0966: "Jet Fuel"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Ronsonic
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:29 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Ronsonic » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:03 pm UTC

It is no surprise that the conspirati can't grasp the most important fact of conspiracy theory in America. It is even overlooked by all the very alert minds on this forum.

This is a country in which the president himself cannot get a blowjob under the desk without it being on the nine o'clock news.

We cannot even grab a nameless jihadi off a desert battlefield half way across the planet drag him into a dungeon and whack his peepee without there being pictures in the newspapers.

This isn't to say that there's always going to be prominent, mainstream news coverage and widespread outrage over the issue, the press does pick it's battles. But, there will be some sort of reasonably public and passably objective coverage.

Of course the real story is that when asbestos insulation was banned during the building of the WTC the Big Asbestos companies conspired to replace the insulation batting on the higher floors with a low grade thermite compound guaranteeing that in the future people would demand their products instead.

User avatar
rigwarl
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:36 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby rigwarl » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:12 pm UTC

RyanfaeScotland wrote:
feenyx wrote:Is Randall not familiar with the works of Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker?
Their animated show already did the whole "Conspiracy within a Conspiracy" schtick, in an episode entitled Mystery of the Urinal Deuce

Plot summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_of ... inal_Deuce


Are you not familiar with the works of rwald?

His first post already did the whole "South Park did it" schtick.


Brilliant post, annoying when people are surprised that something's been done before when said person hasn't even read the 4 word OP of the thread he's posting in.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1112
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Coyne » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:13 pm UTC

Tsk, tsk! Randall, did no one ever teach you not to feed the "animals"? Now, we're going to have to listen to these conspiracies for the next 40 years.

(This one was great: Keep up the good work.)
In all fairness...

perakojot
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:58 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby perakojot » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:25 pm UTC

alun009 wrote: I and a friend deduced that there is a metaconspiracy: a body somewhere generating fake conspiracy theories in order to give conspiracy theories a bad name. Thus when a huge and damaging truth leaks out it is lumped in with all the other conspiracy theories and many otherwise intelligent people don't give it a second glance. In fact, reputable intellectuals will recoil from repeating it in case they suffer damage to their reputation.


i am pretty sure there doesn't need to be one specific entity manufacturing artificial (fake) conspiracies. they are naturally occurring all over the planet.

the sinister plot is pointing out and shining the media light on the more crazy-sounding ones to give everyone with a bit off-mainstream thinking a bad rep.

User avatar
Tophe
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:09 am UTC
Location: TN

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Tophe » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:30 pm UTC

Ronsonic wrote:This isn't to say that there's always going to be prominent, mainstream news coverage and widespread outrage over the issue, the press does pick it's battles. But, there will be some sort of reasonably public and passably objective coverage.


Really? Is that why Operation Northwoods, a US plan for a false-flag terrorist attack approved in 1962, wasn't publicly revealed until 1997?

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Роберт » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:58 pm UTC

Volbla wrote:
imantodes wrote:
swabifyoudare wrote:The Aluminium (its pronounced AL YOO MIN EEEE UMM ok - see the 'i' there ?) in the plane and exposed steel in the building may have caused additional Thermite reactions which would have caused little spikes up to 2500 Celsius in 'hot spots' if it occurred.


Little known fact: the "i" is silent.

I have never heard of this dispute before, so just a quick question to assertain how stupid it is. Are the i-s silent for all elements that end with ium?

Aluminum is commonly spelled as I have here. Since there is no second i, it's pretty ridiculous to pronounce it the British way. If thorium were commonly spelled "thorum" than I have no doubt it would be a two syllable word. Does that answer your question?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby bmonk » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:04 pm UTC

Yeah, conspiracy theories are so popular because, historically, so many have succeeded.

Of course, a successful conspiracy would not be known anyway.

It also helps to ignore facts, like the fact that jet fuel does burn at more than the melting point of carbon steel. Or that the thickness of the insulating cladding on the steel beams probably didn't matter a whole lot--the kinetic energy of the plane's striking the building very likely scraped most of it off anyway.
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

Seraph
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Seraph » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:17 pm UTC

Tophe wrote:
Ronsonic wrote:This isn't to say that there's always going to be prominent, mainstream news coverage and widespread outrage over the issue, the press does pick it's battles. But, there will be some sort of reasonably public and passably objective coverage.


