911review.org  Homepage

-----------

HOW HOT DID THE JET FUEL HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
by MAD MAX Saturday July 19, 2003 at 05:52 AM

Imagine that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

 

 

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

Imagine that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

What we propose to do, is to pretend that the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanations are lies.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 10,000 gallons weighs 10,000 x 3.1 = 31,000 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) only occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center the collision would have mixed the fuel with the limited amount of air available within the building, quite well, but the combustion would still have been mainly a combination of reactions (2) and (3) as the quantity of oxygen was quite restricted.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 10,000 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 31,000 x 44,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857  kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429  kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680  kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000  kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000  kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Concrete 3,300
Steel 450
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide  845

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 3,300 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 3,300) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,300 + 82,327,500 + 362,968,000 + 225,000,000 + 4,620,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 1,364,000,000,000 Joules, we have that

5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) = 1,364,000,000,000
5,357,650,000 x T - 133,941,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000

Therefore T = (1,364,000,000,000 + 133,941,000,000)/5,357,650,000 = 280° C (536° F).

So, if we assume a typical office fire at the WTC, then the jet fuel could have only added 280 - 25 = 255° C (at the very most) to the temperature of the fire.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction.

We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?



Mad Max
by Would some kind soul check the calculations. Saturday July 19, 2003 at 05:54 AM

 

Would some kind soul check the calculations. THANKS.

 

Garbage in, garbage out

by jbusch Saturday July 19, 2003 at 05:54 PM

 

This is like a grad student engineer "proving" through calculations that bees can't actually fly.


The steel didn't have to melt. All that had to happen is for the steel floor trusses to heat up, expand, and buckle. They were held to the central concrete elevator core by 2- 5/8" bolts at each end per truss. Not much when you are talking about the impact of jet airliner which blew much of the fireproofing off the steel.
Once the floor trusses started to buckle and individual sections of the floor gave way, it was only a matter of time. The outer columns effectively got longer and longer as the support at the floors was removed.

I really think that you people who buy into this anti-Jewish conspiracy crap ought to see a doctor. You have a piece of your soul missing- not to mention most of your brain.

 

You are the evil one

by jbusch has no soul Saturday July 19, 2003 at 08:09 PM



Hey at least he has a soul. You are soulless robot, spewing hatred and lies.
Mad Max

by jbusch: You FREAK, you MORON, you uneducated Saturday July 19, 2003 at 11:14 PM



They were held to the central concrete elevator core by 2-5/8" bolts at each end per truss.

I laugh at your stupidity. Do you really believe that the floors were held up by

(2 x 30 + 2 x 12) = number of trusses = 84 pairs of 5/8" bolts.

What a fucking LUNATIC. What a FREAK. What a MORON. Uneducated IDIOT.

Truly, I laugh at your stupidity. Do you believe in any other absurdities (like Santa Claus and Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer).



Jews did 911.

by Jews did 911. Friday August 01, 2003 at 09:03 PM

Jews did 911.


apparently this guy does
by somedude Saturday August 02, 2003 at 12:58 PM


apparrently the poster above does, jbusch, does that answer your question?


Your Ad Here


jbusch
by Oh, my questions have been answered Saturday August 02, 2003 at 06:45 PM


No doubt, somedude.
I have watched this "debate" and posted to in more times than it warrants. The pieces of human slime who post this crap in the hope of propagandizing Indy readers into believing that the JEWS and their own Government killed thousands of innocent New Yorkers for Israel is the single worst conspiracy theory I have ever seen. The pornographic idiocy they spew is beneath contempt, or comment.

Everytime I visit this disgusting site, I feel like I am lansing a boil. I need a shower. You anti-semitic dung piles can go strait to your own personal hell.

 

JB -- Jews did 911. End of story.
by JB -- Jews did 911. End of story. Tuesday August 19, 2003 at 06:07 PM


JB -- Jews did 9/11. End of story.

 

fine
by yes, yes, the Jews Wednesday August 20, 2003 at 10:56 AM


Yes, I know, the Jews are descended from monkeys, and are the children of Satan. I have heard it all on extremist Right wing websites similar to this one. All you cloistered self-loathing miscreants seem to come to the same conclusions.


Right Wing?
by Bumper Pool Tuesday August 26, 2003 at 02:13 PM



I know it makes you lefties feel better to atribute everythign you don't like to "rightists", but this is an anti-jew conspiracy theory...nothing to do with political ideology. Made still more ridiculous by the overwhelming support from conservatives for Israel etc etc.




