulation.
Means NIST says fuel burning in the impact zone was 4058 gallons (but actually 27,600 lb), not 3778.
Who said it wasn't ? Is this why you are having a hissy fit ? You are making foolish personal inference from me instructing you to use more accurate values ?
sure looks like this was the first time you read this stuff since you cherry-picked the bad data you had posted back in March 2009
First time I've looked at fuel volumes within the tower since then, absolutely. Only when complete idiots/village jesters keep making foolish assertions such as "Fire were started on multiple floors with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel" do I feel compelled to correct them. Increased the accuracy of an old post in the process. Splendid.
A goal; get you to change your web page. Made you change your web page by pointing out your failed junk posted at your web site. Three major changes made in the past years, many more to come.
Why does Major Tom fail to include insulation damage?
I see from this feature the 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT impacts damaged insulation. Bet we could model this with energy, or some means.
Looks like all the fuel was in the WTC impact area for an instant. NIST was wrong again?
I would have to say from the features of this impact, it looks like a 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy event.
How many shotgun blasts were the impacts equal to? What about 2,662,478?
What was the purpose of Major Tom's feature list?
How will Major Tom's feature list support his claim, "gravity collapses were an illusion, and some evildoer caused the WTC collapse?
The OP failed out of the box.
Any model of the WTC 1 collapse initiation or progression sequence should be based on a carefully prepared list of observations. The following features were observed for WTC 1: ...
Any model of the collapse initiation sequence must match the visual record, just as any collapse progression model must match all observables. The OOS collapse propagation model was based on a handful of features from this list.
Does any known collapse initiation model match this visual record? (No).
Wow. When will you and Major Tom go to engineering school and gain some skills to keep you from falling for the inside job delusion?
The big picture model, Aircraft Impacts and Fire Model leading to a gravity collapse model, matches the visual recored. OP failed; just in time for the 10th year of failure for the inside job nonsense. TLAR model of Major Tom based on opinion, no math needed.
Awesome. Yes, changed the value from 2996 gallons to 3778 gallons. Splendid.
A goal; get you to stop using flagrant exaggerated values. Looks like you are still going to spout your agenda-based TNT figures. But at least anyone who reads this thread will know they are meaningless.
Awesome. Yes, changed the value from 2996 gallons to 3778 gallons. Splendid.
A goal; get you to stop using flagrant exaggerated values. Looks like you are still going to spout your agenda-based TNT figures. But at least anyone who reads this thread will know they are meaningless.
You mean 10,000 gallons of jet fuel is not the heat energy of 315 Tons of TNT? Is that an exaggeration? Means the heat energy of over 100 tons of TNT was inside the WTC from jet fuel. do you want that in joules? Does this mean you will stop down playing the fires? How much jet fuel was recovered after 911?
Is 10,000 gallons of jet fuel equal in joules to 315 Tons of TNT? Was I close, exact. (did I use 6.6 lb/gal?) You say I exaggerated, go ahead how far was I off? Both jet showed up at the WTC with about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.
I never exaggerated it as much as you underestimated it. You were off 20 percent on the fuel at impact, more than I was off. Do I need to post your old numbers before I got you to change them?
Do you mean the impacts were not like 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy? I can do it in joules.
Who thinks 4,380,000,000 joules describes the impact better... http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTCcladdingflying.jpg
, than 2093 pounds of TNT. How did I exaggerate this. Major Tom left out the impacts and all discussion how they were 7 and 11 times greater than the aircraft design impact.
Did you erase you comment made about the Fictional Official Theory?
There was NOT 10,000 gallons. About 9120 gallons according to NIST. You've exaggerated your values by 880 gallons, ignored the fuel within the fireball, and ignored the fuel which flowed away from the impact zone. 3778 gallons remained within the impact zone, which burned off in a few minutes. The NIST simulations were insensitive to both the amount and the distribution of the jet fuel. Sensitivity studies showed that the amount of fuel spilled in the simulation only influenced the results of the first few minutes; the long-term behavior of the simulated fires was unaffected.
