Chemistry, Fire, and Collapse

[gumboot]

Actually he proposes that they reduced the energy needed for the collapses and speed-ed the decent of the upper structures.
Also there are other problems because fires in the buildings at the time of collapse do not provide a means of keeping the rubble piles hot enough.
The reaction that happened in the towers had to also be the reaction that started the heating of the ground and the rubble pile NIST estimates of the heat about 700-800c could not have sustained the heating, for as long as it did.
The air samples show Spheres that could not have been created in the NIST Hypothesis.

Here is where I have a problem with this whole thing...

We're getting a lot of unsupported assertions being thrown around... in the above we have:

1) Chemical reactions had to reduce energy needed for collapse
2) Chemical reactions had to accelerate speed of collapse
3) Fires in the buildings could not continue to burn in the rubble
4) Spheres had to have been created due to chemical reacitions

Now my issue here is, as far as I can tell 1 - 3 are totally false. I don't know about 4) although others have proposed that 4) may be false too.

Certainly, there is no indication from the known information that the GPE and failure of exterior columns alone was insufficient to produce the collapse, and there is no indication that the collapse was faster than should be expected.

Lastly, I see no reason why the massive fires in the towers and literally tonnes of fuel, could not continue to burn underground indefinitely. Indeed underground fires are known to burn for years, if not centuries.

It seems to me that this alternative chemical reaction hypothesis makes an enormous number of assumptions without evidence, something that is frowned upon in science.

-Gumboot

 

[Apollo20]

Gumboot:

It seems to me that NIST makes an enormous number of assumptions without evidence, something that is frowned upon in science.

Take a look at the following:

Table 12-9 in NCSTAR 1-5G; or Table 5-5 in NCSTAR 1-5F; or Section 2.3.4 in NCSTAR 1-5G; or Figure E-31 in NCSTAR 1-2; or Figure 5-9 in NCSTAR 1-6; or Section 5.2.3 in NCSTAR 1-6.

Then show me the scientific evidence that NIST has for its "loss of thermal insulation" theory.

Oh, and by the way, when you say: "there is no indication from the known information that the GPE and failure of exterior columns alone was insufficient to produce the collapse", you are obviously missing the point that NIST needed to invoke a substantial heating from the WTC fires coupled with a loss of thermal protection to "produce a collapse".

And you claim that the statement: "chemical reactions had to reduce (the) energy needed for collapse", is totally false!

Well, in case you haven't noticed: FIRE is a chemical reaction....

 

[rwguinn]

Here is where I have a problem with this whole thing...

We're getting a lot of unsupported assertions being thrown around... in the above we have:

1) Chemical reactions had to reduce energy needed for collapse
2) Chemical reactions had to accelerate speed of collapse
3) Fires in the buildings could not continue to burn in the rubble
4) Spheres had to have been created due to chemical reacitions

Now my issue here is, as far as I can tell 1 - 3 are totally false. I don't know about 4) although others have proposed that 4) may be false too.

Certainly, there is no indication from the known information that the GPE and failure of exterior columns alone was insufficient to produce the collapse, and there is no indication that the collapse was faster than should be expected.

Lastly, I see no reason why the massive fires in the towers and literally tonnes of fuel, could not continue to burn underground indefinitely. Indeed underground fires are known to burn for years, if not centuries.

It seems to me that this alternative chemical reaction hypothesis makes an enormous number of assumptions without evidence, something that is frowned upon in science.

-Gumboot

One of the problems I have is that Dr. Greening's own paper shows that the energy available was more than sufficient to sustain collapse, and that once started it would continue to completion.
The initiation is readily explained by combining crash damage and thermal weakening, since creep will dramatically alter load paths and hasten collapse. The analysis model must simplify these things, since there is no way that each joint can be modeled--and failure generally occurs at welded, riveted, and bolted joints.
the formation of the spheroids has an alternative hypothesis, as put forth by R Mackey--there is more than sufficient KE in the aircraft/building impact to form them by frictional forces alone. Anyone who has used a grinding wheel can testify that cute little spherical chunks of metal are found all over the workbench afterwards. Their composition is a function of what metal is being ground,and any impurities therein. Apollo20 and CrazyChainsaw have rejected this hypothesis outright in favor of a much more complex one.
The air contamination found is taken over several months--and is easily explained by the smoldering fires post collapse. Such pollution from pre-collapse would certainly not hang in the air for months at a time--but then, my experience is from a part of the world where we get breezes, wind, precipitation, and other atmospheric disturbances.

 

[gumboot]

Then show me the scientific evidence that NIST has for its "loss of thermal insulation" theory.

Photographs, which NIST provides.