Your Ad Here

 

�Qu� temperatura alcanz� el incendio en el WTC?: Un eslab�n.
by �Qu� temperatura alcanz� el incendio en el WT Sunday October 19, 2003 at 10:34 PM

 

 

�Qu� temperatura alcanz� el incendio en el WTC?: Un eslab�n.

Imagine que todo el combustible del avi�n se inyectara en s�lo un piso del WTC, que el combustible se quem� con una eficiencia perfecta, que los gases caliente se mantuvieron en el piso y que nada del calor escap� de este piso por conducci�n. Con estas asunciones ideales nosotros calcularemos la temperatura m�xima que este piso podr�a alcanzar.

"El Boeing 767 es capaz de transportar 23,980 galones de combustible y se estima que, en el momento del impacto, cada avi�n ten�a a bordo, aproximadamente 10,000 galones de combustible sin usar (informaci�n de fuentes Gubernamentales)."

Cita del informe de FEMA en el derrumbe de las y torres del WTC Uno y Dos (Cap�tulo Dos).

Desde que el avi�n s�lo estaba volando de Boston a Los �ngeles, ellos no deber�an cargar sus estanques llenos al despegue (el avi�n tiene un rango m�ximo de 7,600 millas). Ellos habr�an llevado bastante combustible para el viaje junto a una cantidad como factor de seguridad. Recuerde, llevar exceso de combustible significa costos m�s altos y los pasajes menos provechosos econ�micamente. El avi�n tambi�n habr�a quemado un poco de combustible entre Boston y Nueva York.

Lo que nos proponemos, es pretender que se inyectaron los 10,000 galones completos de combustible en s�lo un piso de la torre de WTC, que el combustible se quem� con la cantidad perfecta de ox�geno, que no escaparon gases calientes del piso y que tampoco escap� a otros pisos por conducci�n. Con estas asunciones ideales (que son imposibles en la realidad) nosotros calcularemos la temperatura m�xima que este piso podr�a alcanzar. Por supuesto, ese d�a las temperaturas reales alcanzadas en cualquier piso debido al combustible quemado, ser�an considerablemente m�s bajas que aquellas que hemos calculado, pero esta estimaci�n nos permitir� demostrar que las explicaciones "oficiales" son solo mentiras.

Note que un gal�n de combustible de avi�n pesa aproximadamente 3.1 kilogramos, por lo cual 10,000 galones pesan 10,000 x 3.1 = 31,000 kg.

El combustible de avi�n es incoloro, combustible, es un destilado del petr�leo. Sus usos principales son como ingrediente en l�mparas de petr�leo, fluidos para encender el carb�n de le�a, combustible de motores a reacci�n y en insecticidas.

Es tambi�n conocido como petr�leo #1, parafina, petr�leo del rango, petr�leo de carb�n y combustible de la aviaci�n.

Comprende hidrocarburos con un rango de carbono de C9 - C17. Los hidrocarburos son principalmente los alkanes CnH2n+2, con n que va de 9 a 17.

Tiene un punto de encendido dentro del rango 42°C - 72°C (110°F - 162°F).

Y una temperatura de ignici�n de 210°C (410°F).

Dependiendo del suministro de ox�geno, el combustible se enciende por una de las tres siguientes reacciones qu�micas,:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

La reacci�n (1) s�lo ocurre cuando el combustible esta bien mezclado con aire antes de encenderse, como por ejemplo, en los motores de reacci�n.

Las reacciones (2) y (3) ocurren cuando un contenedor de combustible arde. Cuando ocurre la reacci�n (3) el carbono que se forma muestras humos negros en las llamas. Esto hace el humo muy oscuro.

En la colisi�n del avi�n contra el WTC, habr�a mezclado bastante bien, el combustible con la cantidad limitada de aire disponible dentro del edificio, pero la combusti�n posterior habr�a sido principalmente una combinaci�n de reacciones (2) y (3) dado que la cantidad de ox�geno realmente se restringi�.

Desde que nosotros no sabemos cuales eran las cantidades exactas de ox�geno disponible al fuego, asumiremos que la combusti�n era perfecta y eficiente, que es, la totalidad del combustible del avi�n se quem� mediante la reacci�n (1), aun cuando sabemos que esto no fue as�. Esta asunci�n generosa dar� una temperatura que sabemos ser� m�s alta que la temperatura real del fuego atribuible al combustible del avi�n.

