How Hot?

[swansont]

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'.

 

You'll pardon me if I find argument from incredulity to be utterly unconvincing.

[bombus]

You'll pardon me if I find argument from incredulity to be utterly unconvincing.

 

Consider yourself pardoned:-)

 

However, my incredulity is simply reversed by those with the opposing view.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That doesn't make your point any more valid.

[bombus]

Fair point. I'm still right though.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

ROFL.

 

Anyway, fuel tanks are not just open cavities inside the airplane -- they're divided neatly into sections and so on. There are also numerous tanks inside the plane. If one or two survived without major damage, they could leak and keep fires going without exploding.

[insane_alien]

Capn, given the temperatures inside the buildings with the fire, the fuel in he tanks would vapourise and burst the tank.

 

though, not all the fuel would have been consumed in the fireball, a large chunk yes, all of it no.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If there was a fireball, I presume the heat would not last long enough to burst the tank, only to set whatever gas is leaking out alight.

 

However, I suggest we avoid speculating on the subject since we'd have to try it to see what would happen. There are too many things to consider.

[insane_alien]

well, you can see the fireball(s) in the videos of the event. and i was meaning the subsequent fires would burst the tanks.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But we don't necessarily know.

[insane_alien]

no, but i would bet £100 on it that if you recreate the scenario(chuck a fuel tank on a bonfire) that there will be an explosion at some point.

[bombus]

ROFL.

 

Anyway, fuel tanks are not just open cavities inside the airplane -- they're divided neatly into sections and so on. There are also numerous tanks inside the plane. If one or two survived without major damage, they could leak and keep fires going without exploding.

 

Maybe, but aluminium has a very low melting point, and the plane that hit the Pentagon all but disappeared due the heat, so I can't see a fuel section lasting very long - it's doubtful IMHO that enough sections would have lasted long enough to produce the heat required to melt/soften the girders.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If there's enough heat to melt the aluminum (and I don't even know if that's the metal used -- it'd probably be an alloy), there's plenty of heat to soften steel.

 

Besides, a fireball is by definition a short-term event, not a long-burning fire. By igniting other things and starting the process (and lighting up whatever fuel is left over), it would lead to a collapse later.

 

Remember also that sulphates (such as those in sheetrock) can literally attack steel at high temperatures, weakening it. http://httd.njuct.edu.cn/matweb/gas/ka_ht/ht_sulfd.htm

 

I think the biggest issue here is that there were no temperature sensors inside the buildings to tell us exactly what was happening. We can speculate, but we cannot come to a conclusion either way. Frankly I think 20,000 gallons of jet fuel would have caused a much much larger fireball than seen on video (meaning not all of the fuel was burned), but I don't know.

 

I should get the 9/11 Commission report...

[foodchain]

I don’t know exactly how you would build a perfect simulation of what occurred on 9-11. I don’t think many companies posses such a budget really to add to that.

 

The only real conspiracy to think off is an administration that previous to 9-11 had really little to no dealings with counter terrorism even though after 9-11 it would have it to be that way.

 

Not to go to far off topic but Iraq was not even a blip on the radar pre 9-11, after such though the reality of even just the words of the current administration, or really what’s left of it just seems rather odd to be honest.

 

Simply put the twin towers had already been struck, everyone that had any attention put into the world in regards to enemies of America knew that this group was alive and well and wanted to damage America, and after the Clinton administrations dealings with such this administration played little more then stay the course until 9-11. Post 9-11 while Americans were ripe with fear, the story sold basically implies a reality that should have called for much more previous to 9-11. The reality since this time frame has been one that basically points to little more then a manipulation really of people in general using the fear 9-11 generated, or really the effects of the terrorist activity were successful in altering the course of action an entire populous and its government would take.

 

To date no real connection to Iraq and 9-11 has surfaced. No wmds have been found in Iraq past inert unmarked artillery shells in which the weapons inspectors already stated would exist. There has been only really one encounter with such in which the effects of such a weapon were nill. It also points to the idea of a one time use as probably the realty that whomever used them probably did not know such was even a chemical weapon.

 

The reality as the evidence minus words would have it currently after many years is Iraq had no wmd programs or stockpiles, no connections to terrorist organizations and nothing at all to do with 9-11. So why is the connection still being applied by government? Why the need to spread hatred among our own civilians by evoking the concept that patriotism is supporting the war in Iraq, or even the supporting the notion that Iraq and 9-11 are even connected? What would Iraq being democratic have to do even with ending terrorism? Last time I checked a large percentage of those that actually committed 9-11 were Saudi. Last time I checked bin laden has a lot to do with Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked the big money maker in the mideast and ultimately for terrorist organizations and the building of nuclear weapon facilities by Iran is oil. Last time I checked it would seem patriotism would imply finding alternative energy sources. The last time I checked it would also seem fossil fuel use also supports global warming. Where are the priorities today? Or really what are they?

[bombus]

If there's enough heat to melt the aluminum (and I don't even know if that's the metal used -- it'd probably be an alloy), there's plenty of heat to soften steel.

 

Aluminium melts at 660 Degrees C, but Steel melts at around 1538 Degrees. I think steel is still pretty tough at 660 Degrees.

[insane_alien]

bombus, it has less than half its structural strength at 660*C

[bombus]

bombus, it has less than half its structural strength at 660*C

 

Thanks for that. Well, if the plane melted, maybe it was hot enough for the girders to soften, but was it hot enough for long enough?

[insane_alien]

yeah, most definitely.it was on fire till long after the collapse.