Where Are The Pictures of Buildings Engulfed in Flames? [Archive]

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 11:16 AM

SDC

6th December 2007, 11:20 AM

They look engulfed to me. Do you realize how huge the buildings were?

kookbreaker

6th December 2007, 11:21 AM

Do you not read the replies to the posts you make? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3217486&postcount=27)

DGM

6th December 2007, 11:23 AM

Stick;
Dark smoke indicates fuel rich fires. Light a pool of fuel in the open and you will see this to be true.

I assume you will update all future posts to this fact.

Björn Toulouse

6th December 2007, 11:27 AM

But still to this day I cannot find a single picture outside the initial fireball of anything that could qualify as a fraction of a serious fire.

That's a lot of smoke for a non-serious fire.http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1289045f9857165b72.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4597)

Pardalis

6th December 2007, 11:28 AM

http://www.debunking911.com/genfires.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire2.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire3.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire4.htm

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 11:29 AM

Stick;
Dark smoke indicates fuel rich fires. Light a pool of fuel in the open and you will see this to be true.

I assume you will update all future posts to this fact.

Well I won't just take your word for it. I'll have to Wiki it up:D

BTW, that was def a lot more fire in a picture I've ever seen in that link.

But still that's a closeup shot and doesn't give you an idea of what percentage of the building looked like that. Remember we're talking about a 100+ story building.

Who knows if that was only a closeup of the one picture I posted?

If anything the building clearly engulfed in the most flames was WTC 5

http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/wtc911video/flames.jpg

e^n

6th December 2007, 11:30 AM

This is not intended offensively, but how about reading the official report? NCSTAR 1-5A is where you want to start.

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 11:32 AM

http://www.debunking911.com/genfires.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire2.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire3.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/fire4.htm

Well that's certainly more than anything google has to offer.

Thanks.

But like I said, those are zoomed in and from the zoom out it doesn't look like most of the floors or even a serious fraction are engulfed anything like pictures I've seen of a semi-serious burning building.

Vincent Vega

6th December 2007, 11:33 AM

Now THIS was the initial fireball famously captured of Flight 175

Because all I saw was a building engulfed in DARK SMOKE which to my knowledge is a sign of an oxygen deprived fire.

Like this one?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1290761022_73b8adb37a.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1148/1290759022_b13eb34f56.jpg?v=0

uk_dave

6th December 2007, 11:34 AM

Pardalis

6th December 2007, 11:34 AM

Well that's certainly more than anything google has to offer.

Don't rely on google.

These very same pictures have been offered to you in the other thread (see Kookbreaker's post above). Why did you ignore them the first time?

Vincent Vega

6th December 2007, 11:37 AM

Well that's certainly more than anything google has to offer.

Thanks.

But like I said, those are zoomed in and from the zoom out it doesn't look like most of the floors or even a serious fraction are engulfed anything like pictures I've seen of a semi-serious burning building.

All it takes is ONE floor to be compromised by crash damage and/or fire.

Do you realize how BIG the WTC is????? ONE floor would constitue an ENORMOUS fire.

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 11:38 AM

Don't rely on google.

These very same pictures have been offered to you in the other thread (see Kookbreaker's post above). Why'd you ignore them the first time?

I started this post before I got that response.

I wasn't trying to dodge them

People jumping rather than suffering from smoke?

I would suggest you re-think that one. If someone can jump from the building then they're pretty close to a rather large supply of fresh air. The smoke, therefore, should not be a problem.

However, that air aint alot of use to them if a fire is raging at their backs.

Yeah but the way the smoke was coming OUT of the buildings Im pretty sure putting their heads out of the window wouldn't exactly help much if the same smoke they are trying to escape is still engulfed everywhere.

Those pictures of fire and dark smoke are interesting.

You won't see me quoting that anymore.

But still, like I said the pictures that can be considered serious fires may just be zoomed in images. Any far away shot that catches the flames like it catches the smoke?

You don't have to be zoomed in to catch something like this

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2007/290407WINDSOR.jpg

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.

SDC

6th December 2007, 11:38 AM

Pardalis

6th December 2007, 11:39 AM

Stickman, how long did the fires last?

DGM

6th December 2007, 11:40 AM

People jumping rather than suffering from smoke?

I would suggest you re-think that one. If someone can jump from the building then they're pretty close to a rather large supply of fresh air. The smoke, therefore, should not be a problem.

However, that air aint alot of use to them if a fire is raging at their backs.
This point really needs to be driven home. These unfortunate people decide that certain death was their best option.

How bad do you think that would be?

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 11:40 AM

All it takes is ONE floor to be compromised by crash damage and/or fire.

Do you realize how BIG the WTC is????? ONE floor would constitue an ENORMOUS fire.

Im not arguing the science.

I just hear people say all the time that the building was engulfed in flames.

But the building and a few floors are two completely different things.

Pardalis

6th December 2007, 11:42 AM

:socks:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3033429#post3033429
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3033511#post3033511

kookbreaker

6th December 2007, 11:42 AM

I started this post before I got that response.You don't have to be zoomed in to catch something like this

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2007/290407WINDSOR.jpg

Actually, you do. That building is a fraction of the size of the WTC. You could fit a few of those in the photos you call 'close-ups'.

~enigma~

6th December 2007, 11:43 AM

You don't have to be zoomed in to catch something like this

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2007/290407WINDSOR.jpg
Oh dear, you broke the case wide open with your comparison of the Windsor tower fire (at night) to the daylight fires at the WTC. Do you think before you post?

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 11:43 AM

So far you've referenced Google and Wiki(pedia?). For this topic, that's amateur night. As you've been asked above, how about the actual technical reports?

But this is all madness. Those monstrous buildings had huge fires, whether outright flames are visible in particular photos or not. Please read the reports. Listen to the Firefighters. Come on.

To my knowledge the firefighters made it seem like only a fewl floors were on fire in that building.

You have any evidence to the contrary?

I referenced Wiki because that's where you check for fundamental facts like characteristics of smoke over taking the word of someone on a MB.

Unsecured Coins

6th December 2007, 11:44 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/powers05/poo.jpg

yep, that looks fuel starved to me.

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 11:44 AM

Oh dear, you broke the case wide open with your comparison of the Windsor tower fire (at night) to the daylight fires at the WTC. Do you think before you post?

I think it's more than reasonable to say that fire would show in ANY time.

Did you see the WTC 5 picture?

I haven't even see a picture that resembles that

The pictures have shown half a dozen floors tops and nothing that looks nearly as engulfed as another burning tower in that area.

Vincent Vega

6th December 2007, 11:45 AM

Im not arguing the science.

I just hear people say all the time that the building was engulfed in flames.

But the building and a few floors are two completely different things.

Right but as a pretense to argue that fires were not intense enough to compromise the structure? Is that your position or not?

~enigma~

6th December 2007, 11:47 AM

I think it's more than reasonable to say that fire would show in ANY time.

Did you see the WTC 5 picture?
Actually I think it more reasonable that you would answer my question instead of reverting to a well known woo tactic of asking me a question to change the topic. Again, do you think before you post?

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 11:49 AM

:socks:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3033429#post3033429
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3033511#post3033511

http://i10.tinypic.com/3517km8.jpg

The dominant substance from those isolated areas is still dark smoke.

Engulf
tr.v. en·gulfed, en·gulf·ing, en·gulfs
To swallow up or overwhelm by or as if by overflowing and enclosing

You can say that fires WERE PRESENT but to say those buildings were engulfed in flames is not something that anyone can possibly say they saw.

When a building is engulfed in flames the ratio of smoke to fire that an area of the building is encompassed with is just a tad different

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper803/stills/l9q3u71u.jpg

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.

Pardalis

6th December 2007, 11:53 AM

The dominant substance from those isolated areas is still dark smoke.

Smoke is a substance?

Go away troll.

TriskettheKid

6th December 2007, 11:54 AM

Stick, most of those flames are at least 1 story in height. Quite a few are many stories in height.

And these fires were in a building where each story was roughly 1 acre in size. That means that those pictures show a fire that, on the worst floors, is almost 1 acre in size.

DGM

6th December 2007, 11:55 AM

http://i10.tinypic.com/3517km8.jpg

The dominant substance from those isolated areas is still dark smoke.

Engulf
tr.v. en·gulfed, en·gulf·ing, en·gulfs
To swallow up or overwhelm by or as if by overflowing and enclosing

You can say that fires WERE PRESENT but to say those buildings were engulfed in flames is not something that anyone can possibly say they saw.