Necesitamos saber que el valor calor�fico (neto) del combustible de avi�n cuando es quemado v�a reacci�n (1) es 42 - 44 MJ/kg. El valor calor�fico de un combustible es la cantidad de energ�a liberada cuando el combustible es quemado. Usaremos el valor m�s alto, el de 44 MJ/kg esto llevar� a una temperatura m�xima m�s alta que con el valor m�s bajo de 42 (y deseamos continuar siendo ultrajantemente generosos en nuestras asunciones).

Para una presentaci�n m�s limpia y c�lculos m�s simples, asumiremos tambi�n que nuestros hidrocarburos son de la formula CnH2n. El dejar caer los 2 �tomos de hidr�geno no representa mucha diferencia en resultado final y el lector interesado podr� recalcular f�cilmente las f�rmulas para un resultado ligeramente m�s exacto. As�, nosotros estamos ahora asumiendo la ecuaci�n:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

Sin embargo, este modelo, no tiene en cuenta que la reacci�n se est� llevando a cabo en el aire, en cual solo parcialmente es Ox�geno.

El aire seco es 79% nitr�geno y 21% ox�geno (por volumen). Aire Normal tiene un contenido de humedad de 0 a 4%. Nosotros incluiremos el vapor de agua y los otros gases atmosf�ricos menores con el nitr�geno.

As� la proporci�n de los principales gases atmosf�ricos: ox�geno y nitr�geno, es 1 : 3.76. en la condici�n molar:

Aire = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Porque ox�geno viene mixto con el nitr�geno, tenemos que incluirlo en las ecuaciones. Aunque no reaccione, es para " lo largo del paseo" y absorber� el calor, afectando el equilibrio de calor global. Entonces, necesitamos usar la ecuaci�n:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

De esta ecuaci�n nosotros vemos que la proporci�n molar de CnH2n a aquella de los productos es:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

En la conversi�n mol a kilogramos, hemos asumido los pesos at�micos de hidr�geno, carbono, nitr�geno y ox�geno en 1, 12, 14 y 16 respectivamente.

Ahora cada uno de las torres conten�a 96,000 (corto) toneladas de acero. �se es un promedio de 96,000/117 = 820 toneladas por piso. �Perm�tanos suponer que los pisos inferiores contuvieron aproximadamente dos veces la cantidad de acero de los pisos superiores aproximadamente dos veces (ya que los pisos inferiores soportaban m�s peso). Para lo cual estimamos que los pisos inferiores contuvieron aproximadamente 1,100 toneladas de acero y los pisos superiores aproximadamente 550 toneladas = 550 x 907.2 +/- 500,000 Kg. Nosotros asumiremos que los pisos golpeados por el avi�n contuvo a lo menos la estimaci�n de 500,000 Kg. de acero. Esto infravalora la cantidad de acero generosamente en estos pisos, y lleva una vez, a una estimaci�n m�s alta de la temperatura m�xima.

Cada piso ten�a una loza de suelo y una loza de techo. Estas lozas eran de 207 pies de ancho, 207 pies largo y 4 (en partes 5) pulgadas de espesor y se construy� de hormig�n ligero. As� que cada loza contuvo 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14.283 pies c�bicos de hormig�n. �Ahora un pie c�bico de hormig�n ligero pesa 50kg, cada loza pesaba 714,150, +/- 700,000 Kg. Juntos, las lozas del piso y del techo pesaron unos 1,400,000 Kg.

As� que, ahora nosotros tomamos todos los ingredientes y estimamos una temperatura m�xima a que ellos podr�an alcanzar por los 10,000 galones de combustible del avi�n. Llamaremos a esta temperatura m�xima :T. Desde que el valor calor�fico del combustible de avi�n es 44 MJ/Kg. Sabemos que 10,000 galones = 31,000 Kg. de combustible de avi�n liberar�:

31,000 x 44,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000 Joules de energ�a.

Esta es la cantidad total de energ�a que est� disponible para calentar los ingredientes a la temperatura T. Pero �Cu�l es la temperatura T? Para averiguar esto, tenemos que calcular primero la cantidad de energ�a absorbida por cada uno de los ingredientes .

Es decir, necesitamos calcular la energ�a necesitada para elevar:

39,857  kilogramos de vapor de agua a la temperatura T°C,
97,429  kilogramos de anh�drido carb�nico a la temperatura T°C,
349,680  kilogramos de nitr�geno a la temperatura T°C,
500,000  kilogramos de acero a la temperatura T°C,
1,400,000  kilogramos de hormig�n a la temperatura T°C.

