9-11 Deniers constantly argue that because much of the smoke from the WTC fires was dark, that means the fires were cool and therefore not hot enough to weaken steel. Meanwhile, smoke from the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid also had dark smoke, and those fires brought down the all-steel portion of the tower. View attachment 24229 View attachment 24230 View attachment 24231 clearly, dark smoke from an office fire is hot enough to weaken steel and cause a collapse.
first of all jet fuel burns with very little smoke the smoke that you are seeing is everything else burning it was more burning then just that floor the plane crashed into
its not the dark smoke anyone had to be concerned with its the white smoke. no fuel puddled in the the biulding 10seconds tops to burn it ALL off
Then somebody needs to tell me why it took ten MINUTES for a crew of three with an AS32/P2 crash truck to extinguish a five hundred gallon JP-4 fire in the open air back in the 60s. You people need to be aware that you are occasionally talking to people who have done things that give them some actual knowledge about the stuff on which you pontificate.
Oh Lefty, you silly old thing - expecting people with practical experience in such matters to be as knowledgeable as our phalanx of internet warriors, battling away in the trenches of their mummy's basement
Some argument. Funny how we never hear how many tons of steel were involved and how it could be heated sufficiently in less than two hours. psik
You know that the WTC was only rated to withstand a couple hours with the thermal protection in place, right? Thus, it does not matter how long it took either the WTC or the steel parts of Windsor to fall. They were not protected, so all calculations based on expected failure times are worthless.
You have actual evidence that thermal protection was not in place? So it was necessary to make up an excuse. But the time it takes for steel to heat up is still affected by the quantity of steel. So why doesn't everyone want to know how much there was? psik
Musta been that office furniture that created and burned that fireball like that. Couldn't have been the glorified kerosene.
Adolph...<eyeroll> No,you haven't,Or you'd have noted it puts out a fair amount of soot. [video=youtube;H7qMIWcYA-g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7qMIWcYA-g[/video] 2300 liters of AVTUR (607 gallons)jet turbine fuel Notice how 'clean' it burns?
Knock your heater over then,see what happens then....you doubt that what you were seeing was kerosene burning?
I dropped a lit match into a bucket of diesel fuel and it extinguished. Diesel must not be combustible at ALL!
Around 1980 a company I was working for leased some land to pennzoil and we built an area that they could use to train it's offshore workers firefighting skills. We made several large pans,and ran piping to them from a 1000 gallon tank,that was supposed to be filled full of diesel,but my boss got a good deal on 300 gallons of kerosene,and we tested the plubing for the pans and the hose reels by lighting some afire The local VFD was NOT amused,as the black smoke could be seen for miles
Right after the first moments of impact? That fireball burned most of it up. What burned in the hour afterwards that made the whole thing collapse into its own footprint? That was something else entirely.
Hogwash. That much fuel can burn for hours. Not all of it was sprayed out the other side of the building. A lot of it went down the elevator shafts and a lot soaked into the furniture and papers on the floors hit. The residual Class B accelerant from the aircraft and the Class A fuels that it set fire to. How many times do we have to tell you that? Class A fuels general generate a lot more heat than Class B even though a lot less cleanly.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fires_911.html http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/madrid_towering_inferno.htm
