[QUOTE=willravel]Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. I belive carpet, paper, desks, etc. burn much cooler than jet fuel (please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Are you suggesting that the temperature at which jet fuel, carpet, paper, desks, chairs, houseplants, computers, etc. all burn is cumumlative? If so, that could explain the 1500C temperature, but it would lead me to a state of confusion that I may never come back from, as it goes against my basic understanding of the nature of fire.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by popsci
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
*IF* demolitions explosives were used, then one could assume that they would be used in the interrior of the building, the rimary support of the building. This would help the building to fall into it's footprint, explain why the buyilding fell so fast, explain the way the outer supports exploded outwards, and a lack of flashes. Still, I am unconvinced. I don't know how the building collapsed, I am just prety sure I know how it didn't collapse. That's kinda the bottom line.
|
You don’t need explosives to explain its speed; the building is nearly all air
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by popsci
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy.
|
More instances of conspiracy theorist getting there quote wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by popsci
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I do understand that. What I don't understand is how that pressure was channeled out of a few windows instead of equally across several floors.
|
Think of it this way, as soon as one window breaks, the pressure escapes through there, and there is no reason for the others to, how ever, the pressure was so great that it broke several before the pressure equalized.