Para calcular la energ�a necesaria para calentar las cantidades antes mencionadas, necesitamos sus calores espec�ficos. El calor espec�fico de una sustancia es la cantidad de energ�a necesaria para levantar un kilogramo de la sustancia en un grado cent�grado.

Sustancia Calor espec�fico [J/Kg*C]
Concreto 3,300
Acero 450
Nitr�geno 1,038
Vapor de agua 1,690
Di�xido de Carbono  845

Sustituyendo estos valores en los anteriores, obtenemos:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules se necesitan para calentar el vapor de agua de 25° a T°C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules se necesitan para calentar el anh�drido carb�nico de 25° a T°C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules se necesitan para calentar el nitr�geno de 25° a T°C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules se necesitan para calentar el acero de 25° a T°C,
1,400,000 x 3,300 x (T - 25) Joules se necesitan para calentar el hormig�n de 25° a T°C.

La asunci�n que los calores espec�ficos son constantes sobre el rango de temperatura de 25° - T°C, es una buena aproximaci�n si T resulta ser relativamente peque�a (como lo es). Para valores m�s altos de T, esta asunci�n, lleva una vez m�s, a una temperatura m�xima m�s alta (Ya que el calor espec�fico para estas substancias aumenta con la temperatura). Hemos asumido que la temperatura ambiente inicial es de 25°C. La cantidad, (T - 25°C), es la elevaci�n de la temperatura.

Entonces que la cantidad de energ�a necesaria para elevar un piso a la temperatura T°C es :

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 3,300) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,300 + 82,327,500 + 362,968,000 + 225,000,000 + 4,620,000,000) x (T - 25) los Julios
= 5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) Joules


Desde que la cantidad de energ�a disponible para calentar este suelo es 1,364,000,000,000 Joules, tenemos entonces:

5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) = 1,364,000,000,000
5,357,650,000 x T - 133,941,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000

Por consiguiente:

T = (1,364,000,000,000 + 133,941,000,000)/5,357,650,000 = 280°C (536°F).

Entonces, si nosotros asumimos un incendio de una oficina normal del WTC, el combustible del avi�n podr�a agregar s�lo 280 - 25 = 255°C (m�ximo) a la temperatura del incendio.

Resumiendo:

Hemos asumido que la cantidad total del combustible del avi�n fue inyectado en s�lo un piso del WTC, que el combustible se quem� con una eficiencia perfecta, que no escaparon gases calientes del piso y que no se perdi� calor de este piso a otros por conductividad.

Hemos encontrado que es imposible que el combustible de avi�n, por si mismo, elev� la temperatura de este piso m�s all� de 280°C (536°F).


Ahora esta temperatura no est� ni tan siquiera cercana en su dimensi�n para inclusive comenzar a explicar el derrumbe de las torres del WTC.

Ni siquiera est� cerca de la primera temperatura cr�tica de 600°C (1,100°F) donde el acero pierde aproximadamente la mitad su fuerza y no est� en ninguna parte cercana a las cifras de 1500°C que nosotros constantemente le�mos en nuestros mentirosos medios de comunicaci�n.

"A mediados de 1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment realiz� una serie de seis experimentos en Cardington para investigar la conducta de edificios con marcos de acero. Estos experimentos se llevaron a cabo en un edificio simulado de ocho pisos. Las vigas secundarias de acero no estaban protegidas. A pesar que las temperaturas de las vigas de acero alcanzaron entre 800 y 900°C (1,500-1,700°F) en tres de las pruebas (bastante m�s altas que la temperatura cr�tica tradicionalmente asumida de 600°C (1,100°F), ning�n colapso se observ� en cualquiera de los seis experimentos."

Cita del informe de FEMA (Ap�ndice A).

�As� que, una vez m�s, usted usted ha sido burlado por los medios de comunicaci�n.

�Est� sorprendido? 

 

 

Mr
by Peter Friday January 16, 2004 at 03:50 PM

 

Forget the pure physics.


How did so much jet fuel manage to stay in the one spot for so long when it's way, way up in the air in a building now full of holes as well as lift shafts, stairwells and broken windows??

Once most of the the fuel was burnt off in the initial impact and rupture of fuel tanks, the rest would have complied with the laws of gravity leaving paper, carpet, desks, etc... to burn. Not hot enough to melt steel sorry.....

This is nowhere near hot enough to melt steel.



