A salute to WTC 7. We'll miss ya.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

:nuke: :hi: :hi: :nuke:

[frylock]

1. textbook demolition

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Gravity always wins

whatever the reaon for the failure of the long span transfer truss in a building with a burning diesel fuel tank.

[frylock]

3. that's what they say..

but it is interesting to note that no high rise had ever collapsed in that fashion due to fire until 911, when coincidentally, three buildings fell due to fire.

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. Diesel fuel is not explosive

and doesn't even burn very easily.

Second, WTC7 was not built the same way 1 & 2 were built, so it did not have the same kind of truss system that was used in the towers.

To date, I have seen nothing that offers a credible explanation as to why that building collapsed.

[Bandit]

8. If diesel fuel is not explosive what makes a diesel engine work?

I always assumed it was an explosion within the cylinder that made the piston go down. Explain it to me.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

11. Diesel fuel is not explosive unless it's subject to pressure.

That's why diesel engines have glow plugs, not spark plugs. The glow plugs constantly supplpy electricity, and as the diesel-air mix comes under great enough pressure, the mix explodes.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. It's Still Explosive

What it doesn't do is meet the definition of detonation. It meets the detonation of conflagration, which is a far lower velocity explosion than those that truly detonate.

In the type of explosives used by McVeigh (and is used commonly in quarry blasting), the rate of combustion is accelerated through the addition of the inorganic nitrates. When these nitrogen-oxygen bonds are broken, the shock wave accelerates to slightly more than Mach 1, but the overpressure wave almost quadruples, compared to diesel.

So, you're right in that diesel is not a high explosive, but like many other liquid organic solvents, it is possible to make it explosive. Almost all organic solvents have what's called an LEL, or lower explosive limit. And, you're also right, in that diesel, by itself, is not a dangerous, reactive, or detonatable material. It's very hard to even get a large quantity to conflagrate.
The Professor

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

15. That's what I meant. Thanks.

That by itself, it's not a detonatable material. Then again, seriously, what do I know? I was a design major in college. I shouldn't be replying to these kind of posts with my 8th grade engine class knowledge!!!

:)

[ProfessorGAC]

18. I Don't Know Engines Either!

Now, chemistry and thermodynamics, i know! I should. I was in college for 6 years learning that stuff! Know what i mean?

LOL! Me, knowing about engines. Funny stuff! What i know is: put gas in, turn key, push pedal it goes. Doesn't go, it's broken.
The Professor

[Az]

19. So from what you know about fuel

Is it unexpected for a jet colliding with a rigid structure with a full tank of fuel to combust?

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Probably Yes

Fuel doesn't go off as easily as it does in the movies where every car crash erupts in a ball of fire.

But, jet fuel (kerosene), has a LEL of about 3.5% and a UEL of about 8% (i'm doing this from memory, so those might be off). The vapor pressure is low enough that i don't think kerosene burns too well below about 0 Farenheit.

But, at 200 or 300 mph, the rupturing fuel tanks would, by inertia, cause the fuel to atomize. The frictional forces of a low boiling (relatively so) liquid and air at a few hundred mph would cause a combination of rapid evaporation and atomization. Under these conditions, this large cloud of atomized/vaporized kerosene would undergo what's called a BLEVE (pronounce bleh-vee, and means Boiling Liquid Evaporating Liquid Explosion). This is a conflagrating blast at the maximum combustion velocity of the chemical in question. Again, without references in front of me, i think under these conditions, kerosene will combust at about 250 meters per second, or about 600 mph.

Given the mass of atomized/evaporated kerosene in the air, that would be a pretty massive amount of energy released.

All of it wouldn't go up at once, but the BLEVE would still be huge.

This is essentially the biggest danger in a refinery fire. The fire itself is less dangerous than the BLEVE.

Look up BLEVE on Google. I'm sure there are pictures and stuff on fire safety sites that would show you how massive the damage from these things can be.

So, this is a long winded yes.
The Professor

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

24. Well, hey! Knowing chemistry means you know a heck of a lot more...

...about engines than I do.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

16. If it's so hard to get a large quantity of diesel to conflagrate

then why don't fire fighters use diesel fuel to extinguish fires instead of water?

[ProfessorGAC]

17. Do You Have A Serious Question?

Or do you just want to display ignorance?

We were talking about the concentrated quantity of diesel fuel erupting in a conflgration! Getting any large mass to combust at high velocity is difficult.

If you dropped 10,000 gallons of gasoline all at once on a campfire, it would put the campfire out. The campfire wouldn't conflagrate the 10,000 gallons.

Even gasoline is hard to make combust as a mass quantity.

In your highly specious example, the fuel would be spread over a large area at an insufficient quantity to cool the fire. So, it would add to the blaze.

But, if you wanted to conflagrate a 10,000 gallon storage tank of diesel fuel, tossing a match in the manway wouldn't do it.

We were also discussin the explosive potentials of materials. Any material spread out over a wide enough area would not detonate because the rate of combustion would be insufficient to sustain the overall release of heat. It would burn really fast, (maybe even over the speed of sound), but wouldn't create an overpressure wave, would display no brissance, and wouldn't spread torroidally.