When a building is engulfed in flames the ratio of smoke to fire that an area of the building is encompassed with is just a tad different

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper803/stills/l9q3u71u.jpg
OK, I promise never to use engulf again. How does "humongous amounts of" suit you?

johnny karate

6th December 2007, 11:57 AM

In accordance with the air-tight logic used in the OP to imply that the WTC was actually not engulfed in flames, I would like StickMan to prove that the American Revolution took place, or for that matter, any historical event predating the invention of the camera.

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 11:59 AM

Smoke is a substance?

Go away troll.

Lol you can classify it however you want to classify it but there are no zoomed out shots that show that represent the building was even close to encompassed in flames.

And even in the close up shots, it pales in comparison to the smoke.

Is that the case in the pictures of WTC 5 or any other building that can be classified as a building ENGULFED in flames?

All Im saying is it's not accurate from anything we've seen to say the building was engulfed in flames.

Oh but I forgot, around these parts people don't admit when they're wrong.

Pookster

6th December 2007, 12:00 PM

People jumping rather than suffering from smoke?

I would suggest you re-think that one. If someone can jump from the building then they're pretty close to a rather large supply of fresh air. The smoke, therefore, should not be a problem.

However, that air aint alot of use to them if a fire is raging at their backs.

Not to mention that inhaling the smoke from those fires would've likely incapacitated most (if not all) people before they had a chance to jump to a certain death.

e^n

6th December 2007, 12:02 PM

Lol you can classify it however you want to classify it but there are no zoomed out shots that show that represent the building was even close to encompassed in flames.

And even in the close up shots, it pales in comparison to the smoke.

Unsurprisingly smoke tends to be much larger in volume than fire, primarily because fire produces the smoke. You can quite clearly see large areas engulfed in flames there, what temperature do you expect them to reach? Have you even read any of NCSTAR 1-5?

Pookster

6th December 2007, 12:03 PM

Lol you can classify it however you want to classify it but there are no zoomed out shots that show that represent the building was even close to encompassed in flames.

And even in the close up shots, it pales in comparison to the smoke.

Is that the case in the pictures of WTC 5 or any other building that can be classified as a building ENGULFED in flames?

All Im saying is it's not accurate from anything we've seen to say the building was engulfed in flames.

Oh but I forgot, around these parts people don't admit when they're wrong.

Pardon me for a moment, has anyone actually made a claim that the Towers were engulfed in flames, or that certain floors were engulfed in flames?

Panoply_Prefect

6th December 2007, 12:03 PM

To my knowledge the firefighters made it seem like only a fewl floors were on fire in that building.

Did they? When?

TriskettheKid

6th December 2007, 12:05 PM

Stick is right!

The Yellowstone Fires of 1988 were CLEARLY insignificant, as there was FAR too much smoke for it to have been a bunch of large fires.

Proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fire_near_Old_Faithful_Complex_2.jpg

Now, in accordance with the logic of Stick, since there is more smoke than fire, this fire was obviously not that large.

Pookster

6th December 2007, 12:06 PM

OK, I promise never to use engulf again. How does "humongous amounts of" suit you?

I think "engulfed" is probably a proper word when referring to the areas of the Towers that were on fire. The opening post seems to me to be nothing more than a strawman, unless StickMan can quote someone as saying the Towers were engulfed in flames. I've only ever seen references to certain floors of the Towers myself.

Brainster

6th December 2007, 12:12 PM

DGM

6th December 2007, 12:12 PM

I think "engulfed" is probably a proper word when referring to the areas of the Towers that were on fire. The opening post seems to me to be nothing more than a strawman, unless StickMan can quote someone as saying the Towers were engulfed in flames. I've only ever seen references to certain floors of the Towers myself.
I would like him(?) to ask a fireman how big a couple of acres of office fires would be.

Pardalis

6th December 2007, 12:14 PM

Lol you can classify it however you want to classify it but there are no zoomed out shots that show that represent the building was even close to encompassed in flames.

Either you care about the meaning of words or you don't.

SDC

6th December 2007, 12:14 PM

Pookster

6th December 2007, 12:30 PM

This one usually gets a gasp when I show it in my high school lectures:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_977747584971ce917.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9594)

Considering that just one side of the Tower is 208 feet, that's an enormous area on fire at once.

Vincent Vega

6th December 2007, 12:30 PM

Pookster

6th December 2007, 12:34 PM

Stick may be claiming that, since every floor wasn't on fire, or most floors were not, it is wrong to say "engulfed." That is a really silly statement; a distinction without a difference. The buildings had enormous fires doing great destruction. Stick may think he is making a point, but he isn't.

I'm still curious if he can quote anyone who actually meant the entire Tower(s) were engulfed in flames. I've never seen anyone make such a claim before, although its always possible someone did. I've seen references to certain floors of the Towers being engulfed, but not the entire buildings, or anything close to it. If he can't produce any such quotes, the OP is just a strawman.

flameowl

6th December 2007, 12:48 PM

T.A.M.

6th December 2007, 01:08 PM

Yet another strawman.

Anyone who says that the building was engulfed in flames, unless they are insane, is referring to the floors around the impact zone...say 5-10 floors above and below. OBVIOUSLY (to most intelligent life) the entire building (110 storeys) was not engulfed in flames...

TAM:)

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 01:09 PM

Unsurprisingly smoke tends to be much larger in volume than fire, primarily because fire produces the smoke. You can quite clearly see large areas engulfed in flames there, what temperature do you expect them to reach? Have you even read any of NCSTAR 1-5?

Smoke is often the dominant visible matter/whatever you want to call it IN THE AIR

But when you look at the building/forest that's engulfed in flames the primary thing you see directly on those objects is fire.

That is not the case in any of those pictures even up close

Unsecured Coins

6th December 2007, 01:12 PM

So, care to point out where the fuel deprivation is going on in any of the oictures we provided?

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 01:13 PM

My only contribution to this discussion is to point out that none of the comparisson pictures supplied by Stickman were zoomed out enough to demonstrate any kind of smoke to fire ratio. The fires he uses may have an identical ratio to those of the WTC, but he has not provided enough evidence to demonstrate whether or not his contention that there was "too much" smoke on 9/11 is accurate to his thesis.

I'm a little sick, so I hope that makes some kind of sense even if it is circuitous...

So I guess I'm saying that his claim about the WTC photos showing the flames being "zoomed in" could be just as easily made about his photos. The difference being that as the events he uses were not as large or visible as landmarks, there weren't people taking pictures from every conceivable angle from miles around to make comparisson of the two useful.

I'm not attempting to make any straw man arguments here.

All Im saying is when I see a building engulfed in flames, even when it's zoomed out, the fires are clearly visible. Just look up building fires.

The flames are clearly discernable even from a distance

Not the case in 9/11. Those zoomed in photos probably come from this
http://pictopia.com/perl/get_image?provider_id=10&size=550x550_mb&ptp_photo_id=468150

Is this absurdly small percentage of fire what you could consider saying the tower was engulfed in flames?

Of course not

That's all Im trying to say.

You may say that's being the master of the obvious but you'd be surprised how many people say the building was engulfed in flames.

SDC

6th December 2007, 01:16 PM

Either he is claming the fires were insignificant and unable to effect the structure or not. Anything else is moot.

What is your poisition stick?

Here is the real point, from V.Vega. Stick, are you saying that the fires, regardless of size, were not enough "to effect the structure"? Ultimately, that's all that counts.

I could make a lewd joke about the size of something, and the structure which is, um, impacted or effected thereby and the outcome is dependent on said size, but that would be wrong and I refuse to do it.

Mancman

6th December 2007, 01:18 PM

http://i10.tinypic.com/3517km8.jpg

The dominant substance from those isolated areas is still dark smoke.

Engulf
tr.v. en·gulfed, en·gulf·ing, en·gulfs
To swallow up or overwhelm by or as if by overflowing and enclosing

You can say that fires WERE PRESENT but to say those buildings were engulfed in flames is not something that anyone can possibly say they saw.

Just look at this again.
http://i10.tinypic.com/3517km8.jpg

That top picture is a mere 21 minutes after the plane crash, and already EIGHT FLOORS are on fire AT THE SAME TIME. The floor area of those eight floors was equal to the area of the entire 32 story Windsor Building, by the way.

See the NIST fire maps:
http://i7.tinypic.com/21mzp1e.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252475858a245abf.jpg

Of course WTC2 burned for half the time thus obviously has less fire. The fire in WTC 1 eventually spread across 14 floors and opened about 1100 windows.

T.A.M.

6th December 2007, 01:22 PM

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 01:23 PM

Here is the real point, from V.Vega. Stick, are you saying that the fires, regardless of size, were not enough "to effect the structure"? Ultimately, that's all that counts.

