See other 9/11 Articles
Title: "Seven is exploding"
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
Published: Apr 16, 2007
Author: Canale 5
Post Date: 2007-05-05 10:55:52 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1251
Comments: 92
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 46.
#3. To: (#0)
(Edited)
Counterpunch: Dark Fire - The Fall of WTC 7 There were five emergency power systems in WTC 7. Three of them (American Express, OEM, U.S. Secret Service) drew fuel from the other two and larger systems (Salomon Smith Barney, Silverstein Properties). (1c), (8) The emergency power for the building (Silverstein Properties) was provided by two 900 kW generators on the southwest corner of Floor 5. They drew fuel from a 275 gallon tank nearby, and this was replenished by pumps drawing from two 12,000 gallon tanks at ground level under the loading dock, at the southwest corner of the building. The SSB emergency power system used nine 1,725 kW generators on Floor 5: three in the southwest corner, two near the west end of the north face, four at the east end of the north face. Louvers for air intake and exhaust were situated on the building faces near the generators. Because there was already a 275 gallon "day tank" on this floor, the SSB system pumped on demand from their own pair of 6,000 gallon storage tanks, also situated under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building. The fuel supplier was contracted to keep the tanks full, and they were full that day. Fuel pipes for all systems except SSB ran up the western side of the core of the building, along elevator shafts. The SSB pipes ran up a shaft through mechanical spaces near the southwest corner of the building. Kindling After 1 p.m. on September 11, 2001, WTC 7 was an evacuated, stricken building. The southwest corner and central third of the south face had been ripped open by the cascading debris from the collapse of WTC 1. Fires burned in sections of Floors 6 through 30 at different times, and they migrated along their floors independently, seeking new sources of fuel. From the street the fires on Floors 11 and 12 appeared most intense. Many fires in the area went unchecked because utility power for electrical pumps, and water pressure for fire engines had either diminished or been lost. This is what happened. A Pumped Oil Spill The debris fall ripping into the southwest corner ruptured the oil pipes of the SSB pressurized fuel distribution system. Operating as intended -- the lack of utility power triggering the "need", and the lack of pressure due to a severed pipe signaling the "demand", the SSB system pumped oil up from its 12,000 gallon basement reservoir, maximally with a pressure of 50 psi (pounds per square inch) and flow rate of 75 gpm (gallons per minute), onto Floor 5. Pumping would have started at 9:59 a.m., when Con Ed cut utility power to WTC 7; and the spilling would have started a half hour later when the pressurized pipe was cut. The SSB pumps could have drained the two 6,000 gallon tanks in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation found that "there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." (10) Additionally, "Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath." (7) By contrast, 20,000 gallons of oil was recovered from the two 12,000 gallon tanks of Silverstein Properties. (10) Pulled up by the emergency pumps, the SSB diesel fuel went , from the 6,000 gallon storage tanks, under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building, to floor 5. It may all have been pumped out by 1 p.m., or it may have been pumped out at a rate as low as 29 gpm for 7 hours. Since this fuel was absent from the wreckage, it was burned. You can see it as the huge plume of black smoke rising from the World Trade Center, in panoramic photographs of that day. Diesel fuel can supply 2.13 MW of power per gpm given an air supply of 1333 cfm (cubic feet per minute). (11) Thus, a diesel fuel gusher of 75 gpm burning with excess air would produce 160 MW of heat; a total energy of 1536 GJ for the 12,000 gallons. This energy is equivalent to that released by an explosion of 367 tons of TNT. If the pumping rate is lower, or the air supply is throttled, then the burning would occur at a lower rate. Since the louver system along Floor 5 was designed to supply each of the nine SSB engines with 80,000 cfm, it seems likely that a fuel oil fire there would find sufficient air for combustion. For a discussion of heat at 9/11, and energy units, CounterPunchers will soon be able to have my study, "the Thermodynamics of 9/11", to be published shortly on the CounterPunch website as part of our final package on the actual physics and engineering realities of the collapse of the WTC buildings.
Official fairy talers are fond of posting quotes like that. It sure makes that deisel fuel seem like a powerful exposive, doesn't it? What always gets left out is flame speed. Flame speed for TNT is somewhere around 20,000 feet per second. In other words it releases it's energy quickly and with a much higher velocity. I bet a good rain shower unleashes as much energy as a few hundred tons of TNT too, but normally rain does not take down buildings.