If you have any real questions about the nature of conflagrating or detonating organic chemicals, let me know. If all you want to do is ask silly questions unrelated to the topic, forget it.
The Professor

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. Just pointing out that the fuel would have contributed to the fire

in any case.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. What Did I Say That Would Have Suggested Otherwise?

The Professor

[NewYorkerfromMass]

28. Just clearing up any confusion for others that might misinterpret

your statements.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. Clarity Alert

In the event that anyone cares, i made a silly mistake in the original post to which i'm now self-replying.

I wrote: "It meets the DETONATION of conflagration, which is a far lower velocity explosion than those that truly detonate."

It should read: "It meets the DEFINTION of conflagration, which is a far lower velocity explosion than those that truly detonate."

A stupid mistake for which i apologize.
The Professor

[Az]

32. A sign of integrity

Is the honesty to rectify an error that few others would even notice.

[DoYouEverWonder]

36. Thanks for the explanation

Yes diesel is explosive, under certain conditions.

However, the diesel that was in the tanks at WTC 7 probably didn't explode and even if they did explode, would the explosion cause the building to collapse in upon itself?

The diesel fuel was stored in special fire proof tanks and stored in a specially built room, that was supposed to be able to withstand some very strict fire codes. Is there even any evidence, that the fire had reached this section of the building before the collapse? And even if the fire had reached this section, was it hot enough, long enough, to burn through some major firewalls and then through insulated fire proof storage tanks?

[ProfessorGAC]

37. That's Correct

It's highly unlikely it exploded, even less likely that a diesel fuel explosion would cause structural collapse.

It's also very likely that the tanks were designed as floating roof tanks, to prevent the vapor build up that would cause conflagration. That's the most common design for fuel tanks for loss prevention and fire safety reasons.

I don't doubt, given the severity of impact and the probability that such impact was not assumed in the design, that these tanks could have been compromised and resulted in exacerbation of the fire. But, i seriously doubt the conditions were right for conflagration.

One last point: At least one of my posts were regarding the use of diesel in explosives, which requires a precise mixture of inorganic nitrates and diesel. I was correcting a misconception posted earlier. Another had to do with jet fuel.

So, i was covering a series of related topics, and not all were related to diesel fuel fires. Please be sure you're not mixing the apples and oranges i was trying to juggle. I wouldn't want the issues to be confused and end up causing disagreement when we're saying pretty much the same thing.
The Professor

[lanparty]

41. It was safely tanked in the basment ...

Fire burns up, not down.

Sorry, but something was seriously wrong with the WTC7 collapse. The thing just plain fell down..

The big coincidence is that law enforment agencies were located in the buildings that fell down.

[Bandit]

14. Not exactly true

Not all diesel engines have glow plugs and the one's that do use them to preheat the cylinders not provide electricity for combustion. It is almost totally pressure (called compression) that creates the explosion. Glow plugs are in no way similar to spark plugs.

[uncle ray]

35. actually, its heat and pressure.

along with oxygen of course. the glow plugs are used to provide the heat to ignite the fuel at startup. once the engine is up to temp the temperature of the combustion chamber is enough to ignite the fuel mixture when compressed.

[Az]

10. Yep it has to be pretty hot to make jet fuel burn

You would need a massive explosion like from a jet plane at high speed colliding with a tower or something. You certainly can't count on that if you want to bring a building down. Nope the only way they could be sure to bring down tower 7 would be to take the time and risk to plant charges all around the building to assure a perfect collapse.

Er why did they want a perfect collapse and why did they need to bring building 7 down?

[CaptainMidnight]

39. attaboy! NYfM

keep drinking that KoolAid!

Captain Mike

[thebigidea]

4. er, WHY? Nobody gives a shit about WTC7 except...

... people who claim there were explosives in there.

The demolition of WTC7 was hardly key to the 9/11 "plot"...

so... WHY?

[Insider]

7. i'll go for it

call me crazy now, no problem:

the entire trade center complex had to go (asbestos PLUS safety concerns after 1st attack). but how could that EVER be possible?

PNAC says clearly that we need another "Pearl Harbor". Lucky Larry Silverstein offers up WTC for the world cause. and this is not all that complicated to me. it is simple and plain.

all kinds of buildings and sites are destroyed to make way for the new. is it so hard to believe that 30 years down the road, the trade center had to go? if it had to go, how would that happen?

"no, that trade center would have stayed FOREVER, insider"

[Az]

9. And of course one more smaller building will be just the ticket

to push the people over the edge. It clearly would not have been enough to just demolish the 2 tallest building in the world. Just doesn't have that connection to the people. But that Tower 7 was a symbol to the people around the world. Bring that building down and people will sit up and take notice.

It is amazing how the tradgedy of Tower 7 has swept the world. Not one person has escaped the nearly daily rememberance of that building collapsing. Its impact has dwarfed the Twin Towers collapse. The collision at the pentagon has nearly been forgotten in its shadow. Truly all the effort of the conspirators to bring that tower down have paid off in full. It clearly was worth the risk to bring this most important of symbols down. The World Trade Tower number 7.

[Insider]

12. oh well

honestly, i haven't even read thru all the sarcasm. i will tho.

w/o sarcasm: just clearing the entire site. that's all. IMHAO

[NecessaryOnslaught]

49. kick

for demolition

[soundfury]

6. LetÕs redirect our attention to Kobe and R Kelly.

Nothing to see hear, move along folks.

[nostamj]

21. a question for WT7/CT advocates

that I asked many times without getting an answer:

were the explosives set in place undetected BEFORE the fires, which would mean that they survived 6+ hours of fire without going off or damaging any of the charges needed to precisely bring down the building?

OR

did the CT engineers enter the BURNING building and successfully place the charges needed to precisely bring down the building?

just wondering....

[Az]

22. This point is enforced by the photos above

Note the smoke billowing out of WTC7 before it collapses. Demolition has smoke coming out as it collapses. There were clearly fires burning within the structure long before it collapsed. In fact the fire teams were pulled out because they considered it a loss.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

23. Sounds like the fire teams made the right call

wow... steel heats up and fails. Who'd a thunk?

[nostamj]

26. OK, as I thought

you can't or won't answer the question.

thanks anyway...

[Az]

29. Um, I'm not a CT on this case

As far as I am concerned the building got hit by shrapnel, got set of fire, the foundation was further destablised by the collapse of the twin towers and WTC7 fell in on itself as was designed by the archetects. Such towers in congested cities are designed to minimize their footprint should catastrophy strike. You don't want a giant domino effect going off if one tower collapses. So you build with an eye for such matters. No need for super secret bombs being planted.

[nostamj]

33. sorry! my bad...

i misread the first two lines of your post.

*thought* it was saying the smoke suggested demolition.

(I'm SO used to non-answers when I pose this question)

please forgive...

[Az]

34. Always ready to forgive

Its the only way I can hope to be forgiven when I err.

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. The pulled the fire teams

not just because the building was a loss. They pulled the fire teams because they were more concerned about trying to rescue the people who they thought were still alive under the rubble. Even though WTC7 was burning, it wasn't worth dedicating the resources that would have been required to bring the fire under control. And since the building was already empty, the NHFD had to focus on their first priority, which was trying to save lives.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

47. Actually the collapse is in progress

in these photos. Not smoke, but pulverized debris is being ejected from the base, just as in a controlled demolition

[TankLV]

38. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

But all the experts in the field, such as myself and other engineers and architects, can talk till we're blue in the face, and you'll never listen.

I, and many others, have made point by point rebuttals and examples as to how and why the entire WTC complex did fail, but all you sunday drivers and conspirorists have much more fun masterbating to your outlandish theories than in discovering the truth.

You can have "fun" without being bothered by facts and physics - just without those of us who already studied the subject at hand and KNOW the answers.

But then again, all (100%) the technical and professional journals, along with countless university studies are all wrong and you conspiracy buffs are all right, right?

Sad really.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

45. Architect here

It's just too much fun (for some) to pretend it was something other than a structural collapse brought on by the fire.

[CaptainMidnight]

40. lazy, lazy, lazy - ALL OF YOU!!!

The evidence is overwhelming that it was a controlled demolition.

Gee, too bad ALL THOSE ENRON RECORDS and ALL of the SEC's records with regard to about 1,300 possible criminal cases against all those other corporations were stored in WTC #7.

"Pay no attention to the CIA, FBI, and Secret Service's offices in WTC #7."

I used to work in WTC #7

"Quo bene?"

Those Bushies just keep getting luckier, and luckier....

Do your friggin' research!

The naivete and LAZINESS of those who seek to "debunk" the "conspiracy theorists" here is getting tiresome.

Captain Mike

[nostamj]

42. answer the question in post #21

unless you're too lazy...

and, btw, VOLUME is no replacement for logic.

[nomatrix]

43. Your post is because?

The 9/11 hearings?

Or is there something missed?

Or just to bring out the CT/CTdebunkers out to play?

Mmm, thanks Captain. Keep up the good work.

(Just amazing how anyone won't believe something in addition to the planes had been used inside the structures. Why is that so far fetched? Wasn't it attempted to be demolished the first time with explosives or was that a CT?)

Thanks for the memories......

[NecessaryOnslaught]

48. Strike while the tinfoil is hot

yeah , it's always good to bring the CTers out to play. They say the cutest things like- there was a fire somewhere, Guliani had fuel in the building, gravity, buildings were designed to fall straight down etc etc :nopity:

[slaveplanet]

44. something I find odd

about this series of pictures. In photo 1 everyones attention seems to be drawn to the collapsing building down the street, including the driver of the car who appears to be observing it through his sideview mirror.
In photo 2 , pops in cigarette guy , why isn't his attention focused on this epic event in progress?

It clearly gets the attention of the NYPD as you cant tell from pic #4 who have since changed their position from pic#2 in which they are on the right side of van and the drivers door is open.

cigarette guy doesn't seem concerned???? Xfiles

[nomatrix]

46. Because he's getting into the car.

Just a guess.