Errors and omissions in NIST report (gee...what a surprise).

Yet there was NO evidence of any <snicker> Super-duper high temp thermate in the rubble,Fraud..

 

One addition to another opinion concerning the bridge collapse:

"Kerosene" is not "overpowered jet fuel". Kerosene has a lower purity and is less inflamable than Diesel fuel. From Wikipedia:

Kerosine being super charged gasoline because being used in jet air planes seems to be a common misconception.

 

This is a good point being reached in the discussion. It seems not to be clear that the "case" of 9/11 still is in the "executive", meaning: there is an accusation, not even by the official prosecutor but the government as part of the executive. States have good reason to seperate powers between legislative, executive and judicative. Judicative with good reason must be independant from executive. Yet against all approved procedures a case of mass murder is kept in the stage of accusation, no independant authority having been able to validate the evidence or to make a juridical valid decision. The accused already has been "removed" without trial, without valid proof of guilt. That is unacceptable. The accusation of those believing into the offcial version of the event, "truthers" being some kind of "conspiracy theory dreamers" is the way around. "Non truthers" believe in the virgin like innocence of the executive which even the fathers of the constitution did not postulate - the reason why the separation of powers is part of every constitution in a free society. So called "Truthers" in fact are the realistic side of the game, insisting on accurately applying the constitution, whereas "non truthers" are the dreamers, their infantile belief into the virginity of their government putting their own constitution, their own rights and their own freedom at risk.

 

Jet fuel can either be a keroseine-gasoline blend or a naptha blend....we all know about the flammability of gasoline,but naptha?


Think of lighter fluid for your backyard charcoal grill...

 

*Ahem*......Bullsh**.

 

Baby response, proof for what I've said before.

 

Where have they done this? Citation please.

My allegiance is to the evidence.

 

Actually it's a very adult response to your pabulum,maxx.....to claim that 'truthers' and their myriad of conflicting scenarios of what happened on 9/11 are the 'realistic side of the game', is downright hilarious and just a bit sad as well.

 

"less inflamable" - careful of the double negative there

But you're right on the part that it is a common misconception that jet fuel is some sort of super-fuel, but don't underestimate the heat release of it. Jet-A1 has a pretty high calorific value, in fact so high that in a jet engine, only about 20% of the core air flow goes to be combusted. The other 80% is used to cool the combustion chamber. The heat of the gases in the combustion chamber could easily reach 2,300C and melt the chamber and turbines. Many turbine engines have been killed by 'hot starts'.

 

Really?...tell us, how was this thermite used?

 

Less flamable, sorry.

 

Not only that I already addressed this in #78.

Jet A and gasoline are very close in energy density. The difference is not in purity or potential energy. The difference is in the conditions required to release the energy. Ignition in gasoline takes places at a lower pressure and temperature. See the combined gas law to see what happens to the temperature of a gas when you increase the pressure and decrease the volume.

To see exactly what I'm talking about look at the difference in compression ratio in a typical gasoline engine, vs the compression of a typical jet. Jet engines are obviously more suited for a fuel that ignites at a higher temperature and pressure. This not only makes the engine more efficient, it makes the storage of the fuel safer.

Cjnewson hinted at the high temperatures reached inside the combustion chamber. Be careful with this as well. The high temperature inside the high pressure environment of a jet engine is due to the pressures generated not just the heat created by burning the fuel.

Now, knowing what you know about the relationship between volume, temperature and pressure, and to steer this back to the topic being discussed, do think there might be an increase in temperature when a building with a large volume has its volume rapidly reduced?

HINT

 

Around 500C comes from compression alone, yes, but that still leaves 1,800C from combustion.

 

Still not there yet. (And I think you've confused Celsius and Fahrenheit)

The auto ignition temperature of Jet A is 410°F.

The incoming air is compressed by the compressor to beyond 410°F. (600°F on the graph)

Fuel is sprayed into the combustion chamber and it auto-ignites.

The combustion of the fuel raises the temperature by the same temperature as open air burning temperature (500&#8211;599 °F) And the pressure generated by the combustion increases the temp another 500. That gets us to 1600°F or so according to this graph.

The air speeds up as it is forced out the back of the engine, the pressure drops, and you see a corresponding temperature drop as the gas expands.



Chemtrails anyone?

 

Those are different effects probably overlapping (or "adding"): the vaporization of any liquid requires energy and has a cooling effect (known from "sweating" for example or used by adding alcohol into regular combustion engines to use the cooling effect of alcohol vaporization), cooling on the other hand (like compression) increases the oxygen partial pressure and facilitates ignition and combustion (known from turbo-loaded engines or engine compressors and inter cooler engines). Without compression Jet Fuel ignited under atmospheric pressure then would cause lower temperatures to the surrounding as the simple ignition temperature because vaporization energy has to be subtracted. Right or wrong? (I am not a combustion expert. I work with medical gases and vapors).

 

More Precisely: The temperature reduction caused by the vaporization energy which has to be subtracted from the energy yield of combustion.

 

The figures I'm using come straight from my Gas Turbine textbook that I had to study.

Jet fuel doesn't really evaporate. It's kerosene based. So with a petrol engine, the more fuel you add, the greater the cooling effect. You get the opposite effect with Jet fuel. The more fuel you add, the hotter the burn.

 

I should also note the 2,300C figure comes from un-normal ops. Normal temperature range of a jet engine is in the area of 700C to 1,200C. The 2,300C is at the flame front only, but the combustion chamber, NGV and turbines can get that hot if cooling fails, such as during a hot start or compressor stall.

 

What a very strange way to interpret that collection of information, and dismiss it all with one felt swoop, ending with the usual insult. Fascinating.

 

Oh, like you do with a hand-wave calling everyone a shill?

 

If you want to watch Tony get a proper beat down then go to the JREF. He's a member and posts on the forum. I have seen him for years, so it's nothing new to me. I know you guys will drink any kool-aid as long as it's pro-govt doing the job. However, Tony isn't a no planer, he thinks no planers are morons. So I don't understand why you would use him as a role model. Since you are a no planer.

 

JREF? are you kidding thats the insiders coffee house. LMAO

That means the site leans toward and supports and sides with troughers and no support for truthers by design.

UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED

see they have

"Resources for debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories"

but they do NOT have

"Resources for debunking 9/11 official fantasy and shills"

 

There's a reason for that koko.

Stupid morons need not apply koko, which means clowns like yourself would fall squarely into JREF's category of "how not to be".

 

...only if you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I still have koko on ignore, so he only exists to me in quoted form. Seeing him make fun of JREF is standard practice though, anyone who combats woo is a "shill" or "in on it" so it wouldn't surprise me, like NAB showed, that he wouldn't condone the site. It goes against everything he stands for. Also, he'd be banned in a week. The Mods there don't put up with (*)(*)(*)(*) like they do around here. His name calling, and stupidity would earn him the ban stick in a week.

ETA: There is a larger collection of professionals on JREF as well. I am not saying we don't have any here. Hannibal, Fang, CJ, NAB, Lefty, et. al. (sorry if I left someone out). There is just a larger gathering as the board promotes SO much more than just the 9/11 woo. Which this board has other sections, but JREF is a bit more recognized.