You are correct, Critter, and this is also the explanation for the difference between what AGA, in ignorance (I assume), is claiming here, and what happened to the bridge in Oakland. Gasoline burns very, very fast; it is nearly explosive in its burning, and because of the rate at which it burns, it creates a lot more quick heat. Diesel fuel has a lot more power as a fuel because it does burn slower, and thus creates a more sustained ''push'' inside of an engine, whereas gasoline burns much faster, akin to an explosion inside of each cylinder on each stroke. Trying to compare what diesel fuel does to what gasoline does is really, really ignorant.
Another self-taught scientist weighs in. The Oakland overpass did not collapse because of "flame speed." The overpass collapsed because it got heated so much that the bolts supporting the structure melted, the steel beam(s) buckled, and the structure collapsed. And heat is measured in *BTU's*, which means that a gallon of diesel fuel or kerosene produces more heat than a gallon of gasoline.
No shit, O BRILLANT ONE? Of course, because of flame speed, that heat is released over a much, much longer period of time, leading to an overall much, much lower tempature..... but what do I know....... Oh, that´s right! I do know! I have worked a lot of construction, generally, as the BOSS, if you understand the word. Many, many times, we used diesel fuel in five gal. cans, with the tops cut out, to mark opem holes or piles of dirt esp. during work shiffs at night. Probably, you have seen simialar things, if you simply think about it. And it is really amazing.... the TIN cans NEVER ONCE melted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, we would use cut off 55 gal. drums, with diesel fuel and several pieces of rebar (which is made of SOFT steel) PLACED OVER THEM to melt tar (HELD IN A 5 GAL. BUCKET WHICH ALSO NEVER MELTED!) to repair or caulk sewer pipes with-------NEVER ONCE HAD A 55 GAL. DRUM MELT!!! AND, USED THEM FOR HOURS AND HOURS! AND DAYS AND DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, I understand how ignorance is an excuse for many things, but what you are talking about goes way, way beyond ignorance and borders on stupidity, but hey, what do I know.....
Like I said, another self-taught scientist. Now you want to claim that kerosene and diesel fuel take "much, much longer" to burn than gasoline. Are you vaguely aware that jet aircraft go Mach 2 using fuels similar to kerosene even though by your "reasoning" their engines would take "much, much, longer" to burn their fuel, and hence generate less thrust and speed, than if they used av gas (which nobody uses for high performance jets)? And the afterburners of those jet aircraft using fuels similar to kerosene reach temperatures of 3,000 degrees which again by your "reasoning" would be "an overall much, much" lower temperature than what you claim av gas would produce? That explains a lot I worked in construction a summer after I got out of college until I went on to better things. Now I do my own because I've seen first hand the work put out by people who do it for a living. I'm sure that your "much much higher temperature" gasoline never has melted a 55 gallon drum either. But nevertheless, a gasoline fire did "melt" a fairly large section of a concrete and steel bridge. And I have no doubt that a kerosene or diesel fuel fire under similar conditions would do the same thing Your point being? Last but not least, do some research on how hot oil well fires get- which burn totally undistilled crude which by your "resoning" should burn even at lower temperatures than kerosene or diesel - before you make any more uneducated utterances about hydrocarbon combustion.