Your TNT equivalency is really silly. It implies you think the result is the same as detonating 315 tons of TNT
There's around 1,117,200 joules in a 45g packet of peanuts, sooo... 4,380,000,000 Joules you say ? I could say 3921 packets of peanuts. 176Kg of peanuts. 2093 pounds of beachnut TNT == 176 Kg of femr2 peanuts. Silly. Such energy equivalency is meaningless.
Does this mean you will stop down playing the fires?
Am not playing down fires. Am showing you to be repeatedly exaggerating the role of the jet fuel. It burned off in a few minutes.
Consider...
The volume of air on a single floor is approximated as 200 ft × 200 ft × 12 ft = 480,000 ft3. Using the density of air, this volume contains 36,500 lb of air or 8,450 lb of oxygen (23.14 % oxygen in air by mass). Each pound of oxygen can support the release of 5.95 MJ of energy due to combustion, so the maximum amount of energy that can be released on this floor by burning the available air is 8,450 lb O2 × 5.95 MJ/lb O2 = 50,300 MJ. Since the heat of combustion for Jet Fuel A is 20.2 MJ/lb, the maximum weight of aviation fuel that could be burned inside on a single floor is 50,300 MJ/20.2 MJ/lb = 2,490 lb fuel, or 365 gal, using a fuel density of 6.83 lb fuel/gal.
There are a couple of useful numbers there. Want an opportunity to reevaluate your 100 tons of TNT beachnut, or would you like it in peanuts ?
You say I exaggerated, go ahead how far was I off?
There's around 1,117,200 joules in a 45g packet of peanuts, sooo... 4,380,000,000 Joules you say ? I could say 3921 packets of peanuts. 176Kg of peanuts. 2093 pounds of beachnut TNT == 176 Kg of femr2 peanuts. Silly. Such energy equivalency is meaningless.
Since the conspiracy alternative to plane impacts and fires causing the building collapse is some kind of explosive assistance it makes sense to use an explosive energy comparison. If people were suggesting a peanut driven collapse scenario then the peanut equivalent might be more appropriate.
It's nonsense. The jet fuel started the fires, then burned off after a few minutes (10's of seconds by some descriptions within the NIST report.) beachnut is equating that to 100 tons of TNT.
You actually think it appropriate to compare the effect of the jet fuel burning to detonation of 100 tons of TNT ?
Can you imagine the effect of 100 tons of TNT being detonated ?
There was NOT 10,000 gallons. About 9120 gallons according to NIST. You've exaggerated your values by 880 gallons, ignored the fuel within the fireball, and ignored the fuel which flowed away from the impact zone. 3778 gallons remained within the impact zone, which burned off in a few minutes. The NIST simulations were insensitive to both the amount and the distribution of the jet fuel. Sensitivity studies showed that the amount of fuel spilled in the simulation only influenced the results of the first few minutes; the long-term behavior of the simulated fires was unaffected.
Your TNT equivalency is really silly. It implies you think the result is the same as detonating 315 tons of TNT
See above, sure. It is effectively meaningless.
There's around 1,117,200 joules in a 45g packet of peanuts, sooo... 4,380,000,000 Joules you say ? I could say 3921 packets of peanuts. 176Kg of peanuts. 2093 pounds of TNT == 176 Kg of peanuts. Silly. Such energy equivalency is meaningless.
Am not playing down fires. Am showing you to be repeatedly exaggerating the role of the jet fuel. It burned off in a few minutes.
Consider...
The volume of air on a single floor is approximated as 200 ft × 200 ft × 12 ft = 480,000 ft3. Using the density of air, this volume contains 36,500 lb of air or 8,450 lb of oxygen (23.14 % oxygen in air by mass). Each pound of oxygen can support the release of 5.95 MJ of energy due to combustion, so the maximum amount of energy that can be released on this floor by burning the available air is 8,450 lb O2 × 5.95 MJ/lb O2 = 50,300 MJ. Since the heat of combustion for Jet Fuel A is 20.2 MJ/lb, the maximum weight of aviation fuel that could be burned inside on a single floor is 50,300 MJ/20.2 MJ/lb = 2,490 lb fuel, or 365 gal, using a fuel density of 6.83 lb fuel/gal.