I could make a lewd joke about the size of something, and the structure which is, um, impacted or effected thereby and the outcome is dependent on said size, but that would be wrong and I refuse to do it.

Stick may be claiming that, since every floor wasn't on fire, or most floors were not, it is wrong to say "engulfed." That is a really silly statement; a distinction without a difference. The buildings had enormous fires doing great destruction. Stick may think he is making a point, but he isn't.

THat's not at all what IM saying.

Im saying that "engulfed" is the wrong terminology simply by the definition of the word.

There is a difference from saying there were several fires in the building and the building was engulfed in flames.

To say there wasn't a difference is ignorant of the definition of the word.

Of course every floor wouldn't have to be on fire for it to be considered engulfed. THat's absurd. I've never seen a burning building where that's the case. Maybe on a one story house.

It's just a case where when flames dominant a significant area of the building which is not the case.

Sure a half dozen floors with fire is a lot of damage. But in proportion to the size of the building, and with the proportion of smoke that dominants directly out of the same spots, it's not reasonable to use that term.

Pookster

6th December 2007, 01:25 PM

I'm not attempting to make any straw man arguments here.

If you're not making a strawman argument, then who said the building was engulfed in flames? I'm not even sure anyone has ever stated that the entire area of any one floor was on fire (or engulfed) at any point in time. Certainly some images showed most if not entire sides of one or more floors on fire at once though.

Would you be so kind as to provide a relevant quote to substantiate your OP? Thanks.

DGM

6th December 2007, 01:25 PM

Stick:
What is the point your trying to make. Are you simply arguing the language people use or is it something else?

Can you clarify this?

SDC

6th December 2007, 01:26 PM

THat's not at all what IM saying.

Im saying that "engulfed" is the wrong terminology simply by the definition of the word.

There is a difference from saying there were several fires in the building and the building was engulfed in flames.

To say there wasn't a difference is ignorant of the definition of the word.

Of course every floor wouldn't have to be on fire for it to be considered engulfed. THat's absurd. I've never seen a burning building where that's the case. Maybe on a one story house.

It's just a case where when flames dominant a significant area of the building which is not the case.

Sure a half dozen floors with fire is a lot of damage. But in proportion to the size of the building, and with the proportion of smoke that dominants directly out of the same spots, it's not reasonable to use that term.

That's it? "Engulfed" isn't the right word? Nothing more than that? By Carbonate of Soda, what a waste of time! By the Silken Boxers of Chthulu, THAT'S IT? Your whole point?

Sheesh.

Pookster

6th December 2007, 01:28 PM

THat's not at all what IM saying.

Im saying that "engulfed" is the wrong terminology simply by the definition of the word.

There is a difference from saying there were several fires in the building and the building was engulfed in flames. ...

Again ... WHO said "the building was engulfed in flames"? In what context was in said in as well? Were they referring to an image like this?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_977747584971ce917.jpg

technoextreme

6th December 2007, 01:29 PM

Smoke is often the dominant visible matter/whatever you want to call it IN THE AIR

But when you look at the building/forest that's engulfed in flames the primary thing you see directly on those objects is fire.

That is not the case in any of those pictures even up close
The NIST report had a very effective yet disturbing method to see how bad the flames were. They documented the locations of people jumping.

Par

6th December 2007, 01:34 PM

Im saying that "engulfed" is the wrong terminology simply by the definition of the word. There is a difference from saying there were several fires in the building and the building was engulfed in flames. To say there wasn't a difference is ignorant of the definition of the word...Sure a half dozen floors with fire is a lot of damage. But in proportion to the size of the building, and with the proportion of smoke that dominants directly out of the same spots, it's not reasonable to use that term.

In my experience, phrases like “engulfed in flames” are broadly used somewhat hyperbolically and metaphorically, a bit like “clashes with police” or “torrential rain”. In any event, have it your way: “engulfed” isn’t the most appropriate term. Now, what of interest follows from this?

peteweaver

6th December 2007, 01:34 PM

Vincent Vega

6th December 2007, 01:39 PM

THat's not at all what IM saying.

Im saying that "engulfed" is the wrong terminology simply by the definition of the word.

There is a difference from saying there were several fires in the building and the building was engulfed in flames.

To say there wasn't a difference is ignorant of the definition of the word.

Of course every floor wouldn't have to be on fire for it to be considered engulfed. THat's absurd. I've never seen a burning building where that's the case. Maybe on a one story house.

It's just a case where when flames dominant a significant area of the building which is not the case.

Sure a half dozen floors with fire is a lot of damage. But in proportion to the size of the building, and with the proportion of smoke that dominants directly out of the same spots, it's not reasonable to use that term.

Soo your saying your argument is...pointless in regards to anything of substance?

This is what you were suggesting...

Because all I saw was a building engulfed in DARK SMOKE which to my knowledge is a sign of an oxygen deprived fire.

The OS says people jumped from buildng to avoid a death by fire, but the scenario of them jumping out to avoid a suffering suffocation of smoke was never considered since obviously it wouldn't fit the official story.

It would appear you were insinuating in a rather round'bout way that the fires were rather insignificant. Is that still your position???

Unsecured Coins

6th December 2007, 01:40 PM

"Oil Rig was an inside job" shirt, anyone?

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 01:40 PM

No smoke without fire.

And here's yet another pic that shows a fire can produce black smoke whilst being extremely hot.

http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/oilrigs/mumbai_high_north_3.jpg

Incidentally that oil rig collapsed due to fire, in less than two hours, and no plane hit it.

I agree, where there is smoke there is fire. I've retracted that line of thinking.

But where there is smoke there isn't necessarily an enraging inferno either.

You may say, I stated the obvious that no portion of the building or possibly even a couple of floors were fully engulfed in flames.

But I swear I've seen people use those terminologies.

There have been buildings where that term is appropriate and it's significantly different.

Take WTC 5 for instance.

Look at that picture
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii135/911BLOS/flames.jpg

It's safe to say that region is ENGULFED in flames. There isn't a gap in the fires that are clearly discernable even from a distance as the flames blaze upward and outwards

T.A.M.

6th December 2007, 01:41 PM

that is pretty black smoke for an Oxygen rich (open) fire.

TAM;)

flameowl

6th December 2007, 01:43 PM

I'm not attempting to make any straw man arguments here.

All Im saying is when I see a building engulfed in flames, even when it's zoomed out, the fires are clearly visible. Just look up building fires.

The flames are clearly discernable even from a distance

Not the case in 9/11. Those zoomed in photos probably come from this

Bolding mine, and that was my point. You did not provide pictures with sufficient distance for us to make a correct comparisson. In your pictures ten stories took up the entire frame, clearly in the images of the WTC ten stories do not take up the entire frame. Therefore you are comparing apples to apple trees. There's some similarity, but overall the differences are overwhelming.

Is this absurdly small percentage of fire what you could consider saying the tower was engulfed in flames?

Of course not

That's all Im trying to say.

You may say that's being the master of the obvious but you'd be surprised how many people say the building was engulfed in flames.
Again bolding mine. Others here have asked you to back up that assertion, and I will add my request to theirs. Can you provide this suprising number of (I'm assuming you are implying) well informed people who get this detail wrong?

Pookster

6th December 2007, 01:44 PM

... But I swear I've seen people use those terminologies. ...

Who? All I can ever recall is people referring to images like the one I previously posted when referring to some floors being engulfed. And I can't specifically recall anyone using the word "engulfed" when referring to the towers.

So .... who?

Pookster

6th December 2007, 01:49 PM

... There have been buildings where that term is appropriate and it's significantly different.

Take WTC 5 for instance.

Look at that picture
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii135/911BLOS/flames.jpg

It's safe to say that region is ENGULFED in flames. There isn't a gap in the fires that are clearly discernable even from a distance as the flames blaze upward and outwards

How close is the camera to that fire? And how close is the camera to this fire ...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_977747584971ce917.jpg

Why is your's "engulfed" on those floors (that you can't see all of), and the one I posted isn't?

Vincent Vega

6th December 2007, 01:50 PM

DavidJames

6th December 2007, 01:52 PM

Pookster

6th December 2007, 01:53 PM

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 01:54 PM

OK. Lets recap.

I think we can attest:

1. DARK SMOKE does NOT necessarily indicate an "Oxygen starved fire".

2. The entire WTC towers WERE NOT entirely engulfed in flames.

3. Posters have provided pictures of clearly RAGING Fires covering multiple floors.

So have we reached any conclusions???