Really? Is that why Operation Northwoods, a US plan for a false-flag terrorist attack approved in 1962, wasn't publicly revealed until 1997?

Really? You don't understand the difference between doing something, and talking about something?

inqrorken
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:17 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby inqrorken » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:22 pm UTC

swabifyoudare wrote:Jet-A1 burns at 2000 degrees Celsius.


bmonk wrote:It also helps to ignore facts, like the fact that jet fuel does burn at more than the melting point of carbon steel. Or that the thickness of the insulating cladding on the steel beams probably didn't matter a whole lot--the kinetic energy of the plane's striking the building very likely scraped most of it off anyway.


That's true if jet fuel is burned in pure oxygen. It wasn't in the towers - it was burned in air. The melting point wasn't reached, but the strength of the steel was compromised and eventually failed, as has been mentioned several times in this thread.

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby rhomboidal » Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:47 pm UTC

"South Park did it" is just a cover for The Simpsons already doing it.

User avatar
CatCube
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:28 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby CatCube » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:12 pm UTC

bmonk wrote:Yeah, conspiracy theories are so popular because, historically, so many have succeeded.

It also helps to ignore facts, like the fact that jet fuel does burn at more than the melting point of carbon steel. Or that the thickness of the insulating cladding on the steel beams probably didn't matter a whole lot--the kinetic energy of the plane's striking the building very likely scraped most of it off anyway.


I dunno, about your first point--it might be selection bias. I think most conspiracies in history have failed, but those aren't terribly memorable (either for a person or for history). The random dude who got stabbed by the Praetorian Guard before he got anywhere near the Caesar isn't likely to make the history books.

But as far as the fire-proofing in the towers goes, that was one of the first things pointed out in the ASCE/FEMA review of the collapse in 2002 was that the plane impact probably blew off the fireproofing, which was of the spray-on type. That stuff isn't made to survive an impact, only deal with a passive fire. That left the open-web steel joists that formed the floor system unprotected, and the members in those are so small they're really susceptible to fire damage. You can see this stuff in the stairwells of some buildings, if anybody isn't familiar with the stuff. Look up and you'll see some rough white stuff clinging to the exposed steel, that kind of looks like rough drywall.

dexeron
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:51 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby dexeron » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:32 pm UTC

There's also the recent hypothesis from Christian Simensen at SINTEF that more or less agrees with the general consensus, but quibbles on some details: arguing that the building acted like a kiln, and that the alumin(i)um melted, ran down through the floor and interacted with water in the fire suppression system, which basically ended up causing a chemical reaction causing a hydrogen explosion, further weaking support of steel that was already weak from the extremely high temperatures, and causing the beginning of the collapse (which became a chain reaction.) I don't know how plausible this is, but it's interesting nonetheless. Simensen presented it at some conference earlier in the year if anyone feels like looking it up, though just type his name into Google and there will be tons of articles on his idea.

What I like about it is that it answers the claims of some "Truthers" that "explosions" were heard just before the collapse: the chemical reaction and subsequent blast from the sprinklers is what they heard, and while it certainly contributed to the collapse, it was not actually evidence of pre-planted explosives after all. It was just simple, and unfortunate, chemistry.

Re: conspiracy theories go in general, well, with the right signal-to-noise ratio, it's easy to hide the true "signal" among all the noise. ;)
By and by, when the sidewalks are safe for the little guy...

imantodes
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 12:52 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby imantodes » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:48 pm UTC

Volbla wrote:
imantodes wrote:
swabifyoudare wrote:The Aluminium (its pronounced AL YOO MIN EEEE UMM ok - see the 'i' there ?) in the plane and exposed steel in the building may have caused additional Thermite reactions which would have caused little spikes up to 2500 Celsius in 'hot spots' if it occurred.


Little known fact: the "i" is silent.

I have never heard of this dispute before, so just a quick question to assertain how stupid it is. Are the i-s silent for all elements that end with ium?


Typically, people spell it "aluminium" and pronounce the second "i", or spell it "aluminum" and don't pronounce the second "i" (because there isn't one). "Aluminium" is the British English spelling, "aluminum" is the American English spelling. Some brits get really excited about it. In any case, I am suggesting a third option. :-)

akf2000
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:03 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby akf2000 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:53 pm UTC

is he on holiday or is this meant to be topical?