And you claim that the statement: "chemical reactions had to reduce (the) energy needed for collapse", is totally false!

Well, in case you haven't noticed: FIRE is a chemical reaction....

That is indeed true, however I'm referring to the specific chemical reactions being proposed by CC. I would have thought that would be obvious.

The problem here is CC seems to be claiming that these specific chemical reactions added energy to the collapse itself - not the series of events that led to collapse initiation. Indeed he claims these chemical reactions actually reduced the amount of time required for the collapse to occur.

I have a major problem with both of these notions. I especially have a problem with them because CC has provided nothing to support these assertions.

-Gumboot

 

[rwguinn]

Gumboot:

It seems to me that NIST makes an enormous number of assumptions without evidence, something that is frowned upon in science.

Take a look at the following:

Table 12-9 in NCSTAR 1-5G; or Table 5-5 in NCSTAR 1-5F; or Section 2.3.4 in NCSTAR 1-5G; or Figure E-31 in NCSTAR 1-2; or Figure 5-9 in NCSTAR 1-6; or Section 5.2.3 in NCSTAR 1-6.

Then show me the scientific evidence that NIST has for its "loss of thermal insulation" theory.

Oh, and by the way, when you say: "there is no indication from the known information that the GPE and failure of exterior columns alone was insufficient to produce the collapse", you are obviously missing the point that NIST needed to invoke a substantial heating from the WTC fires coupled with a loss of thermal protection to "produce a collapse".

And you claim that the statement: "chemical reactions had to reduce (the) energy needed for collapse", is totally false!

Well, in case you haven't noticed: FIRE is a chemical reaction....

Nice tunnel vision, Doc. You are ignoring all the testimony on how easily dislodged the insulation was, the Kinetic energy available from the aircraft ond its contents, and the testing they did that showed how easily dislodged it was.
Are you saying that the KE of the aircraft just disappeared after severing the supports and facade? That the shockwave from the fireball(s) did no damage to anything other than glass?
Help me out, here. I feel like you have fallen too much in love with your own hypothesis--a danger all of us face. You have to step back and take a totally critical look at it.
If it helps you, pretend that your hypothesis was derived by an engineer. IF you want to be really critical, pretenend it is My hypothesis. Then see what you think of it.

 

[Cuddles]

Lastly, I see no reason why the massive fires in the towers and literally tonnes of fuel, could not continue to burn underground indefinitely. Indeed underground fires are known to burn for years, if not centuries.

There's a nice article here on that subject as well.

 

[uk_dave]

Then show me the scientific evidence that NIST has for its "loss of thermal insulation" theory.

The building was structurally damaged and on fire.

It then collapsed.

That suggests to me that the NECESSARY fire protection to the floor trusses was damaged/removed by the impact.

The collapse is the biggest piece of evidence for failure of the fire protection.

 

[rwguinn]

Gumboot:

<Snip down to the point>Then show me the scientific evidence that NIST has for its "loss of thermal insulation" theory.

<snip>....

Ok, Apollo20:
If the insulation was intact, then, as a spray-on, it would have acted as at least a partial protective chemical barrier, also.
How did your reactions take place through this barrier? I remind you that if gasses can penetrate it, then the heat carried by those gasses will also penetrate.

 

[einsteen]

uk_dave, that's exactly the point, we saw it with our own eyes and therefore we have to adjust (but not change) our assumptions in order to explain it. In this way it is impossible to find the real reason. How far can one go with this ? Assume a burning football flows into the building and it collapses then with this method it is easy to make the collapse plausible. Of course nobody to blame, you have to come up with something. Are the spherical particles already debunked in the mean time? Is it friction, exploded generators ?
But we don't have to care about it because it is only the initiation that matters..

 

[uk_dave]

uk_dave, that's exactly the point, we saw it with our own eyes and therefore we have to adjust (but not change) our assumptions in order to explain it.

Huh?

What assumptions have to be adjusted?

Encase a steel section in rigid fireproofing and start a fire beneath it. If the manufacturers have done their job properly and if the applicators have done their job properly then the steel section should retain it's integrity for the specified period of time.

Now do the same, but hit the assembly with a sledge hammer first.

If the steel doesn't fail: Fantastic! The fireproofing withstood the impact damage sufficiently to continue protecting the steel.

If the steel fails: Oh well, what do you expect, we hit the bugger with a sledgehammer?

I don't see any reason to go on a search for a scenario where a backyard chemical experiment can be applied to the failure of the steel when we've already compromised the damn thing with our wanton vandalism with the sledgehammer.

 

[R.Mackey]

To all concerned, on both sides of the aisle, I think we're going about this the wrong way.

