Debunked: The "short-lived" fires of WTC 1 & 2

[Mick West]

9/11 truthers often suggest that the WTC fires died down after a few minutes when the jet fuel burned away. This time-lapse video shows otherwise.

It starts a few minutes after the first plane hit, and includes the second plane impact and both collapses. It basically one take from the same position. There is some camera movement and re-framing which I've tried to eliminate so it mostly shows the same area. It's sped up 80x to make the spread more apparent.

Of particular note is that you can visibly see the fire spreading in both towers in the minutes before the collapses. Far from dying down, it's actually spreading and getting bigger.




And here's a sequence of photos of the fires at 10:22AM, just six minutes before the collapse of WTC1.

With a couple of close-ups. Remember the towers are 200 feet across a side, so these fires are huge.

(Greg Semendinger image 27. Camera EXIF time 10:21 is about a minute slow)

That does not even show the full extent of the fires, a few seconds earlier a more direct angle on the side to the left shows several entire floors with active fires.

Timeline: (adapted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks )

8:46:40: Flight 11 crashes into the north face of the North Tower (1 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 93 and 99.

9:03:00: Flight 175 crashes into the south face of the South Tower (2 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 77 and 85.

9:59:00: The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses, 56 minutes after the impact of Flight 175.

10:28:22: The North Tower of the World Trade Center collapses, 1 hour, 42 minutes after the impact of Flight 11.

 

[anonname]

The increase in fire towards the end leaves a lot of explaining. Cardington tests show an 8 story building burning at 900C for hours without any structural failure open air jet fuel on a good day will max out at about 350C considering all the smoke it was probably a bit less. The flights where also domestic meaning they would have minimum amounts of fuel, government sources estimate that each boeing 767 would have about 10,000 gallons of unused fuel which is not much an 11 foot x 11 x 11 container can hold all that, also check out videos of tanker trucks exploding they usually carry around 9000 gallons and usually only explode when the tank is heated so much it can not hold the large amount of pressure increasing the initial explosion, also note the tanker trucks do not melt.The Jones samples contained chemicals that are associated with thermate use, according to the epa the dust from the building also contained diphenylpropane which is used to produce the gel form of thermite.
The US government has planned similar operations in the past (Northwoods) and building 7 was taken down with explosives its really not that much of a leap to conclude their where explosives used in building 1 and 2.

(Molten metal coming out of the building before the fall) Theirs no way fuel caused this.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gPu9IqBfMIw

(thermate Video contains some decent info and actual proof thermate can make straight cuts on a steel structure and debunks claims against thermate as a possibility.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

 

[Mick West]

The increase in fire towards the end leaves a lot of explaining.

Why? It's probably not jet fuel burning at that point, it's office contents.

open air jet fuel on a good day will max out at about 350C considering all the smoke it was probably a bit less.

That's entirely at odds with this experiment which has open air jet fuel burning with thick black smoke at 1000C, and causing a beam to buckle in less than five minutes.


Source: https://youtu.be/0jrUsKiu2CU?t=1611


They show a girder collapsing in a few minutes of fire. They show this to Gage and Griffin. Griffin says that the test is too small, and a small fire like that would not heat up all the steel needed.

Gage says:

22:03: "Jet fuel is basically kerosene, which is a hydrocarbon. It doesn't burn any hotter than desks or chairs in the building, so it's not some massive fuel that can, uh, melt steel"

28:50: "This test does not refute, or even address, the overwhelming evidence for explosive controlled demolition. ... This is the reasons I say that it's irrelevant because they have experiments like this that shows that steel weakens in fires. It's easier, and more profound, for me to say: it's irrelevant, you can turn the steel into a noodle, I will still, we will still have the evidence of an explosive controlled demolition which the do not refute"

So basically, paraphrasing,: "We know it was a controlled demolition in part because the fire is not going to melt steel! ...[watches video]... oh wait, but that's not important because we know it was a controlled demolition, so it could not have been the fire!!!"

 

[anonname]

The fuel fire reaching 1000c has me a bit confused black smoke suggests its not getting proper amounts of Oxygen yet it still reaches 1000c im stumped on that one. If I could watch it in my country I would probably have a bit more to say. It contradicts lots of other info my only guess would be theirs additives in the fuel or the fuel was heated? Maybe some type of Acetylene Acetone mixture?

 

[Mick West]

The fuel fire reaching 1000c has me a bit confused black smoke suggests its not getting proper amounts of Oxygen yet it still reaches 1000c im stumped on that one. If I could watch it in my country I would probably have a bit more to say. It contradicts lots of other info my only guess would be theirs additives in the fuel or the fuel was heated? Maybe some type of Acetylene Acetone mixture?

It's 700 gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) in an open pit. Sure it's not getting the same amount and rate of oxygen input as it would in a jet engine, so you get incomplete combustion of SOME of the fuel, and hence black smoke (soot).

Where did you get the 825 C figure for maximum hydrocarbon fires? It seems to only exist in truther literature.

Research hydrocarbon + "pool fire"
http://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/strategy/pool.htm

A pool fire is a turbulent diffusion fire burning above a horizontal pool of vaporising hydrocarbon fuel where the fuel has zero or low initial momentum. Fires in the open will be well ventilated (fuel-controlled), but fires within enclosures may become under-ventilated (ventilation-controlled). Pool fires may be static (e.g. where the pool is contained) or 'running' fires.
...
Fuel-controlled pool fires are characterised by rapid rise in temperature (up to 1300 ° C) and high heat fluxes (up to 320 kW m-2) in insulated compartments.

http://www.eapfp.com/hydrocarbon.php

There are two common types of fire that may occur in a hydrocarbon-processing complex: The first is a pool fire and this occurs when a flammable liquid leaks from a vessel or pipeline to form a fluid reservoir, which then ignites; The second, and potentially more dangerous type, is a jet fire which can happen following the rupture of a pressurised vessel and/or gas line.