User avatar
CatCube
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:28 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby CatCube » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:53 pm UTC

dexeron wrote:There's also the recent hypothesis from Christian Simensen at SINTEF that more or less agrees with the general consensus, but quibbles on some details: arguing that the building acted like a kiln, and that the alumin(i)um melted, ran down through the floor and interacted with water in the fire suppression system, which basically ended up causing a chemical reaction causing a hydrogen explosion, further weaking support of steel that was already weak from the extremely high temperatures, and causing the beginning of the collapse (which became a chain reaction.) I don't know how plausible this is, but it's interesting nonetheless. Simensen presented it at some conference earlier in the year if anyone feels like looking it up, though just type his name into Google and there will be tons of articles on his idea.

What I like about it is that it answers the claims of some "Truthers" that "explosions" were heard just before the collapse: the chemical reaction and subsequent blast from the sprinklers is what they heard, and while it certainly contributed to the collapse, it was not actually evidence of pre-planted explosives after all. It was just simple, and unfortunate, chemistry.

Re: conspiracy theories go in general, well, with the right signal-to-noise ratio, it's easy to hide the true "signal" among all the noise. ;)


I don't know enough about the chemistry to speculate whether or not a hydrogen explosive is plausible, but "explosions" are easily explainable as failures of structural members. Anyone who's ever pulled apart a steel sample in a mechanics of materials class will be familiar with the pop you get from a little 0.2" diameter steel sample, both from the rupture of the sample and the sudden strain release in the test frame. You also get a pretty impressive sound from a 6" concrete sample failing in compression (unless the concrete sucks). It'd be way more strange if you didn't hear loud bangs just before a large building came down.

K^2
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:33 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby K^2 » Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:55 pm UTC

swabifyoudare wrote:Jet-A1 burns at 2000 degrees Celsius.
Carbon steel melts to a liquid at 1400 Celsius (yes that low!).
There are stronger steel alloys but they dont build buildings out of them because nobody can afford it, also the towers were the height (sic) of 60s/70s technology when they were built.

Jet-A1, as well as any other fuel, can burn at effectively any temperature you like if you create a furnace-like environment. A high-riser makes a fantastic furnace. There are some limitations, but they are so far beyond evaporation point of any known material that it won't be your limiting factor. Point is, the beams could have been made out tungsten, and with enough fuel in the structure, they'd still melt eventually.

The Aluminium (its pronounced AL YOO MIN EEEE UMM ok - see the 'i' there ?) in the plane and exposed steel in the building may have caused additional Thermite reactions which would have caused little spikes up to 2500 Celsius in 'hot spots' if it occurred.

Unlikely, because you need high quantities of iron oxide, and both need to be in fine powdered form. But it could explain traces of "thermite" found around the site, if there is any truth to that.

Magiko
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:29 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Magiko » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:50 pm UTC

K^2 wrote:Jet-A1, as well as any other fuel, can burn at effectively any temperature you like if you create a furnace-like environment. A high-riser makes a fantastic furnace. There are some limitations, but they are so far beyond evaporation point of any known material that it won't be your limiting factor. Point is, the beams could have been made out tungsten, and with enough fuel in the structure, they'd still melt eventually.


OK - I'll grant melting part of a beam with jet fuel. That's fine. We're talking
1) Having enough fuel. Close your eyes and remember the planes hitting and a large gasoline (jet fuel) explosion occuring. Did some fuel escape the fire ball? Would the fireball have been smaller if it had? I don't know how much fuel was there, but really this is all leading up to #3 anyway.
2) The entire beam all the way from the top of the building, causing the building to pancake (indicating more than just one section of the beams gave out). When they bring down buildings, they don't just take out one piece of a beam. Again... Who cares, I'd probably agree with you if it weren't for:
3) A 3rd building that fell the same way with no jet fuel at all. Debris hit it - from, well, pretty far away. It made a different type of fire. It's an odd point to get sucked into what steel burns at and how hot jet fuel gets while on fire, there's a 3rd building that didn't get hit by a plane. Other buildings also got hit by debris and got heavily damaged. These other buildings didn't do anything out of the ordinary (i.e. catch a mysterious fire and collapse in a way that, up until now, was reserved for demolition and maybe "jet fuel theory" if you buy into that sorta thing, but really that was only a few hours before).

gbrkct
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby gbrkct » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:57 pm UTC

I just find it really coincidental that two of the kids on my cross country team watched Loose Change (movie about 9/11 and how it's a conspiracy).