I do not have to be a scientist to understand basic facts, O BRILLANT ONE. Now you want to claim that kerosene and diesel fuel take "much, much longer" to burn than gasoline. All things are in relationships; for instance, if gas burns in one second, and kerosene in two seconds, tnen kerosene burns half as fast, thus shows a slower flame speed and a slower release of heat. This is why kerosene/diesel fuel is also much safer to haul; oh, by the way, had about 80 over the road trucks including tankers. And that brings up the point, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A DIESEL/KEROSENE LOADED TANKER EXPLODING? Inquiring minds want to know, because I never have....... Are you vaguely aware that jet aircraft go Mach 2 using fuels similar to kerosene ¿No shit? REALLY!? Of course, here you are comparing apples to organges, as you seem to really, really, really, really, really like to do, as if all of us are stupid, right? Have you ever looked at a break down of a jet engine, and the methodology used to reach those tempatures and thrust? Because if you have not, I have, and IF they used AV gas, they would have more slightly more thrust, but much, much higher tempatures, such that the life of the engines would be severly curtailed. IF IF IF they could build an engine, at any price, that could stand the tempatures. Simply put, AV gas DOES NOT fit the technology of jet engines; never has and never will. I'm sure that your "much much higher temperature" gasoline never has melted a 55 gallon drum either. Damned if I know, because no one I know has ever been stupid enough to pour gasoline into an open drum and drop a match into it. Doesn`t mean it has not happened, but whoever did it, if they lived to tell of it, certainly never spoke of it to anyone! gasoline fire did "melt" a fairly large section of a concrete and steel bridge. First off, concrete does not melt. It will crack and scale, if enough heat is applied, but it don't melt. Second, the bridge sagged, but the steel did not melt either. That is what happens to steel when it gets hot; it sags, esp. when it is loaded with weight. By the way, concrete is heavy, so the bridge was carrying a lot of weight, and that is what caused the sag as the steel lost its tensile strenght. You need to consider something; just because some ignorant so-called newsreporter said something about a bridge melting, does not make it fact. The pictures I saw of the bridge certainly had steel sagging down, but I saw no puddles of steel below the bridge... but hey, maybe you know something I do not! Ummmmmmmmm, probably not...... Last but not least, do some research on how hot oil well fires get- which burn totally undistilled crude which by your "resoning" should burn even at lower temperatures than kerosene or diesel - And once again, apples and what, pears(?), this time! Is this another example of ignorance, or just plain stupidity? Undistilled crude is EXTREMELY dangerous because it is FULL of many, many different chemicals, including natural gas. And what is in the undistilled crude varies widely from oil field to oil field, but in nearly all cases, except in some cases of very heavy crude, it is flammable with only a spark. In fact, oil field fires have been set off with dropped tools sparking on a steel deck, and with static electricity. So I would suggest that you look for other types of info, or, read a few books, before you continue to lecture me.
http://stopthelie.com/freeway_collapse.html FREEWAY COLLAPSE I can already hear defenders of the official account screaming "See, fire can cause a steel structure to collapse-the bridge collapsed!" Comparing the circumstances surrounding the fire and subsequent partial collapse of this bridge to the circumstances surrounding the fires and subsequent complete collapse of the towers and WTC 7 is flawed from end to end. This fact should be obvious to most people; but let's point out a few things just in case they weren't already noticed. So to quickly recap: -Ending with a paragraph from The 1-hour Guide to 9/11.
#47. To: nolu_chan (#46)
(Edited)
1. All "un-offical" accounts of WTC 7 have - up to this time - begun with the statement "No steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire." This statement is now demonstrably untrue, so they're modifying their statement. "But...but...but...it was a freeway bridge! But...but...but...it weakened a load-bearing truss! [Professor Thomas Eagar, do you hear them saying that trusses can be heated to the point of failure? LMAO!]" Doesn't matter. It was a steel structure, and it collapsed due to fire. Fires can generate enough heat to cause steel to structurally fail. The claim that they cannot are at the core of all "un-official" 911 accounts. 2. Building 7 had "louvers" designed to insure adequate air supply to the emergency power generators. Therefore air supply to the fires is not an issue. All fires in Building 7 had plenty of air.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: AGAviator (#3)
This energy is equivalent to that released by an explosion of 367 tons of TNT.
#33. To: Critter, AGAviator (#5)
What always gets left out is flame speed.
#34. To: richard9151 (#33)
#35. To: AGAviator, Critter (#34)
And heat is measured in *BTU's*, which means that a gallon of diesel fuel or kerosene produces more heat than a gallon of gasoline.
#36. To: richard9151, Destro, YertleTurtle (#35)
(Edited)
Because of flame speed, that heat is released over a much, much longer period of time, leading to an overall much, much lower tempature
Oh, that´s right! I do know! I have worked a lot of construction, generally, as the BOSS, if you understand the word
NEVER ONCE HAD A 55 GAL. DRUM MELT!!!
#43. To: AGAviator, Critter, Destro, YertleTurtle (#36)
Because of flame speed,
#46. To: richard9151, AGAviator, Critter, Destro, YertleTurtle (#43)
For the record, few in the scientific community doubt that it's theoretically possible for a building to experience failure if it is subjected to devastating heat for a sufficient period of time. And additional factors like no fire-proofing, no sprinkler systems, insufficient steel to "bleed off" heat or inferior construction greatly increase the possibility. However, what is "doubted" (or more accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps -simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.
Replies to Comment # 46. 1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 46.