UL Whistleblower fired for comments on 9-11

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-11-21 11:43pm

Time temperature curve for ASTM E119 can be found here about 1/4 down the page. In that document they're testing electrical wiring stuff.

What I found to be of interest:

The fire endurance rating of a fire-resistive barrier system for a specific electrical system component is the maximum time before which one of the following conditions occurs:

The average temperature of any set of thermocouples for the electrical system component
is raised more than 250° F (139° C) above its initial temperature.

The temperature of any one thermocouple of the set for each electrical system component
is raised more than 325°F (181°C) above its initial temperature.

As far as I can tell it's basically a time to failure test on a standardized temperature curve, once the temperature of the part hits some value set by the standard for the material or application, the test is done and a time rating is given. According to this article (take with salt, it's from a loony site, the black text looks good, but the red text on the other pages is obviously delusional), the rating for WTC 4,5, & 6 ranged from 1.5 hours for the roofs to 3 hours for the columns. The basic materials & fireproofing is likely the same for all the WTC towers, so I'd expect WTC 1 & 2 to have similar ratings.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-11-22 02:12am

Correct me if I'm wrong- the claim is that the burning jet fuel heated the steel to the point where it could no longer support its "load"- causing the WTC to collapse.

This seems unlikely to me. Given the momentum of the plane, and the fact that it disentgrated on impact, I would think that the jet fuel would have airsoled and ignited moments after impact- leaving very little, if any, of it to heat the steel to the point of structural failure. This theory is not only supported by the fireball you see upon airplane impact- but also by the fact that the boiling point of jet fuel (somewhere between 175-275 C) is far below the temperature at which structural steel begins to degrade (375 C). This means that any remaining jet fuel would have vaporized and burned (or have been blown out of the building) long before the temperature was sufficient to cause structural failure- in other words, even IF there was some jet fuel left after the impact- it would be IMPOSSIBLE for there to be "pools" of it lying around for a long enough period to heat the steel to the point of failure.

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2004-11-22 03:30am

Here is an interesting article concerning ASTM E119 and the WTC Collapse

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:...the fact that the boiling point of jet fuel (somewhere between 175-275 C) is far below the temperature at which structural steel begins to degrade (375 C).

Boiling point? I'm confuzed. We're not talking about a change of state so much as combustion. More details on this point perhaps?

On the other hand, I was under the impression that hydrocarbon jet fuel burns at about 1,800 degrees F...under the right proportions of air and fuel. Given that there are smoldering clouds of smoke and large gaping black holes, plus people that were in the vicinity of the fire zone, it is safe to say that there was not perfect combustion, so it would be not as hot as it could be...might still be hot enough to weaken stell anyway...plenty of evidence to support that too.

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2004-11-22 03:42am

Oh wait...there's also carpet, chairs, desks, tables, papers, file cabinets, etc. There also may have been a janitors closet with god knows what inside. Not that I would know if the burning of this stuff would make a difference...just had to put it out there.

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2004-11-22 04:21am

Another link on ASTM E119:

http://www.wepalmer.com/Omega%20Point%2 ... 0Specs.pdf

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2004-11-22 04:27am

Mario1470 wrote:Another link on ASTM E119:

http://www.wepalmer.com/Omega%20Point%2 ... 0Specs.pdf

Oops...I hit submit instead of preview and didn't post the rest of what I wanted to say about the above: The part that's of interest is the description of the test procedure... Makes for good reading.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-11-22 08:31am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong- the claim is that the burning jet fuel heated the steel to the point where it could no longer support its "load"- causing the WTC to collapse.

Consider yourself corrected

This seems unlikely to me. Given the momentum of the plane, and the fact that it disentgrated on impact, I would think that the jet fuel would have airsoled and ignited moments after impact- leaving very little, if any, of it to heat the steel to the point of structural failure.

The plains didn't disintergrate on impact dumbass. That was the fucking class and air from inside the building. If you watch the post-impact, pre-collapse footage, you can see where the tail of one of the plains is causing a distortion in the smoke being released. Some people sad it looked like the Devil, and this was a sign of the endtimes.

This theory is not only supported by the fireball you see upon airplane impact- but also by the fact that the boiling point of jet fuel (somewhere between 175-275 C) is far below the temperature at which structural steel begins to degrade (375 C). This means that any remaining jet fuel would have vaporized and burned (or have been blown out of the building) long before the temperature was sufficient to cause structural failure- in other words, even IF there was some jet fuel left after the impact- it would be IMPOSSIBLE for there to be "pools" of it lying around for a long enough period to heat the steel to the point of failure.