User avatar
CatCube
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:28 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby CatCube » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:43 pm UTC

Magiko wrote:
K^2 wrote:Jet-A1, as well as any other fuel, can burn at effectively any temperature you like if you create a furnace-like environment. A high-riser makes a fantastic furnace. There are some limitations, but they are so far beyond evaporation point of any known material that it won't be your limiting factor. Point is, the beams could have been made out tungsten, and with enough fuel in the structure, they'd still melt eventually.


OK - I'll grant melting part of a beam with jet fuel. That's fine. We're talking
1) Having enough fuel. Close your eyes and remember the planes hitting and a large gasoline (jet fuel) explosion occuring. Did some fuel escape the fire ball? Would the fireball have been smaller if it had? I don't know how much fuel was there, but really this is all leading up to #3 anyway.
2) The entire beam all the way from the top of the building, causing the building to pancake (indicating more than just one section of the beams gave out). When they bring down buildings, they don't just take out one piece of a beam. Again... Who cares, I'd probably agree with you if it weren't for:
3) A 3rd building that fell the same way with no jet fuel at all. Debris hit it - from, well, pretty far away. It made a different type of fire. It's an odd point to get sucked into what steel burns at and how hot jet fuel gets while on fire, there's a 3rd building that didn't get hit by a plane. Other buildings also got hit by debris and got heavily damaged. These other buildings didn't do anything out of the ordinary (i.e. catch a mysterious fire and collapse in a way that, up until now, was reserved for demolition and maybe "jet fuel theory" if you buy into that sorta thing, but really that was only a few hours before).


*sigh* :roll:

You are correct that jet fuel was probably not the major fuel source in the WTC blaze. It likely burned off very quickly, after setting entire floors on fire simultaneously. However, there was an immense fuel load in the contents of the structure, and the fire from office furniture is more than hot enough to weaken the structure. Steel loses both strength and stiffness as temperature increases. And that is all it takes. The point of a building's structure is to transfer all building loads to the foundation and from there into the soil. It does this by providing a load path with all elements providing a load capacity higher than the applied loads. If you weaken any of those elements to where capacity<(applied load), even if the structure doesn't "melt," it will still fail. Fires, by themselves, are more than capable of weakening a structure until it collapses. There is your answer for WTC 7. The motherfucker was hit by burning debris from WTC 1 and burned until it collapsed, since nobody put it out. Fire resistance in a structure is only rated for about two hours, because it is horrendously difficult and expensive to go longer, and if the fire is burning for longer than that, all of the building occupants are very likely either already standing around outside or dead.

Your question about "the entire beam all the way from the top of the building..." is so ill-formed I can only guess what you're trying to ask, but we know that most of the columns (which is what vertical structural members that keep gravity from banging floors together are called) on one side of the external structure were destroyed, since photographs of the site show this.

And as far as "it looks like a controlled demolition" A controlled demolition uses explosives to weaken a structure until it collapses under its own weight. The aircraft impacts and subsequent fires...wait for it...weakened the structures of WTC 1 and 2 until they collapsed. WTC 7 was weakened by fire until it collapsed. What do you imagine a fire-initiated collapse of a large structure looks like? Especially one with a metal or brick external curtain wall--you're not going to have flames licking up the wall like when a wood-framed house burns. Also, most fires were 850 feet in the air, and coming out of narrow windows, where they looked pathetically tiny from the ground, even though they were raging so hot people jumped to their death to escape them.

(Edited to fix a screwed up closing tag)

cookrw
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:42 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby cookrw » Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:19 pm UTC

swabifyoudare wrote:And ultimately, why did they fall down?

Because memetically possessed fuckheadsFLEW 100 TON FUCKING AIRLINERS INTO THEM! That's why!

Finally, a sane answer!

