>X-Sent: 13 Sep 2001 16:44:35 GMT
>Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 12:44:34 -0400
>X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.388)
>From: Chuck Murcko <chuck at topsail.org>
>To: <fork at xent.com>
>
>I'm well aware that you need an aerosol. That's why I've used terms such
>as "vapor" and "stochiometric fuel/air mixture" in my previous posts. Damn
>near anything organic dispersed as aerosol (including dust) produces an
>explosive mixture when the vapor or dust to air ratio is correct; these
>usually ignite at less than 500 F.
>
>I've also thought I made it clear I don't agree with the mainstream
>thinking on this. I believe there was a delayed ignition on impact (watch
>the video - no blast seen for 1-2 frames). How do you think that flame
>blew back out the hole the jet just made in the building? It's a blast.
>This short delay allowed generation of enough kerosene vapor to cause
>significant blast effects inside the structure, which enhanced the ensuing
>fire's effect. The blast effects were channelled vertically by the load
>bearing wall design of the WTC, as was the fire. You don't need many cubic
>feet of kerosene vapor to get the blast effects of tons of TNT (each 4000
>cu ft of kerosene vapor/aerosol is roughly a ton of TNT, ignited). How
>else could one get a flame front that popped out of the 107th floor to
>propagate so quickly up and out from the 87th (where the north tower
>collision was, watch the east side of the tower at the frames just after
>collision)?
>
>I believe the towers could not have collapsed as quickly as they did from
>fire effects alone. So did all of the first wave of rescuers and
>firefighters who arrived at the scene, including the NYC Fire Dept.
>Commander of Special Operations. These people were very familiar with the
>conditions necessary for the collapse of WTC. They would not have chosen
>to risk their lives unnecessarily if they believed the tower(s) were in
>danger of imminent collapse. Their tactics indicate they were intending to
>reconnoiter, put out a fire, and rescue people, not evacuate them from the
>area of a large building on the verge of collapsing.
>
>Can you name any other high rise collapses that happened in one hour due
>entirely to thermal reasons? I know of none, and I've been looking for
>them. The MGM Grand and the 48 story high rise recently demolished in
>Phila. are two buildings I know of that were gutted by hot burning fires
>which lasted days, but did not collapse the building steel (which was
>basically all that was left in the building core).
>
>How long did the Moscow TV tower burn? An entire *day*. I believe it is
>still standing.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/27/moscow.fire/
>
>Consider the atomizing effects of the 60-90,000 liters of fuel hitting the
>structure at 300 knots. I think the fast fuel dispersion (both liquid and
>vapor) is taken care of, as well. I'm not saying all the fuel went off as
>vapor. I am saying it is just as preposterous to claim that *none* of it
>did, and that kerosene vapor ignition (a FAE) was needed to make these
>fires destroy the building structures as efficiently and quickly as they did.
>
>Chuck
>
>On Thursday, September 13, 2001, at 07:38 AM, Eugene Leitl wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Chuck Murcko wrote:
>>
>>>Agreed. The blast effects of FAEs were not as well understood when WTC
>>>was designed as they are now, as well. FAE military weapons were only
>>>just being developed at that time.
>>
>>Um, you do realize how FAEs work? Usually it's liquid oxirane or propane
>>epoxid that is dispersed over a large area, then detonated after a while
>>with a second time-delay charge. Liquid hydrocarbons with low vapor
>>pressure will only detonate if you create an aerosol, and allow some time
>>for it to spread.
>>
>>The collapse was due entirely to thermal reasons, as ignition was
>>instanteous on impact.
>
>Chuck Murcko
>Topsail Group
>http://www.topsail.org/
>
>
>http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork