Tree99 Posted July 23, 2007 Posted July 23, 2007 Can I ask the members of this forum to look at the link below and have a rough guess as to how hot the temperature would have been for this person to be able to stand where she is? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html I don't wish to upset 'Cap'n Refsmmat' with this one.
swansont Posted July 23, 2007 Posted July 23, 2007 Is there a physics question here, or some other reason not to move this to speculations?
bombus Posted July 23, 2007 Posted July 23, 2007 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!
John Cuthber Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 "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.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 Seeing as the columns there are already destroyed, I don't think it really matters how hot it is.
JohnB Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 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.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 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.
Reaper Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 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.
JohnB Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 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.
bombus Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 "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.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 27, 2007 Posted July 27, 2007 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.
Fuzzwood Posted July 28, 2007 Posted July 28, 2007 Does a puddle of gasoline burn up in a flash? NO, its only the vapors that ignite, as it is with jet fuel
bombus Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 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?
swansont Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 A puddle of gasoline is different. Have you ever seen a flamethrower being used? Either irrelevant, a non-sequitur, or an Inigo Montoya.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 29, 2007 Posted July 29, 2007 A puddle of gasoline is different. Have you ever seen a flamethrower being used? I never knew airplanes had fuel atomizers and igniters installed...
foodchain Posted August 8, 2007 Posted August 8, 2007 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.
insane_alien Posted August 8, 2007 Posted August 8, 2007 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.
bombus Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 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.
swansont Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 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?
John Cuthber Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 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.
insane_alien Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 yeah, nothing like a fireball to indicate a good fuel/air dispersion.
swansont Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 I think the point of contention was the "gone in a few seconds" claim.
insane_alien Posted August 24, 2007 Posted August 24, 2007 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.
bombus Posted August 29, 2007 Posted August 29, 2007 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'.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now