Joep
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:42 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Joep » Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:12 am UTC

WTC7 bothers me, too. Fires leading to pancaking buildings have been observed only three times in history, which is a bit odd. Apart from that it's not uncommon that conspiracies take place. I've even organized a few myself. Not about Santa Claus himself but our local Sinterklaas, but it's pretty much the same conspiracy. Grown ups disclosing this conspiracy won't be liked very much by any other grown up, and could easily be sacked for disclosing it to kid of of the boss. It's not that weird that people working for "them" won't run to the press. It's mere coincidence that we know Watergate ever happened. French government blew up a Greenpeace ship. Governments really do nasty things that they are not supposed to do. In fact, the Wikipedia article on Echelon shows that there are huge projects, probably employing thousands of people, where apparently not a single one is prepared to lose his job and flee to a Latin American country just to tell everyone exactly what's going on. That would not only need someone to be very courageous, but also someone who thinks that the project is actually evil. In my experience, civil servants happen to think they're actually helping society whatever they do even if it's obvious to anyone else they aren't. Soldiers are trained to have no problem with killing people, even if the cause is at least doubtful. I can easily imagine someone working for the great project to attack Afghanistan for the best part of his career to think it was actually a good idea to stage an attack on America.

Still, I can't think of any reasonable motive to let WTC7 fall either. And I do like this comic.

leus
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 2:18 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby leus » Thu Oct 20, 2011 12:35 am UTC

Joep wrote:In fact, the Wikipedia article on Echelon shows...

Does it?

User avatar
Tualha
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:18 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Tualha » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:00 am UTC

Ronsonic wrote:This is a country in which the president himself cannot get a blowjob under the desk without it being on the nine o'clock news.

We cannot even grab a nameless jihadi off a desert battlefield half way across the planet drag him into a dungeon and whack his peepee without there being pictures in the newspapers.

The President's blowjobs became public because Monica Lewinsky was a stupid kid who couldn't keep her mouth shut, and more generally, because Clinton was a fool.

Abu Ghraib became public because there were a lot of ordinary enlisted personnel involved, taking photos and posing for photos, and predictably, one of the many people involved leaked some of the photos.

In neither case was there any real attempt at maintaining operations security, and neither case constitutes a real argument for the likelihood of a professionally-conducted covert operation becoming public.

Joep
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 5:42 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Joep » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:13 am UTC

leus wrote:
Joep wrote:In fact, the Wikipedia article on Echelon shows...

Does it?


There are many questions that are not answered in the Wikipedia article. How many people work for Echelon? What does it cost? What was the reason to set it up? How many people, businesses or governments are being monitored? How many crooks are in jail now because of it? What was the cost per crook? If it wasn't about crooks selling crack, child porn, weapons or uranium, which governments are being targeted? The Wikipedia article is full of "X is said to be" and "reportedly". If the project was about railroads there would be no "is said to be". You must at least admit that Echelon is a very secretive project and that no Freedom of information legislation seems to help here. Apparently no one who does know the answers (there must be dozens of them) is willing to tell them to the press which would love to tell the inside story. Anyone telling the inside story (in interviews, by writing a book, etc) could be a millionaire overnight, and apparently they still won't.

User avatar
Tyrannosaur
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:39 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Tyrannosaur » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:48 am UTC

Spoiler:
CatCube wrote:
Magiko wrote:
K^2 wrote:Jet-A1, as well as any other fuel, can burn at effectively any temperature you like if you create a furnace-like environment. A high-riser makes a fantastic furnace. There are some limitations, but they are so far beyond evaporation point of any known material that it won't be your limiting factor. Point is, the beams could have been made out tungsten, and with enough fuel in the structure, they'd still melt eventually.


OK - I'll grant melting part of a beam with jet fuel. That's fine. We're talking
1) Having enough fuel. Close your eyes and remember the planes hitting and a large gasoline (jet fuel) explosion occuring. Did some fuel escape the fire ball? Would the fireball have been smaller if it had? I don't know how much fuel was there, but really this is all leading up to #3 anyway.
2) The entire beam all the way from the top of the building, causing the building to pancake (indicating more than just one section of the beams gave out). When they bring down buildings, they don't just take out one piece of a beam. Again... Who cares, I'd probably agree with you if it weren't for:
3) A 3rd building that fell the same way with no jet fuel at all. Debris hit it - from, well, pretty far away. It made a different type of fire. It's an odd point to get sucked into what steel burns at and how hot jet fuel gets while on fire, there's a 3rd building that didn't get hit by a plane. Other buildings also got hit by debris and got heavily damaged. These other buildings didn't do anything out of the ordinary (i.e. catch a mysterious fire and collapse in a way that, up until now, was reserved for demolition and maybe "jet fuel theory" if you buy into that sorta thing, but really that was only a few hours before).