There wasn't even a single REGION engulfed in flames

http://i10.tinypic.com/3517km8.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii135/911BLOS/flames.jpg

There is no comparison

They are scattered fires over the region and even on specific floors.

Not a single region or even a single floor that can be considered engulfed

Mancman

6th December 2007, 01:55 PM

Take WTC 5 for instance.

Look at that picture
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii135/911BLOS/flames.jpg

It's safe to say that region is ENGULFED in flames. There isn't a gap in the fires that are clearly discernable even from a distance as the flames blaze upward and outwards

In WTC 5 I see four consecutive floors of fire.

In WTC 1 I see eight.

Yet, the smaller one is engulfed? Ok.....

Pookster

6th December 2007, 01:56 PM

There wasn't even a single REGION engulfed in flames

Final answer?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_977747584971ce917.jpg

alexg

6th December 2007, 01:56 PM

What is your point stick? Obviously there was a LOT of fire in the CRTICAL AREA of those floors where collapse initiated. What more do we need to know? The question of engulfment or not is academic.

I believe 'engulment' is also a technical firefighting term and in that context it may mean something less than the layman might assume. If it makes you feel any better I think the WTC tower fires don't quite qualify for my common sense understanding of the word, if you apply it to the ENTIRE BUILDING.Though in the area in question there was obviously partial engulfment visible. Don't forget that we see only the exterior, there is also doubtless much fire internally which we cannot see.

Stick it is also clear that there was more fire then you seemd to believe before coming here. In one post you asked to see bright orange in the smoke and when it was shown to you you deserted the thread.

What is clear is that there was more than enough fire on the critical floors to indicate that the situation was quite hot indeed.

The Madrid building had a concrete core which kept the entire structure from collapsing. As you can see from the pictures of it post-fire, the steel either fell off entirely or else was SEVERLY deformed. Your implied argument seems to be that anything less than that level of fire is too minor to cause a collapse. If that is your point just say so and we can address it.

Dave_46

6th December 2007, 02:00 PM

<snip>

Because all I saw was a building engulfed in DARK SMOKE which to my knowledge is a sign of an oxygen deprived fire.

<snip>

I dealt with this in July.

I just wanted to pick up on the smoke colour.

I happened to be reading a guide to the United Kingdom Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order yesterday (don't ask!) The one I was reading was for producing a Fire Risk Assessment for Small And Medium Places Of Entertainment.

Link http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/426/SmallandMediumPlacesofAssemblyfullguide_id1500426. pdf

At the bottom of page 16 (document page) is this paragraph.

Smoke produced by a fire also contains
toxic gases which are harmful to
people. A fire in a building with modern
fittings and materials generates smoke
that is thick and black, obscures vision,
causes great difficulty in breathing and
can block the escape routes.

This fits with my experience, and it has been mentioned by other posters here, the smoke colour is mainly influenced by what is burning, and is not indicative of oxygen starvation.

Dave

Pookster

6th December 2007, 02:02 PM

What is your point stick?

He can "swear I've seen people use those terminologies". But he can't seem to post someone's quote to support his OP.

It's a strawman. It went up in flames too. It collapsed into it's own footprint at freefall speed.

19 Arabs in a cave could've done this one too.

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 02:07 PM

He can "swear I've seen people use those terminologies". But he can't seem to post someone's quote to support his OP.

It's a strawman. It went up in flames too. It collapsed into it's own footprint at freefall speed.

19 Arabs in a cave could've done this one too.

It wasn't free fall speed, but it was certainly very rapid.

That's not the point I was trying to make.

I was just curious because I had never seen ANY of the pictures posted on here before.

Shows you how reliable google images is.

So you can imagine only seeing the pictures I've seen before on the first page I was thinking WTF???

Shrinker

6th December 2007, 02:09 PM

There wasn't even a single REGION engulfed in flames

http://i10.tinypic.com/3517km8.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii135/911BLOS/flames.jpg

There is no comparison

They are scattered fires over the region and even on specific floors.

Not a single region or even a single floor that can be considered engulfed
Try making the same argument when the pictures are to scale...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/361747586470c57aa.jpg

DGM

6th December 2007, 02:09 PM

flameowl

6th December 2007, 02:12 PM

It wasn't free fall speed, but it was certainly very rapid.

That's not the point I was trying to make.

I was just curious because I had never seen ANY of the pictures posted on here before.

Shows you how reliable google images is.

So you can imagine only seeing the pictures I've seen before on the first page I was thinking WTF???

er... so your defence of being defensive and "just asking questions" on this thread is that Google images is defective and really who'd expect you to do your own research anyways? Where's that hole-digging smilie when you need it?

:dig: "first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging"

Pookster

6th December 2007, 02:13 PM

It wasn't free fall speed, but it was certainly very rapid.

That's not the point I was trying to make.

I was just curious because I had never seen ANY of the pictures posted on here before.

Shows you how reliable google images is.

So you can imagine only seeing the pictures I've seen before on the first page I was thinking WTF???

No, my point is your strawman fell at free fall speed. You made the claim that people have said the Towers were engulfed in flames. However, you can't provide any evidence of such. Remember this from your opening post ...

"But after that strike, can anybody find the building being what can be considered engulfed in flames? Or even close to it?"

So, WHO considered "the building" engulfed in flames? Just one quote from anybody. Well?

Or do you wish to retract that statement now?

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 02:13 PM

Try making the same argument when the pictures are to scale...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/361747586470c57aa.jpg

Fair enough. Im curious what side of the tower that is. That certainly seems it would look more blazed if zoomed in. I don't think that is the same picture that was blown up.

No, my point is your strawman fell at free fall speed. You made the claim that people have said the Towers were engulfed in flames. However, you can't provide any evidence of such. Remember this from your opening post ...

"But after that strike, can anybody find the building being what can be considered engulfed in flames? Or even close to it?"

So, WHO considered "the building" engulfed in flames? Just one quote from anybody. Well?

Or do you wish to retract that statement now?

I didn't mean on this particular board. I've been on this board for how long? Less than a week?

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 02:16 PM

er... so your defence of being defensive and "just asking questions" on this thread is that Google images is defective and really who'd expect you to do your own research anyways? Where's that hole-digging smilie when you need it?

:dig: "first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging"

Im digging for the truth.

Im not some arrogant basterd who won't admit when he's wrong.

I think it's more than reasonable to expect to see pictures like this before.

Usually google is pretty reliable.

I could cop out and say assanine things like those pictures are fake because I've never seen them before but that's not me.

You have me pegged wrong because of your predisposition towards individuals who are skeptical of the OS of 9/11

flameowl

6th December 2007, 02:17 PM

Fair enough. Im curious what side of the tower that is. That certainly seems it would look more blazed if zoomed in. I don't think that is the same picture that was blown up.

Please let us know what you find out. Also you may want to consider the time of day and what particles (if any) are already in the air at the various elevations. I've been told that humidity also has an effect on the translucency and bouyancy of smoke in air. You may wish to consider those factors in your research.

DGM

6th December 2007, 02:18 PM

Vincent Vega

6th December 2007, 02:22 PM

There wasn't even a single REGION engulfed in flames

http://i10.tinypic.com/3517km8.jpg
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii135/911BLOS/flames.jpg

There is no comparison

They are scattered fires over the region and even on specific floors.

Not a single region or even a single floor that can be considered engulfed

WHAT IS YOUR OBSESSION WITH THE WORD ENGULFED?

What is the incredible significance?

Pookster

6th December 2007, 02:22 PM

Im digging for the truth.

Next time while you're digging and you find some gold you want to show off, why not show us at least one of the gold nuggets at the same time you're hollering yeeehaw.

Thanks.

Pookster

6th December 2007, 02:24 PM

I didn't mean on this particular board. I've been on this board for how long? Less than a week?

Okay then. How about a link to a post on whatever board?

peteweaver

6th December 2007, 02:27 PM

I agree, where there is smoke there is fire. I've retracted that line of thinking.

But where there is smoke there isn't necessarily an enraging inferno either.

You may say, I stated the obvious that no portion of the building or possibly even a couple of floors were fully engulfed in flames.

But I swear I've seen people use those terminologies.

There have been buildings where that term is appropriate and it's significantly different.

Take WTC 5 for instance.

Look at that picture
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii135/911BLOS/flames.jpg

It's safe to say that region is ENGULFED in flames. There isn't a gap in the fires that are clearly discernable even from a distance as the flames blaze upward and outwards

Right, what was the load above the fire in WTC 5 ?
How much of the structure was already damaged (and where was the structure damaged ?
What state was the fireproofing in ?
Were its safety margins exceeded ?