There are a couple of useful numbers there. Want an opportunity to reevaluate your 100 tons of TNT beachnut, or would you like it in peanuts ?
The oxygen is not limited to what is on the floor, there is a big hole in the WTC. This is classic fail, but keep up the work trying to lessen the fire, make your inside job possible. I am lucky to catch this before you figure out there is an impact hole, big hole in the WTC and broken windows all over the place, and unlimited air available. This is better than expected.
So you are saying it took longer to burn the jet fuel? If it was not for the big multi-floor hole in the WTC and broken windows in the hundreds, your oxygen junk would be cool, but you failed.
I think I made a mistake, the jet fuel has more energy. Darn, you should have checked my numbers. I found the fuel burned on the floor of the WTC were equal to 207 tons of TNT, in heat energy. OOPS, darn, I was wrong, I wonder how I messed that up. I think I was digging a hole to catch a snipe. Dig it, and they will fall in.
I never said 315 Tons of TNT exploding, I was saying it has the heat energy of 315 tons of TNT, but go ahead change that to joules - it makes little sense in joules.
Yes if you want to do something, get some chocholate chip cookies, more energy than gasoline, and TNT.
Real silly. Good work, you sure are schooling me; Thank you very much.
No one ever compares energy to TNT, it is not done, you got me! Great job, super, topnotch! Wowzer. Who would be so silly? Who?
I have been waiting for how many years for someone to correct me, and they never do. You call it silly, so silly you failed to check my numbers. Never check my stuff, just call it silly. Seems like silly beats what ever you are using to figure out 911.
Why does Major Tom ignore the fires. If 911 was at night, there would be no question the fires were big enough to bring down the towers, and WTC 7. Why are flames so much more impressive at night?
The best part for me. I don't have to do any work to understand 911. And for 911 truth, they can't do any work at all that can help them understand 911. The OP failed to make a point, and failed as it was posted.
I will take the energy in cookies, please.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtcnorthfacemeltedal.jpg
I suspect air getting to the fires was not an issue. OOPS, another feature, a bunch of sources of air for the fires, which means the fires burned quicker, which means more power! The list grows.
Oh my, lots of leaks for air to get in. Feature # XXa.
I found the fuel burned on the floor of the WTC were equal to 207 tons of TNT, in heat energy. OOPS, darn, I was wrong, I wonder how I messed that up. I think I was digging a hole to catch a snipe. Dig it, and they will fall in.
As I said, some useful numbers were in that NIST quote...
Heat of combustion for Jet Fuel A is 20.2 MJ/lb
And you know the TNT equivalent for 1Kg is 4.184e6 J of course
Go on, have another go...
I never said 315 Tons of TNT exploding, I was saying it has the heat energy of 315 tons of TNT, but go ahead change that to joules - it makes little sense in joules.
I'm not trying to *school you*. I'm highlighting that your use of terms is misleading. That you are discovering you have made calculation and scaling errors is not unexpected, but the important thing is to learn from your mistakes and stop repeating them.
I suggest you stop reposting the 10000 gallon figure as of now.
No one ever compares energy to TNT, it is not done, you got me! Great job, super, topnotch! Wowzer.
Your use of TNT equivalency is grossly misleading, especially if your patented beachnut TNT is not intended to be exploding at any point in time.
I have been waiting for how many years for someone to correct me, and they never do. You call it silly, so silly you failed to check my numbers. Never check my stuff, just call it silly.
... Your use of TNT equivalency is grossly misleading, especially if your patented beachnut TNT is not intended to be exploding at any point in time.
...
212 tons of TNT in heat energy for the combustible fuel in the WTC. Latest number, I think I can squeeze out more energy. Based on the 27,600 pounds of jet fuel available on the impact floors. What if less fuel flowed away, even more heat.
... go ahead, use the 133 tons of TNT heat energy NIST is using, the WTC will still fall in a gravity collapse.
Why does Major Tom leave out all the air sources as a feature? What was your point about air per floor with all the holes in the WTC?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
You'd correct the error. Same thing 