Confusion

by Robert Thompson Wednesday April 14, 2004 at 12:35 PM
robert7_55406@yahoo.com



I think it is intriguing that JBusch did not reply to Mad Max's observations. It is also intriguing to me that the discussion started with what at least appears to be a very dispassionate, technical, thorough theoretical accounting of what happened; yet the comments degenerate into name calling. I can understand why a Jewish person would get nervous about "conspiracy talk" considering that the idea of an "International Jewish Conspiracy" is prevalent among hate groups. The comment "Jews did it. Period" seems unhelpful, and, again, a long way from the considered article that starts the discussion. Perhaps there were Jews or Israelis involved -- that's a far cry from saying Jews collectively did it. JBusch, I think you are just as hysterical -- calling anyone who questions the official story Nazis, or whatever. There's more to life than Nazi's and Jews. I'm skeptical of the "tresses buckling" theory. It is an explanation. But it seems to me it does not account for how the explosion looks on all the videos. There does not appear to me to be any "buckling" involved. On the contrary, it is a smooth, controlled motion, spewing huge clouds of dust. Where are the slabs or pieces of slabs? It seems to me beyond dispute that the main supports of the building were NOT the trusses, but the inner steel rods. It also seems beyond dispute that the melting point of steel simply was not reached. From what I can gather, jet fuel does not produce the temperature required to liquefy those thick, inner steel rods, at least not to the extent that would cause the kind of collapse that is obvious on the video. JBusch, I think you are in denial. A significant ontological shock is caused by hard evidence that such a destructive event could be caused by people in goverment (USA, Israeli, British, or whatever). The shock is made even worse by the monolithic press position on this. How could it be?--we are left to wonder. Denial is a perfect natural response to this. I just happen to be of the opinion that denial is dangerous, and could lead to seriously negative consequences.



Your Ad Here


LETS GET RATIONAL
by asg Wednesday September 08, 2004 at 02:07 PM


If you accept the fact that

the jet fuel alone was not of
sufficient temperature, then
other, higher temperature,
explosives would have to be
planted in the buildings.
I'm sure that the Saudis and
the Israeli Mossad would
help with the operation, if
they were strongly requested.

asg0005@webtv.net



Then why tower 7 fall?

by tdo Friday September 10, 2004 at 06:08 PM

 

this is for you jbusch ... ok if all it took was the plane to crash into the WTC to make them fall and not the fire then WHY DID TOWER 7 FALL ? no plane hit it but there was a small fire in it and it was no where near as big as the WTC fire's and the steel beams in TOWER 7 was some of the strongest in the world .. and they wasnt the steel T beams they were THICK !! When Tower 7 fell, it caved in from the roof but there was no fire on the roof .. thats strange ... and it collapsed so clean just like if they blow it up ..hhmmmm .... A STEEL STRUCTURED BUILDING HAS NEVER COLLAPSED FROM A FIRE !!

 

WTC Temperature Calcs
by RB Thursday November 11, 2004 at 12:15 PM


Hi, the original temperature calculations in this article seem to be based on some flawed assumptions. The main one being that the whole floor was heated to a uniform temperature. Within the area where fires were burning, there would have been wide variations in temperature. Within the flames there would certainly be temperatures in excess of 600 C and probably localised temperatures around 1000 C or more. Bear in mind that even a candle will produce temperatures in excess of 1000 C and will make a steel wire glow red.

Within the steel structure also there will have been large variations in temperature. When welding, the flame only heats a local area to the melting point. Thermal mass and the resistance to heat flow allow the surrounding metal to have a temperature that decreases with distance from the flame.

In the structures of the twin towers, it would not have been necessary for the temperatures to have reached melting point or anywhere near it. In a structure loaded in compression, like the towers, the way that failure happens is by buckling. Due to the impact damage to many columns and some floors, the building would have been seriously weakened causing the remaining columns to carry a much greater load, particularly those closest to the ones damaged by impact. It is these neighbouring columns which would also have been closer to fires.

All in all, the aircraft collisions and sebsequent fires are a pretty reasonable explanation for the collapse of the twin towers.

RB


Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?

Overview of evidence for controlled demolition - Scholars for 9-11 ...

Twin Towers - 9-11 Review

Clouds of Concrete - 911reviewHow 'Did' those WTC Buildings Collapse?

debunking conspiracies 911review

Chapter 5- WTC Seven - The WTC Report. 911review

The WTC Report. World Trade Center Demolition chapter 2


911review.org   Homepage

911review Wiki Front Page

Your Ad Here