Now think about WTC 1 & 2 the load above the fires in those buildings was much heavier, the fireproofing was damaged, the structure was damaged and overloaded.

CurtC

6th December 2007, 02:27 PM

Because all I saw was a building engulfed in DARK SMOKE which to my knowledge is a sign of an oxygen deprived fire.

From http://www.slate.com/id/2145891/ :
What makes some smoke white and other smoke black?

The type of fuel and how hot it's burning. In general, a hotter fire will convert more fuel into elemental carbon, which forms into tiny particles that absorb light and appear in the sky as black smoke. A cooler combustion—or one that doesn't work as efficiently—yields less-pure forms of carbon. These tend to reflect light, making the smoke look white.

The OS says people jumped from buildng to avoid a death by fire, but the scenario of them jumping out to avoid a suffering suffocation of smoke was never considered since obviously it wouldn't fit the official story.
I've never been faced with this situation, but I've heard others say and it's plausible, that people don't jump to their deaths from smoke, they get lightheaded, lie down, and die. People would jump to get away from the pain of fires.

alexg

6th December 2007, 02:27 PM

Well to open up a new can of worms I believe the term 'fully engulfed in fire' was used by the FDNY for building 7. That may be where this whole engulfment issue started.

ETA: scratch that, I think they said fully INVOLVED in fire. Anybody?

DGM

6th December 2007, 02:30 PM

Blackwell

6th December 2007, 02:31 PM

Try making the same argument when the pictures are to scale...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/361747586470c57aa.jpg

Excellent, Shrinker; thanks for that. I was about to put together the same comparison.

flameowl

6th December 2007, 02:35 PM

LOL now that's good!

SEE Signature.
Heh, well actually, that was one of many pithy sayings on the wall of my highschool history teacher. I don't remember the attribution, but I've been using it for years now. He also had the best advice ever for examinations "answer the question asked"... hmm... that applies to boards like this equally well...

GeeMack

6th December 2007, 02:45 PM

You may say that's being the master of the obvious but you'd be surprised how many people say the building was engulfed in flames.

You've been asked to provide specific examples of where such claims have been made. Has this been said a few times, often, or as you've plainly stated, so many times that we'd be surprised? Please point to quotes of people, a surprising number of them even, saying the WTC buildings were "engulfed in flames".

And, as others have been asking, what the heck is your point?

Unfit4Command

6th December 2007, 02:49 PM

Now THIS was the initial fireball famously captured of Flight 175

http://www.yephiah.com/images/Tower/Tower4.jpg

But after that strike, can anybody find the building being what can be considered engulfed in flames? Or even close to it?

Because all I saw was a building engulfed in DARK SMOKE which to my knowledge is a sign of an oxygen deprived fire.

The color of smoke has nothing to do with whether or not a fire is oxygen starved or not. Smoke color is more representative of what is being burned.

"In general, a hotter fire will convert more fuel into elemental carbon, which forms into tiny particles that absorb light and appear in the sky as black smoke. A cooler combustion—or one that doesn't work as efficiently—yields less-pure forms of carbon. These tend to reflect light, making the smoke look white."
http://www.slate.com/id/2145891/

Take these fires for example:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1262447586665ebcca.jpg

The OS says people jumped from buildng to avoid a death by fire, but the scenario of them jumping out to avoid a suffering suffocation of smoke was never considered since obviously it wouldn't fit the official story.

Where does the OS say people jumped from the building to avoid death by fire? I've heard people say it was hot above the impact points, I'm sure you can agree with that, but smoke probably played a huge role also.

But still to this day I cannot find a single picture outside the initial fireball of anything that could qualify as a fraction of a serious fire.

http://pixhost.eu/avaxhome/avaxhome/2007-09-10/WorldTradeCenter.jpg

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20070929/capt.sge.eor14.290907132341.photo00.photo.default-512x341.jpg

http://w-uh.com/images/911_world_trade_center.jpg

http://www.stargazr.us/NYC%20Memorial/World%20trade%20center%20from%20accross%20the%20wa ter%20WTC%20before%20collapse,%20after%20crashes.j pg

http://www.internet-esq.com/worldtradecenter/IMG_0362a.jpg

http://pictopia.com/perl/get_image?provider_id=10&size=550x550_mb&ptp_photo_id=468150
This is the most fire I can find

Here's one of your biggest problems. The heaviest fires in the North Tower were on the South Face, not the North. When Flight 11 struck the North Tower, large sections of several floor slabs were destroyed in the impact area, and a lot of the combustible material was pushed further into the building. So, the lack of floor area and combustibles in these areas probably played a part in hampering the fires on the North Face of the North Tower and the South Face of the South Tower.

The South Face of the building looked entirely different. Heavy fires were burning and the perimeter was bowing in, most likely due to sagging floor trusses.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12624475865f7d8db9.jpg

The building was even leaning towards the South (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixp.pdf) according to radio transmissions from the helicopters flying around the buildings.

As for the South Tower, the heaviest fires were on the east face (and the NE corner), obviously. Just look at the massive amounts of buckling perimeter columns:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/126244758690794094.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12624475869e45fefb.jpg

Here are a few other photographs showing some fires and how the fires in the North Tower were growing more intense with time:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/126244758690756c3b.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/126244758690720541.jpg

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.

Zlaya

6th December 2007, 03:04 PM

ok, I think I speak for most debunkers ON THIS FORUM, when I say that...

"THE ENTIRE WTC1 and/or WTC2 BUILDINGS WERE NOT ENTIRELY ENGULFED IN FLAMES."

I also think I can speak for most debunkers here, when I say...

"SEVERAL FLOORS ABOVE AND BELOW THE IMPACT ZONES WERE HEAVILY ENGULFED IN FLAMES."

Does that help clarify?

TAM:)

Good good, that's much better. Now let's extend that thought - was the fire strong enough to completely evaporate, melt and destroy the entire core of the two towers?

DGM

6th December 2007, 03:12 PM

Good good, that's much better. Now let's extend that thought - was the fire strong enough to completely evaporate, melt and destroy the entire core of the two towers?
No, Why? Do you think that happened?

(Hint It didn't)

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 03:13 PM

Good good, that's much better. Now let's extend that thought - was the fire strong enough to completely evaporate, melt and destroy the entire core of the two towers?

That's a never ending topic for another day.

I was just wondering why I've never even seen pictures of an intense fire of any kind.

Turns out they were on the other side I guess.

Good enough for me.

Zlaya

6th December 2007, 03:18 PM

No, Why? Do you think that happened?

(Hint It didn't)

No i never said that i think that's what happened, but something in fact did make those 2 giant core structures go away - which is evident. So, we concur that the fire did not make the core columns disappear?

Good, at least we have that myth behind us.

I concur, i won't go further into this, since it's not relevant to the original post, i just wanted to hear debunkers state that fires did not make those columns dissappear.

Vincent Vega

6th December 2007, 03:22 PM

No i never said that i think that's what happened, but something in fact did make those 2 giant core structures go away - which is evident. So, we concur that the fire did not make the core columns disappear?

Good, at least we have that myth behind us.

I concur, i won't go further into this, since it's not relevant to the original post, i just wanted to hear debunkers state that fires did not make those columns dissappear.

No the individual core columns were there all allong...right down to the ground. Nothing made them 'go away'. They simply ceased being sufficently able to support their loads. But like you said...different thread.

PhantomWolf

6th December 2007, 03:36 PM

No i never said that i think that's what happened, but something in fact did make those 2 giant core structures go away - which is evident. So, we concur that the fire did not make the core columns disappear?

Good, at least we have that myth behind us.

I concur, i won't go further into this, since it's not relevant to the original post, i just wanted to hear debunkers state that fires did not make those columns dissappear.

You do realise that large portions of the cores of both towers stood for about 10-15 seconds after the rest of the building had collapsed before collasping themselves? Of course you did, I mean, otherwise you can't have studied the collapses very hard, and when you're making the statements you are one has to assume you have at least spent time studying it first.

DGM

6th December 2007, 03:39 PM

Brainster

6th December 2007, 04:05 PM

No i never said that i think that's what happened, but something in fact did make those 2 giant core structures go away - which is evident. So, we concur that the fire did not make the core columns disappear?

Good, at least we have that myth behind us.

Ah, I see we have a Star Wars beamer. Let me guess, the next thing we'll see is the spire "dustifying"?

Mangoose

6th December 2007, 04:24 PM

This one usually gets a gasp when I show it in my high school lectures:

Especially when you point out the deformation on the South Face.

beachnut

6th December 2007, 05:12 PM

It appears truthers and people who do not understand 9/11 need to have fires only presented at night. I have never seen bigger fires in buildings. Who has seen bigger fires in buildings? I have never seen someone start a building fire with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in less than a second. 9/11 was the nightmare of all firefighters. Why are there people dumb enough to think the fires were small? How can you be that dumb?

