NAVIGATION |
|
|
THE ALEX JONES
SHOW |
|
|
|
|
|
SERVICES |
|
|
|
|
|
ARCHIVES |
|
|
|
SPECIAL REPORTS |
|
|
|
|
LINKS |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| CONTACT |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| ADVERTISEMENTS
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Jet Fuel Made the WTC Fires Cooler
George
Washington Blog
Thursday, November 29, 2007
People assume that the jet fuel
which ignited the fires in the Twin Towers made the fires quite hot. However,
Thomas Eager, a Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems
at MIT and a defender of the official story explains
that the jet fuel actually made the fires cooler:
" . . . the fact that there were 90,000 L of
jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually
hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual . .
. .
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely,
a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally
involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions
and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion
products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the
chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what
occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the
most intense heat.
In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited
as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not
attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or
a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.
In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition,
but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant
ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is
a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.
Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame
types.
If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum
flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen,
the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually
any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient
temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.
This maximum flame temperature is
reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen.
The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation
of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen
is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide
and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus
four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces
only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because
three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The
maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel)
in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel
at 1,500°C.
But it is very difficult to reach
this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing
to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the
best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the
excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is
known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire
or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by
adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich
diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again.
This is why the temperatures in a
residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It
is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced
by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely
burned fuel; hence,
the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel
available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot
decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature
closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it
is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures
above the 750–800°C range."
Obviously, the jet fuel
was a source of fuel, and so contributed to the ignition and spreading of
the fire in the first place. However, there was actually very
little jet fuel in the overall scheme of things. Moreover, the purpose
of this essay is merely to show that jet fuel -- contrary to most people's
assumption -- would not have created a hot fire, and that the fires in the
Twin Towers did not get that hot. See this.
Admittedly, the soot from the jet fuel and other burning hydrocarbons may
have raised the temperature somewhat. However, as Professor Eager points
out, the fact that it was a fuel-rich fire -- at least while the jet fuel
was still burning -- decreased the temperature of the fire "by a factor
up to two", which would more than offset the increase due to reduction of
radiative heat loss.
|
|
|