*sigh* :roll:

You are correct that jet fuel was probably not the major fuel source in the WTC blaze. It likely burned off very quickly, after setting entire floors on fire simultaneously. However, there was an immense fuel load in the contents of the structure, and the fire from office furniture is more than hot enough to weaken the structure. Steel loses both strength and stiffness as temperature increases. And that is all it takes. The point of a building's structure is to transfer all building loads to the foundation and from there into the soil. It does this by providing a load path with all elements providing a load capacity higher than the applied loads. If you weaken any of those elements to where capacity<(applied load), even if the structure doesn't "melt," it will still fail. Fires, by themselves, are more than capable of weakening a structure until it collapses. There is your answer for WTC 7. The motherfucker was hit by burning debris from WTC 1 and burned until it collapsed, since nobody put it out. Fire resistance in a structure is only rated for about two hours, because it is horrendously difficult and expensive to go longer, and if the fire is burning for longer than that, all of the building occupants are very likely either already standing around outside or dead.

Your question about "the entire beam all the way from the top of the building..." is so ill-formed I can only guess what you're trying to ask, but we know that most of the columns (which is what vertical structural members that keep gravity from banging floors together are called) on one side of the external structure were destroyed, since photographs of the site show this.

And as far as "it looks like a controlled demolition" A controlled demolition uses explosives to weaken a structure until it collapses under its own weight. The aircraft impacts and subsequent fires...wait for it...weakened the structures of WTC 1 and 2 until they collapsed. WTC 7 was weakened by fire until it collapsed. What do you imagine a fire-initiated collapse of a large structure looks like? Especially one with a metal or brick external curtain wall--you're not going to have flames licking up the wall like when a wood-framed house burns. Also, most fires were 850 feet in the air, and coming out of narrow windows, where they looked pathetically tiny from the ground, even though they were raging so hot people jumped to their death to escape them.

(Edited to fix a screwed up closing tag)


Magiko-
#1 I don't know, those buildings were pretty big, and had lots of natural fuel in them as well...
#2 in controlled demolitions, they don't take out the entire beam- why would you need to melt an *entire building* to bring it down?
#3 have you even seen a building burn for many hours? Normal buildings cannot be involved in such chemical reaction for such a long time without falling

catcube- good job at explaining :)

PS - why is there an argument about the spelling of that awesome light metal? I vote we spell it regex style- alumini?um
djessop wrote:The t-shirt should read "There are 11 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't and those who insist the number above is pronounced as eleven no matter what base you're in".

kingpocky
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:48 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby kingpocky » Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:53 am UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
A_of_s_t wrote:Is Randall stuck in 2001 or does he just talk to people who are?


Are you kidding? NO major events happened since September 2001 anywhere in the world, ever.

Also, it seems that Randall is really obsessed with "dumb" people. It's like he desperately needs to look superior to someone. "Conspiracy theories" are already a dead horse, yet he keeps beating it. It like he has some serious issues that he just can't handle. Get over it, Randall, for fuck's sake!


Out of simple curiousity, what is your motivation for posting so frequently on new XKCDs?

User avatar
Tyrannosaur
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 5:39 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Tyrannosaur » Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:01 am UTC

kingpocky wrote:
SirMustapha wrote:
A_of_s_t wrote:Is Randall stuck in 2001 or does he just talk to people who are?


Are you kidding? NO major events happened since September 2001 anywhere in the world, ever.

Also, it seems that Randall is really obsessed with "dumb" people. It's like he desperately needs to look superior to someone. "Conspiracy theories" are already a dead horse, yet he keeps beating it. It like he has some serious issues that he just can't handle. Get over it, Randall, for fuck's sake!


Out of simple curiousity, what is your motivation for posting so frequently on new XKCDs?


my guess? notoriety. how many other xkcders do you know by name?
djessop wrote:The t-shirt should read "There are 11 types of people in the world, those who understand binary, those who don't and those who insist the number above is pronounced as eleven no matter what base you're in".