Tell me who has set a fire in a building with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the heat energy of 315 tons of TNT? If 9/11 fires were at night, we would not be talking to grade school mentality morons who thing the fires are small (9/11 truth is made up of grade school mentality morons!).

tomwaits

6th December 2007, 05:36 PM

here's where he laughs at people for splitting hairs in his vocabulary:
Lol you can classify it however you want to classify it

and here...IN THE SAME EXACT POST....he splits hairs on the use of the word "engulfed":
All Im saying is it's not accurate from anything we've seen to say the building was engulfed in flames.

As someone else said, either you are severely concerned with the exact meaning of words or you aren't. You can't have it both ways.

T.A.M.

6th December 2007, 05:59 PM

Good good, that's much better. Now let's extend that thought - was the fire strong enough to completely evaporate, melt and destroy the entire core of the two towers?

COMPLETELY EVAPORATE???

That is the strawman of strawmen.

Who said the FIRE destroyed the ENTIRE CORE?

Why are you behaving like a spoiled child?

TAM:)

T.A.M.

6th December 2007, 06:01 PM

No i never said that i think that's what happened, but something in fact did make those 2 giant core structures go away - which is evident. So, we concur that the fire did not make the core columns disappear?

Good, at least we have that myth behind us.

I concur, i won't go further into this, since it's not relevant to the original post, i just wanted to hear debunkers state that fires did not make those columns dissappear.

please point out a single debunker here who has said that the fires either EVAPORATED or COMPLETELY DESTROYED OR MADE DISAPPEAR the core.

Come on, even for a truther, this is getting a bit ridiculous.

TAM:)

bonavada

6th December 2007, 07:34 PM

please point out a single debunker here who has said that the fires either EVAPORATED or COMPLETELY DESTROYED OR MADE DISAPPEAR the core.
Come on, even for a truther, this is getting a bit ridiculous.
TAM:)

its never-ending isn't it? all the smokin' guns and still no-one in the dock..........melted steel faster than freefall pnac pull-it evaporation isi missile pods space beams mini-nukes nwo cartoon planes clunkity-clunk collapse footprint caveman couldn't do it dancing jews dead dogs basement bombs thermite powerdown smokey faces numerology pulverisation passenger manifest planted passport pools of molten metal squibs seismic spikes scrap to china no debris controlled demolition norad standown false flags black-ops new pearl harbour north of citgo illuminati voice morphing whistle-blowers zionists thermate psyops able danger neocons white jet remote control.....and so many more i couldn't remember

Round and round we go
Where it's going nobody knows
Though I know we've been
This place before
Someone keeps on moving the door

J Lennon RIP

BV

CurtC

6th December 2007, 07:48 PM

I concur, i won't go further into this, since it's not relevant to the original post, i just wanted to hear debunkers state that fires did not make those columns dissappear.
For the record, I want to make my opinion known that the columns also were not magicked away by leprechauns.

AZCat

6th December 2007, 08:06 PM

For the record, I want to make my opinion known that the columns also were not magicked away by leprechauns.

I would also like to express my sincere belief that they were not eaten by a enormous mutant star goat (when you weren't looking, of course).

T.A.M.

6th December 2007, 08:12 PM

For the record, I want to make my opinion known that the columns also were not magicked away by leprechauns.

Got any proof they weren't? If not, then I suggest you stop speculating...lol

TAM;)

LashL

6th December 2007, 08:15 PM

i just wanted to hear debunkers state that fires did not make those columns dissappear.

Since the columns did not disappear, I don't think you will ever hear a skeptic claim that fires (or anything else, for that matter) made them disappear.

FactCheck

6th December 2007, 08:45 PM

Yes, it's a the scale of the buildings the conspiracy industry wants you to forget...

http://www.debunking911.com/scale1.jpghttp://www.debunking911.com/scale2.jpg

MetalliSociety

6th December 2007, 09:02 PM

Lol you can classify it however you want to classify it but there are no zoomed out shots that show that represent the building was even close to encompassed in flames.

And even in the close up shots, it pales in comparison to the smoke.

Is that the case in the pictures of WTC 5 or any other building that can be classified as a building ENGULFED in flames?

All Im saying is it's not accurate from anything we've seen to say the building was engulfed in flames.

Oh but I forgot, around these parts people don't admit when they're wrong.

Your 'zoomed out shots" are often from a mile away, possibly more.

MetalliSociety

6th December 2007, 09:06 PM

Good good, that's much better. Now let's extend that thought - was the fire strong enough to completely evaporate, melt and destroy the entire core of the two towers?

The core didn't melt or evaporate. Evaporation is for liquids. The cores at certain area were severed from the impact cause even more strain on those that werent. The fires weakened them even further, and with the trusses weakening as well, cause collapse.

There's plenty of videos on youtube that show the core still standing after the rest of the building collapsed. It may not have lasted long, but it was still standing, something that would never happen if it was a controlled demolition.

AZCat

6th December 2007, 09:15 PM

The core didn't melt or evaporate. Evaporation is for liquids.

Sometimes solids can evaporate - it's called sublimation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28chemistry%29). The most common example of this is dry ice.

gumboot

6th December 2007, 09:37 PM

You don't have to be zoomed in to catch something like this

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2007/290407WINDSOR.jpg

The impact floors alone of each tower had larger volume than the entire Windsor Tower. You have absolutely no sense of scale whatsoever do you?

-Gumboot

gumboot

6th December 2007, 09:40 PM

was the fire strong enough to completely evaporate, melt and destroy the entire core of the two towers?

This is one of the stupidest comments I have read regarding 9/11. Congratulations.

-Gumboot

Totovader

6th December 2007, 10:03 PM

THat's not at all what IM saying.

Im saying that "engulfed" is the wrong terminology simply by the definition of the word.

There is a difference from saying there were several fires in the building and the building was engulfed in flames.

To say there wasn't a difference is ignorant of the definition of the word.

Of course every floor wouldn't have to be on fire for it to be considered engulfed. THat's absurd. I've never seen a burning building where that's the case. Maybe on a one story house.

It's just a case where when flames dominant a significant area of the building which is not the case.

Sure a half dozen floors with fire is a lot of damage. But in proportion to the size of the building, and with the proportion of smoke that dominants directly out of the same spots, it's not reasonable to use that term.

Gotta love the fallacy of equivocation. You aren't saying anything meaningful. If your beef is whether the entire building- or even "in proportion to the size of the building" a large portion was not in flames- then the error in your misunderstanding has been corrected.

Instead- as many people have pointed out, you need to be addressing whether the fires were significant enough to cause damage (as found by various investigations).

Or... are you doing that "informal logic" thing "instead of discussing the facts" that you were complaining about in the other thread?

Me thinks me see a hypocrite...

Hamradioguy

6th December 2007, 10:13 PM

I would like him(?) to ask a fireman how big a couple of acres of office fires would be.
Huge! (I can think of other terms but Forum rules prevent my posting these.) Most of us in the fire service rarely experience anything larger than a "room and contents" fire. We're talking 150-200 square feet. Perhaps 1,400 cubic feet. It's hot- you don't approach without a LOT of water available, including backup lines. Rarely a whole floor of a dwelling will be going- perhaps 12,000 cubic feet. Those you may end up fighting in defensive mode with multiple lines. Barn fires or commercial buildings? We're talking 100,000 cubic feet. That takes thousands of gallons per minute for several hours or more. The WTC? Several million cubic feet. Someone else can do the math and calculate how much water for how long would be needed to extinguish these fires.

Somehow I get the impression that Stickman2008 has no actual firefighting experience. Why not ask a firefighter then? Or at the least do some research: The NFPA has plenty of good material on fire behavior, fire stream development, water requirements and more. Too technical? Then check out appropriate issues of Firehouse Magazine or Fire Engineering. Read some of the writings of Alan Brunacini. Still too technical? Then start with Dennis Smith's "Report From Ground Zero".

Wikipedia, YouTube, online photos and various CT sites are NOT the way to learn about fire behavior and high rise fires.

StickMan2008

6th December 2007, 11:03 PM

Gotta love the fallacy of equivocation. You aren't saying anything meaningful. If your beef is whether the entire building- or even "in proportion to the size of the building" a large portion was not in flames- then the error in your misunderstanding has been corrected.

Instead- as many people have pointed out, you need to be addressing whether the fires were significant enough to cause damage (as found by various investigations).