Just because a liquid has evaporated, doesn't mean it's still not hot or fueling a fire as GAS. Gas that in this case, didn't have any place to go.

Case in point, go boil some water, with an air tight lid on the pot. Let the pot boil dry, and then pull the lid off. You'll be seriously burned by the steam. Provided the preasure of all that heated air doesn't blow the lid off!

Besides that, there are other ways to get a fire up over 500 degrees. Case in point, there was a fire in the Niagara Falls region a week or two ago. A simple house fire reached 2000 DEGREES, from burning wood, paper, and other common house hold cleaners.

The jet fuel helped start the fire. After that, the stuff in the building, like desks, paper, people, cleaning solutions, carpet, etc, fueled it to the point of melting the metal.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-11-22 10:06am

Christ.... Its tin-foil heaven in here..... Yikes....

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-11-22 10:44am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong- the claim is that the burning jet fuel heated the steel to the point where it could no longer support its "load"- causing the WTC to collapse.

This seems unlikely to me. Given the momentum of the plane, and the fact that it disentgrated on impact, I would think that the jet fuel would have airsoled and ignited moments after impact- leaving very little, if any, of it to heat the steel to the point of structural failure.

What videos are you watching? So when a plane hits a building and leaves a plane-shaped hole, and then sends wreckage & fire flying out the other side, it disintegrated on impact and lost it's fuel outside? Yeah, way to go crackhead.

This theory is not only supported by the fireball you see upon airplane impact

A fireball which is not consistent with 20,000 gallons of fuel going up in flames. The size of the fireball is consistent with a couple thousand gallons at most going up in flames, I've seen bigger fireballs from Hollywood special effects and they use only a few hundred to 1-2 thousand gallons at most.

but also by the fact that the boiling point of jet fuel (somewhere between 175-275 C) is far below the temperature at which structural steel begins to degrade (375 C). This means that any remaining jet fuel would have vaporized and burned (or have been blown out of the building) long before the temperature was sufficient to cause structural failure- in other words, even IF there was some jet fuel left after the impact- it would be IMPOSSIBLE for there to be "pools" of it lying around for a long enough period to heat the steel to the point of failure.

And now you're just talking shit, posting numbers which you think mean something, and demonstrating a clear lack of knowledge.

The jet fuel does not have to sit there and burn for 2 hours to bring the building down, just like a bucket's worth of gasoline on the floor of a house doesn't need to burn for more than a minute to set everything in the house on fire. All reports agree the jet fuel was burned up within the first few minutes, but that was enough time to set everything on several floors on fire as well as disabling sprinklers & fire protection. There is no way to fight a full-blown multi-story fire when you don't have water pressure, a fire of that size will burn & grow until there's nothing left to burn. It sets up its own convections and will burn at well over 2000°F.

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2004-11-22 03:13pm

Let me take this opportunity now to thank everyone who has participated in the discussion, and I welcome...nay, encourage more input on the matter. It's been a very educational and energetic subject thus far.

Best to all,

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-11-22 03:51pm

In the article Mario posted (from iaei.org), there's an interesting note that the steel from WTC 5 looked almost exactly like it had just emerged from the ASTM E119 test, which may suggest that that area recieved a similar temperature curve. If so, the regions nearer the impact would have recieved more heat, and exceeded the standards of ASTM E119.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-11-22 04:41pm

A more sane take on the nature of the collapse:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 ... -0112.html

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2004-11-23 04:22am

The Dude wrote:A more sane take on the nature of the collapse:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 ... -0112.html

I've seen this article. Thomas. W Eagar is Lord Foundation Professor of Materials Engineering and Materials Systems at MIT University. His credentials are below.

SB Metallurgy, MIT, 1972
ScD Metallurgy, MIT, 1975

If this is sane, then some would call this insane:

http://www.hugequestions.com/911.wmv (22 MB video).

Not many people have seen this video. Eric Hufschmid is author of the book "Painful questions", an analysis of the Sept. 11 attack. I can't seem to find a set of credentials for him.

Anyway, I want to compare and contrast the two...well accepted researcher versus quote unquote "conspiracy theorist" as I know Mr. Hufschmid has been called. I'll provide my thoughts later...it's seepy time. Night folks!