Azkyroth
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:35 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Azkyroth » Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:07 am UTC

Shadowman615 wrote:
imantodes wrote:
swabifyoudare wrote:The Aluminium (its pronounced AL YOO MIN EEEE UMM ok - see the 'i' there ?) in the plane and exposed steel in the building may have caused additional Thermite reactions which would have caused little spikes up to 2500 Celsius in 'hot spots' if it occurred.


Little known fact: the "i" is silent.

Little known fact #2: It's also spelled without the "i".


Of course, a silent "i" would be perfectly consistent with British spelling customs.

Err, sorry.

I maean, a silaent "i" wouuld bae paerfaectly counsistaent with Britshi spaellngi custoums.[/tangent]

K^2
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:33 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby K^2 » Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:43 am UTC

Magiko wrote:OK - I'll grant melting part of a beam with jet fuel. That's fine. We're talking
1) Having enough fuel. Close your eyes and remember the planes hitting and a large gasoline (jet fuel) explosion occuring. Did some fuel escape the fire ball? Would the fireball have been smaller if it had? I don't know how much fuel was there, but really this is all leading up to #3 anyway.
2) The entire beam all the way from the top of the building, causing the building to pancake (indicating more than just one section of the beams gave out). When they bring down buildings, they don't just take out one piece of a beam. Again... Who cares, I'd probably agree with you if it weren't for:
3) A 3rd building that fell the same way with no jet fuel at all. Debris hit it - from, well, pretty far away. It made a different type of fire. It's an odd point to get sucked into what steel burns at and how hot jet fuel gets while on fire, there's a 3rd building that didn't get hit by a plane. Other buildings also got hit by debris and got heavily damaged. These other buildings didn't do anything out of the ordinary (i.e. catch a mysterious fire and collapse in a way that, up until now, was reserved for demolition and maybe "jet fuel theory" if you buy into that sorta thing, but really that was only a few hours before).

Like it's been pointed out, jet fuel isn't the only fuel there. It's a good fire-starter, but if that's all that was there to burn, it wouldn't be much of a fire. The fact is, in a tall column, you can get temperatures as high as you want with any fuel, so long as you have an exothermic process of some sort.

The WTC 7 collapse is a bit unusual, I'll give you that. But the entire scenario is unusual, so that doesn't say anything by itself. It caught fire. With unfortunate enough distribution of whatever's there to burn, yet again, it could have reached any temperatures required to cause a collapse. I do think WTC 7 deserves a better look, if not to find foul play, then at least to figure out what in its architectural design may have led to collapse.

Thibaw
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 11:32 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Thibaw » Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:55 am UTC

I can not believe that this discussion is taking place on the xkcd forum right now.

User avatar
theta4
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:16 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby theta4 » Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:07 am UTC

rwald wrote:South Park did it.

This.

Has Randy been getting lazy recently or does he just not care?
GENERATION -i: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum. Square it, and then add i to the generation.
PREVIOUS GENERATION: 1-i

LtNOWIS
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:21 pm UTC
Location: Fairfax County

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby LtNOWIS » Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:30 am UTC

cynicalbastard wrote:Anyone see the pilot episode of "The lone Gunmen"?

Shot summer of 2001 it deals with
Spoiler:
a govermnent/military-industrial-complex/CIA/whatever plot to radio-control a 747 to crash into the WTC... - It was not aired...


It's worth watching for the fantastic timing.

I did see it. When it was aired on TV, specifically Fox. In early March, not in the summer.

project2051
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:20 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby project2051 » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:01 pm UTC

Thibaw wrote:I can not believe that this discussion is taking place on the xkcd forum right now.


I can't believe no one has taken up the chemtrail argument yet.


Stuff like "there is no such things as contrails, it's imposable for them to form, so it has to be sprayed chemtrails.", then the woman who spray water from her garden hose in a fine mist in the sunlight and go a "rainbow", and then went on to say "that can't happen with water, only chemicals can do that, like oil floating on water. So it has to be the result of chemtrail chemicals getting into the ground water.".

sharpnova
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:34 am UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby sharpnova » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:01 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:
sharpnova wrote:My hobby: Pretending I don't watch popular comedy shows or haven't heard common jokes so I can pass them off as my own.