Or... are you doing that "informal logic" thing "instead of discussing the facts" that you were complaining about in the other thread?

Me thinks me see a hypocrite...

You made the most basic fallacy which is called ASSUMING

You're assuming Im trying to imply that fires weren't hot enough to cause the damage.

My intention was to see pictures of any kind of a fire because the google images of what I saw, show nothing of the sort

But way to make an ass out of u and me

tomwaits

6th December 2007, 11:33 PM

You made the most basic fallacy which is called ASSUMING

no! you've NEVER done that...

(from this thread!)
The OS says people jumped from buildng to avoid a death by fire, but the scenario of them jumping out to avoid a suffering suffocation of smoke was never considered since obviously it wouldn't fit the official story.
Yeah but the way the smoke was coming OUT of the buildings Im pretty sure putting their heads out of the window wouldn't exactly help much if the same smoke they are trying to escape is still engulfed everywhere.
Oh but I forgot, around these parts people don't admit when they're wrong.

Seriously, Stick. You need to read your own posts before you start with the accusations. Please apologize or explain this contradiction.

Dr Adequate

7th December 2007, 02:05 AM

I just hear people say all the time that the building was engulfed in flames. Well, a google search of these forums (http://www.google.com/custom?q=%22engulfed+in+flames%22&sa=Google+Search&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BAH%3Acente r%3BLH%3A75%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2F images%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlogo.gif%3BLW%3A849%3BAWFID% 3A31746880203d5407%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&sitesearch=forums.randi.org) turns up no-one claiming that WTC1 or WTC2 were "engulfed in flames".

However, a fireman and a paramedic both used that exact phrase to describe WTC7. Perhaps this is what is confusing you.

"Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block." –-- Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110413.PDF)

""'There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker.' We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse." –-- Paramedic Louis Cook (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110103.PDF)

Jonnyclueless

7th December 2007, 02:34 AM

You made the most basic fallacy which is called ASSUMING

You're assuming Im trying to imply that fires weren't hot enough to cause the damage.

My intention was to see pictures of any kind of a fire because the google images of what I saw, show nothing of the sort

But way to make an ass out of u and me

It's an understandable assumption when dealing with someone asking to see pictures of a building engulfed in flames, while posting pictures of the building engulfed in flames.

westprog

7th December 2007, 05:55 AM

Pardon me for a moment, has anyone actually made a claim that the Towers were engulfed in flames, or that certain floors were engulfed in flames?

Stickman's role seems to be rebutting claims that nobody has made. Having disposed of the canard that the impacts alone would have caused the collapse, he's now pointed out that the WTC wasn't all on fire at once.

Normally this technique leads naturally on to the assertion that the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel.

chillzero

7th December 2007, 07:01 AM

A few things.

Zlaya - start a new thread if you want to talk about the cores, please. This one is about the flames.

Stickman, I asked this in the other thread, and got no response:

I was almost going to ask if any of the fallen bodies had been examined, and found to have burned (as well as the obvious damage), but it didn't take me too long to realise why this was a stupid question. And then I got all upset over this again. Why people think that anyone would jump at that distance without damn good reason really escapes me. Stickman - why do you think anyone would jump like that?

Now, Gravy has confirmed that bodies were seen to be on fire, or smoking as they fell, which kind of addresses my initial question. However, I'd still like you to explain - why do you think anyone would jump?

Finally, I think you are missing some perspective on this. These buildings were so much bigger than WTC7, that the fire inside could be double that in WTC7, and still not touch the edges. Can you not sit for a moment and imagine the fire burning up acres and acres of office floor space, burning up through the centre of the building - upward where the heat directs it, fed by air incoming from the windows, and the smoke escaping via the windows. The fact that we see any flames - on the opposite side of the building from the crash - is testimony to the incredibly fast spread and the size of the fire.

Totovader

7th December 2007, 07:13 AM

You made the most basic fallacy which is called ASSUMING

You're assuming Im trying to imply that fires weren't hot enough to cause the damage.

I made no such assumption- I pointed out that this is what would be necessary for your argument to even be worth considering. Instead of going for the facts and having a relevant discussion, you want to play semantics.

Isn't that exactly what you were accusing everyone else of doing in the other thread? And speaking of the other thread- you seem to be completely contradicting your statements there (statements you claim not to be making).

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.

If it was indeed hot enough to mold steel, people just within FEET of the incendiary would have been toast. Yet here they are seen waving from the buildings as if there was no raging inferno.

Which would be consistent with the fact that it was reported on radios as isolated pockets of fire that could have been knocked down with a couple of water hoses.

Would have been consistent with the fact that most of the dominant substance out of those towers after the initial fireball is DARK SMOKE which is consistent with an oxygen deprived fire.

If a building is engulfed in flames, that dark black smoke would have been replaced with some bright orange flames.

Are you reversing your position?

My intention was to see pictures of any kind of a fire because the google images of what I saw, show nothing of the sort

I think it's pretty obvious that your intention was an equivocation argument- since you seem completely unwilling to discuss anything of relevance to the issue.

But way to make an ass out of u and me

If pointing out your inconsistencies makes me an ass, then I guess I'm an ass.

CurtC

7th December 2007, 07:30 AM

Sometimes solids can evaporate - it's called sublimation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28chemistry%29). The most common example of this is dry ice.
What's the triple point of steel?

Hellbound

7th December 2007, 07:32 AM

Just for fun, I took Stick's image as a base. I measureed the distance from floor to floor in pixels (about 50). I then measured the same distance on the WTC 1/WTC2 fire pics, and got 33 pixels. That means the WTC picture needed to be increased by 151.5% to match size. I scaled the pictures appropriately, and inserted Stick's picture into the WTC 1/2 pics. The result is below (to verify, you can compare the floor heights there. I may be off by a pixel or two, but it's a better comaprison than Stick's origanl posting without scale):
http://p12.hostingprod.com/@randomhuntsman.com/images/scaled.jpg

MetalliSociety

7th December 2007, 08:03 AM

Huntsman, it wont show up here, and I tried putting the link in the address bar and it says that I don't have permission to look at it :(

Hellbound

7th December 2007, 08:24 AM

Dang it! Let me see if I can fix it (grumble grumble).

That's odd, I was just able to get to it without signing in at all, so it doesn't appear to be an issue with that part.

Let me see if I can post it elsewhere and add a link.

Okay, maybe now?

AZCat

7th December 2007, 08:32 AM

What's the triple point of steel?

Aaaaahhh! Don't nitpick my nitpick! It's not allowed. :mad:

(I tried finding it, but had no luck. I couldn't even find it for iron. If you know it I would be interested in the answer, although I have an idea that it is well below STP.)

MetalliSociety

7th December 2007, 08:39 AM

Yup, it works now. Thanks Huntsman!

Hellbound

7th December 2007, 08:44 AM

And now it's down, because yahoo is crappy and I don't have a real hosting account.

I've exceeded my bandwidth. Sheesh!

I need a real server :)

Dave Rogers

7th December 2007, 08:44 AM

They look fine now, Huntsman. Thanks for producing and posting these.

What's notable about those photos is that WTC5 is more or less in the shadow of its own smoke, so the flames show up very brightly against a dim background. The tower is in sunlight, so the flames are very much less pronounced. However, if you actually look at the picture, rather than glancing at it and refusing to see something that might change your cherished opinion, you can see that every window across several floors appears to have an orange tint to it, not just the ones where the smoke is pouring out. Compare that to the WTC5 shot, where the lower windows aren't putting out smoke and aren't as bright, and correct for the intensity scale, and you can see that there is fire behind those windows too, and that "engulfed in flames" is not too bad a description. Those fires were almost unimaginably huge.

Dave

sts60

7th December 2007, 08:45 AM

Huge! (I can think of other terms but Forum rules prevent my posting these.) Most of us in the fire service rarely experience anything larger than a "room and contents" fire. We're talking 150-200 square feet. Perhaps 1,400 cubic feet. It's hot- you don't approach without a LOT of water available, including backup lines. Rarely a whole floor of a dwelling will be going- perhaps 12,000 cubic feet. Those you may end up fighting in defensive mode with multiple lines. Barn fires or commercial buildings? We're talking 100,000 cubic feet. That takes thousands of gallons per minute for several hours or more. The WTC? Several million cubic feet. Someone else can do the math and calculate how much water for how long would be needed to extinguish these fires.

