How hot does diesel burn?

[NikFu S.]

I need this information to shed light on a discussion involving something. The important thing to know is whther diesel burns hot enough to melt concrete or steel in extreme circumstances.
My bet is no it can't, but I need verifiable data, and I cannot for the life of me find it.

Steel melts at around a low of 1370°C (2500°F) up to 1500°C.
The melting point of concrete varies between 1800-2500°C.

Matter of fact, I could make use of any fuel, especially jet fuel and natural gas, and things that can be found piping through buildings.

[Andy]

Twin Towers?

[Hocrest]

ibfbishowsupatnikfusdoor

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by Andy

Twin Towers?

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/show...=95840&page=23

Originally Posted by Hocrest

ibfbishowsupatnikfusdoor

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=101778

[NikFu S.]

I think I got what I need.

[NapaBavarian]

Fact check needs to pull his head out of his arse, the fires did play a role, so the person puts the temps at under 1500*F, lets say it was 1200*, yup, far weaker than the standard range of 0-120*, now go grap a 1/2 inch piece of solid steele, try to bend it, heat the middle up to 1200* and try to bend it again, any easier? Add that to loss of structural integrity from a jumbo jet impact and BAM!

To help with the misleading statement they put the first 2 tempature statements in *C then *F, but the final one is just *C, most people in this country think primarily in *F, so unless you read it very carefully it looks like it is comparing 1517* to 800* when in reality it is comparing 825* to 800*, I caught that on the 3rd time of reading.

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

Fact check needs to pull his head out of his arse, the fires did play a role, so the person puts the temps at under 1500*F, lets say it was 1200*, yup, far weaker than the standard range of 0-120*, now go grap a 1/2 inch piece of solid steele, try to bend it, heat the middle up to 1200* and try to bend it again, any easier? Add that to loss of structural integrity from a jumbo jet impact and BAM!

I am pretty much neutral on the whole issue but I guess I agree with you here, but there is a lot more involved than this simple fire that ravaged 4 or 5 floors.

Originally Posted by NapaBavarian

To help with the misleading statement they put the first 2 tempature statements in *C then *F, but the final one is just *C, most people in this country think primarily in *F, so unless you read it very carefully it looks like it is comparing 1517* to 800* when in reality it is comparing 825* to 800*, I caught that on the 3rd time of reading.

Eh, any way you slice it the fire is estimated at burning at only half the temp required to turn steel molten.

I did run across something obscure that appeared in an article, stating that concrete pretty much loses all it's chemical bonds due to the moisture evaporating during superhot fire, which throws the melting point I found into question.

Inconsistencies suck.

I'm tired of reading dead end articles.

You said grap.

[NapaBavarian]

I did say grap

If the question is did the towers melt, the answer is flat no, they couldn't melt, the weight of the sections above crushed them long before melting can take place. Exactly what hapened is impossible to say, but by saying the fires didn't play a role saying that without the fires the buildings would not have fallen, unless the tooth fairy did it

[NikFu S.]

Meh I think I know what really happened.

http://wtct.ytmnd.com/

[NapaBavarian]

So let me get this straight, it was the Russians? I knew binladen was a skape goat all along!

[NikFu S.]

People just assumed the Russian's Tetris block technology was a myth, but you know how people disregard the astonishing as impossible.

[NapaBavarian]

I just figured that one couldn't use the terms "Russian's" and "technology" in the same sentence

[upnygimp]

Ah, but I'd like to hear your explanation of how other skyscrapers have had fires in them, and still didn't collapse? To date, there have been 3 that collapsed- WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. There have been ones that have raged for 24 hrs+ and still they stay up with no weakening of the structural steel.

[NapaBavarian]

Originally Posted by upnygimp

Ah, but I'd like to hear your explanation of how other skyscrapers have had fires in them, and still didn't collapse? To date, there have been 3 that collapsed- WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. There have been ones that have raged for 24 hrs+ and still they stay up with no weakening of the structural steel.

Perhaps they didn't have jumbo jets fly into them and loosten stuff up first and perhaps since they burned for longer the fire was cooler, how much of the building was above the other fires?

Edit: Just because they didn't fall dosn't mean that they weren't weakened.

[NikFu S.]

The Tetris project was a complete accident. The prototype tetraids were only 3 inches tall but they grew to gigantic proportions after Chernobyl irradiated them.
In 1989 a program was designed to control them, but the Russians needed the money so they marketed the program to children in the form of a simple portable game for beta testing. The control program was renovated many times over the next decade until the Russians needed more money and sold it to Al Queda.
They didn't have any AA batteries because they live in a desert and ride camels so without a form of control the giganto tetraids went crazy and did the only thing that came natural.
If you think about it it's not really crazy if it's natural, but I bet you wish I wrote the script for Scary Movie 4. What a pile of crap.

---
[end satirical thingy]
---

It was admitted on television WTC7 was demolished after the fires could not be put out.
How the fires started, I am not at liberty to say.

This is the building that had the deisel powered generators.