A hydrocarbon pool fire will generate temperatures of more than 1000 Celsius within ten minutes of ignition with heat fluxes of around 150kW/m2. A jet fire will exhibit the same temperature rise, but the heat flux could be double that of the pool fire. Three distinct types of passive fire protection products are normally used in hydrocarbon-processing complexes:-.

 

[Mick West]

NIST Figures from literature review:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire03/PDF/f03129.pdf

 

[anonname]

Thanks for those links makes a lot more sense now!

http://www.mepetroleum.com/
using the site above and just from using google to search up Kerosene msds I found a few companies with matching numbers. Would adding alcohol or methanol to the water like an H20 injector make much of a difference with temperature?

 

[Pete Tar]

So Mr Super-Goat, does it show that the fires died down after a few minutes or not then?

 

[Jazzy]

Watch the video from the exit side

If I did I might probably find myself saying "the plane barely hit the corner of the building".

By looking on the impact side I can see the plane's right wingtip cut within the corner moment beam of the tower, meaning the centerlines of the plane and the tower were less than 25 feet apart, and the whole plane crashed into the building.

From all views it is quite apparent the kerosine/air explosion took place within the building.

compared to the first building a lot more fuel reacts outside the building since it goes through a corner

It quite obviously did not go through a corner.

my only guess would be theirs additives in the fuel or the fuel was heated

There is no hydrocarbon you can add to a kerosine flame to make it hotter. Kerosine is itself a very fine hydrocarbon fuel. Acetylene adds some energy only through its triple bond.

You can add oxygen or ozone. That would work. But why would you assume it wasn't kerosine?

Do you accept that the whole plane entered the tower, and that the fuel/air explosion began within the tower?

 

[Oxymoron]

Temperature is a deceptive thing. People walk on hot coals or even put their trainers in the molten lava...

​

 

[JRBids]

As you can see the plane barely hit the corner of the building

You can't be serious.

 

[anonname]

If I did I might probably find myself saying "the plane barely hit the corner of the building".

By looking on the impact side I can see the plane's right wingtip cut within the corner moment beam of the tower, meaning the centerlines of the plane and the tower were less than 25 feet apart, and the whole plane crashed into the building.

agreed the plane went through the building but it cut through the corner so their was a lot less resistance it did not hit the building head on like the first plane, the tip of the plane actually made it out before and flames where visible.
e

From all views it is quite apparent the kerosine/air explosion took place within the building.

TT ​

It quite obviously did not go through a corner.
^^^
Only two sides had large amounts off fire shoot up the entry side made it about 30 stories and the exit about 60 stories high. With little damage to the adjacent sides the exit was 90 degrees he would of had to hit the building at an angel. Its hard to tell from a lot of videos but the plane 100% hit the second building from an angel

There is no hydrocarbon you can add to a kerosine flame to make it hotter. Kerosine is itself a very fine hydrocarbon fuel. Acetylene adds some energy only through its triple bond.
You can add oxygen or ozone. That would work. But why would you assume it wasn't kerosine?
3x the normal open air temperatures where reached with the flame lacking oxygen. It went against the msds of all major fuel company's so I guessed it was some sort of hoax and viable way to melt a steel beam in minutes is with Acetylene and acetone solution. http://www.mepetroleum.com/jet_fuel.htm.
I can not watch the video in my country so I went of description, Kerosene only burns black when its oxygen deprived, open air kerosene usually does not burn hotter than 300c I checked this with multiple legitimate sources. It did not really make sense open air oxygen deprived kerosene burning at 1000c and bending t bars in minutes. I felt a bit dumb after finding out how it was done but I now have a new weekend project!

Do you accept that the whole plane entered the tower, and that the fuel/air explosion began within the tower?

Yes I think it did 100% enter the building and I believe the ignition started just as the tip made it out based on the above pictures. I think most or a large amount of the fuel was burned outside the tower the plane was traveling very fast and think most of the fuel was forced out by all its momentum resulting in the fireball that goes as high as the building it can only be seen in a few videos since the black smog from the first building smothers it. FEMA estimated it had about 10000 gallons of fuel on board sounds like a lot but it can all fit in a 11footx11x11 room. Most American and Canadian gas truck hold about 9000 gallons theirs lots of videos of them exploding and the reaction size seems somewhat the same size

 

[Mick West]

And your point is....?

You originally stated:

open air jet fuel on a good day will max out at about 350C considering all the smoke it was probably a bit less.

But now you know that kerosene pool fires can go over 1000C. Does this give you any pause for thought?

And why are you going on about the kerosene anyway? Everyone knows it burned off fairly quickly, then the fires were from the office contents and partitions.

Look back at the first video:

​

This is nothing to do with kerosene after the first few minutes after the impacts. So why are you even talking about kerosene?

 

[Ron J]

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

North Building- The north building was hit pretty much dead on. After 16 minutes this is what the smoke looked like http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/Hufschmid/eh01.jpg
No visible flames and smoke extremely black meaning its mostly just office supplies at this point if their is any fuel left at all.

I looked at the photo and for starters it is fairly small within the frame of my computer screen. When i put my eyes close to the screen, i could see a orange glow among some of the smoke. There were flames.

The color of the smoke was dark. So? What color smoke does a burning tire laying on the ground produce? How oxygen starved is a burning tire laying on open ground? Yet the smoke is dark.
Various office combustibles were made from plastics. Others from wood. Mix light and dark smoke together, dark will prevail.

How diffuse were flames that were pouring floor to ceiling out various windows? The height of the flames indicated they were not starved for oxygen and that they were roaring flames, putting out much heat. I'll take the over on the 800.