The NFA rule of thumb is:
- Flow required (GPM) = (L X W (in feet) / 3) * % involvement
- Add 1/4 for each exposure

WTC 1 & 2 were each roughly 200' x 200'. So, for, say, six floors each 50% involved - a reasonably conservative estimate - we would need
(200 * 200 / 3) * 1/2 = ~6,700 GPM per floor * 6 = 40,000 GPM
Add 1/4 * 6,700 for each exposure (above and below fire floors) = 1675 *2 = 3350

Which gives a total required flow of very roughly forty-three thousand gallons per minute, or about one hundred sixty-four thousand liters per minute.

Sure a half dozen floors with fire is a lot of damage. But in proportion to the size of the building, and with the proportion of smoke that dominants directly out of the same spots, it's not reasonable to use that term.

I like that. In proportion to a quarter-mile tall building. Ya know, I've run some trauma patients who had holes in their head that were very small in proportion to the size of their bodies. Beats the heck outta me why they died.

Hellbound

7th December 2007, 08:58 AM

Okay, I upgraded my web site to get an actual domain name and a bit more download capability, and I modified my earlier post with the updated info. May need to change it again once the final domain comes through.

sts60

7th December 2007, 09:00 AM

That made me think of something else. The county where I volunteer, which has a population of about one million, has 32 pumpers continually in service. The pumps on them are rated at 1250 GPM at 150 psi. Every single one of our front-line pumpers together could not quite deliver the required water flow based on the calculation above. Not really relevant to WTC, but striking nonetheless.

AZCat

7th December 2007, 09:10 AM

Which gives a total required flow of very roughly forty-three thousand gallons per minute, or about one hundred sixty-four thousand liters per minute.

A 24" diameter pipe can flow 43,000 GPM at about 5 psi/100' pressure loss. Figuring 1100' rise for the standpipe, this means the pump pushing all this needs (5psi/100')*(1100')*(2.3'/psi)+(1100')=1226 feet of head at 43,000 GPM. The horsepower of that pump would be enormous - in the range of 10-20,000 hp.

Pardalis

7th December 2007, 01:05 PM

Omegablue StickMan, how long did the fires last?

dudalb

7th December 2007, 01:18 PM

Im digging for the truth.

Im not some arrogant basterd who won't admit when he's wrong.

I think it's more than reasonable to expect to see pictures like this before.

Usually google is pretty reliable.

I could cop out and say assanine things like those pictures are fake because I've never seen them before but that's not me.

You have me pegged wrong because of your predisposition towards individuals who are skeptical of the OS of 9/11

You have already decided what is the truth,and it's that 9/11 was an inside job.
At least be honest,and drop this "just asking questions" crap.

Hamradioguy

7th December 2007, 02:40 PM

Which gives a total required flow of very roughly forty-three thousand gallons per minute, or about one hundred sixty-four thousand liters per minute.

Thanks sts60. You don't want to know how many years it's been since I had to crunch such numbers in what's now called Firefighter I. In our rural area staffed with volunteers it's simply, "little fire-little water. Big fire-big water."

Pretty obvious to anyone in the fire service looking at the fires in WTC 1 and 2 that getting that amount of water on to multiple floors fully involved in fire and 800 feet in the air would be all but impossible. You just let it burn out and hope there isn't major structural damage.

MG1962

7th December 2007, 02:45 PM

Thanks sts60. You don't want to know how many years it's been since I had to crunch such numbers in what's now called Firefighter I. In our rural area staffed with volunteers it's simply, "little fire-little water. Big fire-big water."

Pretty obvious to anyone in the fire service looking at the fires in WTC 1 and 2 that getting that amount of water on to multiple floors fully involved in fire and 800 feet in the air would be all but impossible. You just let it burn out and hope there isn't major structural damage.

How do yoy feel the builings would have performed with an intact sprinkler system?

gumboot

7th December 2007, 02:50 PM

Pretty obvious to anyone in the fire service looking at the fires in WTC 1 and 2 that getting that amount of water on to multiple floors fully involved in fire and 800 feet in the air would be all but impossible. You just let it burn out and hope there isn't major structural damage.

Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer decided within minutes of arriving on the scene that the fires could not be fought, and ordered rescue operations only.

-Gumboot

Dr Adequate

7th December 2007, 05:38 PM

But why not focus on the fact that the alleged heat was intense enough to weaken structural steel yet not hot enough to affect people who were seen waving from buildings.

If it was indeed hot enough to mold steel, people just within FEET of the incendiary would have been toast. Ah yes, the Twoofer proof of the existence of cold fire.

Overlooking, for the moment, your unwarranted assumption that the fire was equally iintense everywhere, rather than being hotter in the middle, may I ask if you have ever seen a blacksmith at work? He too is standing mere feet away from a heat source intense enough to weaken steel and allow him to mold it.

Heck, haven't you ever stood next to a fire? Air is a good insulator. Heat rises.

Dave_46

9th December 2007, 03:15 AM

How do yoy feel the builings would have performed with an intact sprinkler system?

I think sprinkler systems are designed to supply four or five heads maximum. The idea is that they control a developing fire. The size of the almost instantaneously fully developed fire would have activated probably hundreds of heads, so the water supply would be totally inadequate.

(This post is brought to you from my memory of working with people who test sprinkler systems)

Dave

R.Mackey

9th December 2007, 03:43 AM

Finally, I think you are missing some perspective on this. These buildings were so much bigger than WTC7, that the fire inside could be double that in WTC7, and still not touch the edges.

This is actually not the case. WTC 7 had a larger footprint than either WTC 1 or 2, and to the best of our knowledge burned on more floors as well. All three of these were ridiculously large office fires -- the three largest of all time, in fact.

WTC 5, on the other hand, no comparison. But it still would have been a memorable fire if it hadn't occurred in the shadow of an even greater tragedy.

To put it into perspective, the WTC Towers each burned with a fire approximately 60 times the size of my entire property. There aren't enough fire engines in any city to reasonably handle something that big. Nonetheless, there seems to be no shortage of Tuesday Morning Quarterbacks who scoff, safely anonymous at their keyboards, at the trifling nature of those fires. Go forth and show us how it's done then, O Legends Among Firefighters. Or better yet, admit that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, because it's obvious to everyone else.

uk_dave

9th December 2007, 04:10 AM

Practically all concerns 'truthers' have about the events of 9-11 could be allayed if only they would speak with.....

Structural Engineers with experience of designing multi-storey steel structures
Firefighters
Air crash investigators
Airline pilots
Air traffic controllers
That they don't (or won't) merely means that their entire argument is based on nothing more than their own fantasy.

westprog

9th December 2007, 06:25 AM

In proportion to a quarter-mile tall building. Ya know, I've run some trauma patients who had holes in their head that were very small in proportion to the size of their bodies. Beats the heck outta me why they died.

The implication of StickMan's assertion seems to be that the higher the building, the more stable it would be. If it were a mile high, the fact that entire floors were destroyed halfway up would be insignificant.

Do we have to pick away at this particular fallacy any more? Or is it sufficient to point out that the important factor is not how many floors were compromised, but how much of a single floor - because once a single floor failed, the building couldn't stay up regardless of how much of the rest of it was intact.

Hamradioguy

9th December 2007, 12:24 PM

I think sprinkler systems are designed to supply four or five heads maximum. The idea is that they control a developing fire. The size of the almost instantaneously fully developed fire would have activated probably hundreds of heads, so the water supply would be totally inadequate.

(This post is brought to you from my memory of working with people who test sprinkler systems)

Dave

Good answer, Dave. Mind you I'm a rural firefigher and not a high rise expert. We had sprinklers in our college dorms and they worked well with things like wastebasket and bedsheet fires. But sprinkler heads usually don't flow more than 30-50 GPM- and that's with just a few heads open, not hundreds. That's way too little to handle massive fires started by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Maybe a Fire Protection Engineer out there can provide specifics.

chillzero

10th December 2007, 06:32 AM

This is actually not the case. WTC 7 had a larger footprint than either WTC 1 or 2, and to the best of our knowledge burned on more floors as well. All three of these were ridiculously large office fires -- the three largest of all time, in fact.

WTC 5, on the other hand, no comparison. But it still would have been a memorable fire if it hadn't occurred in the shadow of an even greater tragedy.

To put it into perspective, the WTC Towers each burned with a fire approximately 60 times the size of my entire property. There aren't enough fire engines in any city to reasonably handle something that big. Nonetheless, there seems to be no shortage of Tuesday Morning Quarterbacks who scoff, safely anonymous at their keyboards, at the trifling nature of those fires. Go forth and show us how it's done then, O Legends Among Firefighters. Or better yet, admit that you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, because it's obvious to everyone else.

Thanks for the correction - I have yet to visit New York, and was unable to correctly compare the buildings in my mind from the various individual pieces of info that have been posted.