You also seem to enjoy pretending to not read the OP or any of the other posts that made the same point and passing them off as your own.


As far as I'm aware, I'm the only person who has accused the author of the comic of pretending to be unaware of this South Park joke to pass it off as his own.

Others have pointed out that there was a similar (logically identical) joke on South Park, but no one else bothered to point out that the author of the comic was feigning ignorance.

So I guess your hobby is just saying incorrect things :) And one of mine is slamming those who do so down to the level they belong at.

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby dp2 » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:21 pm UTC

sharpnova wrote:
dp2 wrote:
sharpnova wrote:My hobby: Pretending I don't watch popular comedy shows or haven't heard common jokes so I can pass them off as my own.

You also seem to enjoy pretending to not read the OP or any of the other posts that made the same point and passing them off as your own.


As far as I'm aware, I'm the only person who has accused the author of the comic of pretending to be unaware of this South Park joke to pass it off as his own.

Others have pointed out that there was a similar (logically identical) joke on South Park, but no one else bothered to point out that the author of the comic was feigning ignorance.

So I guess your hobby is just saying incorrect things :) And one of mine is slamming those who do so down to the level they belong at.

My mistake. You are correct, you are the only one who has suggested that Randall saw the joke on South Park then pretended that he didn't.

As for calling him on retelling common jokes, you can find those posts every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday right here.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby Fire Brns » Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:35 pm UTC

The WTC 7 collapse is a bit unusual, I'll give you that. But the entire scenario is unusual, so that doesn't say anything by itself. It caught fire. With unfortunate enough distribution of whatever's there to burn, yet again, it could have reached any temperatures required to cause a collapse. I do think WTC 7 deserves a better look, if not to find foul play, then at least to figure out what in its architectural design may have led to collapse.
I'm can't remember the timeline perfectly but an unstable building on fire being shook by two 110 story steel and concrete structures falling may have helped. The city is mostly concrete after all and we know how well it absorbs shock.

And not to throw fuel on the fire-pun unintended- aluminium in this forum at least has the "i" because when registering the language choice is British English -no pun intended- otherwise I assume the vowel shift produces a soft "y": aluminyum.

User avatar
BlackHatSupport
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:34 pm UTC
Location: Wherever you aren't.

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby BlackHatSupport » Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:16 pm UTC

Is it my imagination or is Randall's hobby messing with consiracy theoritsts?

Next time try messing with creationists on which programming language the gods used.

I vote it was Perl. :)
Avenger_7 wrote:You are entitled to your opinion though. Even though it's wrong.

kingpocky
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:48 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby kingpocky » Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:14 pm UTC

Tyrannosaur wrote:
kingpocky wrote:
SirMustapha wrote:
A_of_s_t wrote:Is Randall stuck in 2001 or does he just talk to people who are?


Are you kidding? NO major events happened since September 2001 anywhere in the world, ever.

Also, it seems that Randall is really obsessed with "dumb" people. It's like he desperately needs to look superior to someone. "Conspiracy theories" are already a dead horse, yet he keeps beating it. It like he has some serious issues that he just can't handle. Get over it, Randall, for fuck's sake!


Out of simple curiousity, what is your motivation for posting so frequently on new XKCDs?


my guess? notoriety. how many other xkcders do you know by name?


His comment is actually kind of insightful, but it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. By writing "the kettle is black" on itself in black paint.

User avatar
SpringLoaded12
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 1:58 am UTC
Location: Guarding the Super Missile
Contact:

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby SpringLoaded12 » Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:20 pm UTC

Oh my god, this is actually happening. This is actually happening.

Okay, anyone who is still arguing about the 9/11 conspiracy shit, I mean seriously arguing about it, first, you need to STOP. Stop now. Take a few deep breaths. And then, move on with your life.
"It's easy to forget what a sin is in the middle of a battlefield." "Opposite over hypotenuse, dipshit."

drakesword
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 9:31 pm UTC

Re: 0966: "Jet Fuel"

Postby drakesword » Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:57 pm UTC

Just want to add one thing ... steel doesnt need to melt for a structure to fall apart ... it gets very flexible at raised temperatures ... that is all


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: yappobiscuits and 65 guests