To Dr. Greening and CrazyChainsaw, we should look at the question this way: How can your hypothesis be falsified?

It's going to be difficult to show one way or the other what actually happened in the WTC towers. The best indicator we appear to have is the presence of these tiny iron droplets, but we aren't 100% sure they weren't caused by something else entirely -- heck, they could even be left over from the Towers' construction! -- and we don't have any idea how many there were. This isn't enough to confirm or deny.

The best thing I can think of is a more realistic scale model. Say we build a representative section of the WTC towers with period-accurate methods and materials, stock it with office furniture and desktop computers, etc., douse with JP-5 and set it alight. If that experiment produces the kinds of chemical reactions you propose, then I'll be pretty convinced. If not, then we'll put it to bed.

CC, I know you've done a number of experiments, but yours are designed to see if these reactions are possible under favorable conditions, not to see if they are likely. It's a step in the right direction, but not accurate enough.

Are there other ways to falsify your hypotheses? Let's hear some ideas.

 

[~enigma~]

To all concerned, on both sides of the aisle, I think we're going about this the wrong way.

To Dr. Greening and CrazyChainsaw, we should look at the question this way: How can your hypothesis be falsified?

It's going to be difficult to show one way or the other what actually happened in the WTC towers. The best indicator we appear to have is the presence of these tiny iron droplets, but we aren't 100% sure they weren't caused by something else entirely -- heck, they could even be left over from the Towers' construction! -- and we don't have any idea how many there were. This isn't enough to confirm or deny.

The best thing I can think of is a more realistic scale model. Say we build a representative section of the WTC towers with period-accurate methods and materials, stock it with office furniture and desktop computers, etc., douse with JP-5 and set it alight. If that experiment produces the kinds of chemical reactions you propose, then I'll be pretty convinced. If not, then we'll put it to bed.

CC, I know you've done a number of experiments, but yours are designed to see if these reactions are possible under favorable conditions, not to see if they are likely. It's a step in the right direction, but not accurate enough.

Are there other ways to falsify your hypotheses? Let's hear some ideas.

No...your pointing out possible and probable are two different things is the right way to go in my opinion.

 

[Apollo20]

Just to address a few issues about the state of the Twin Towers after the aircraft impacts:

Please check out NCSTAR 1-5D. Here are a few snippets:

"Information regarding the integrity of the ceiling tile systems would be pivotal in assessing the role of the floor truss assemblies in the eventual collapse of the towers. .... Accounts of building occupants (show that) the impact of the airplanes resulted in some dislodging of ceiling tiles and damage to the suspension system. Descriptions of the magnitude of the damage at the observers locations and the spatial extent of the damage were neither quantitative nor comprehensive."

"The concern (of the tests of the ceiling tile system) was for floors just above and below the impact zone, which were not directly damaged by the airplane, but had significant fires after the impact."

The test results showed that all "ceiling systems resisted significant damage up to about 1g applied to the test platform."

NIST's own estimation of the MAXIMUM magnitude of the acceleration caused by the impact of the aircraft was about 0.25g.

Hence we have NIST's own studies showing that the aircraft impacts couldn't do more than dislodge a few ceiling tiles just a couple of froors from the center of the impact!

R. Mackey: Yes, I would like to see a test like the one you described, but who is interested in doing it?

 

[~enigma~]

R. Mackey: Yes, I would like to see a test like the one you described, but who is interested in doing it?

Maybe you should do it before you continue to babble nonsense?

 

[rwguinn]

Just to address a few issues about the state of the Twin Towers after the aircraft impacts:

Please check out NCSTAR 1-5D. Here are a few snippets:

"Information regarding the integrity of the ceiling tile systems would be pivotal in assessing the role of the floor truss assemblies in the eventual collapse of the towers. .... Accounts of building occupants (show that) the impact of the airplanes resulted in some dislodging of ceiling tiles and damage to the suspension system. Descriptions of the magnitude of the damage at the observers locations and the spatial extent of the damage were neither quantitative nor comprehensive."

"The concern (of the tests of the ceiling tile system) was for floors just above and below the impact zone, which were not directly damaged by the airplane, but had significant fires after the impact."

The test results showed that all "ceiling systems resisted significant damage up to about 1g applied to the test platform."

NIST's own estimation of the MAXIMUM magnitude of the acceleration caused by the impact of the aircraft was about 0.25g.

Hence we have NIST's own studies showing that the aircraft impacts couldn't do more than dislodge a few ceiling tiles just a couple of froors from the center of the impact!

R. Mackey: Yes, I would like to see a test like the one you described, but who is interested in doing it?

Aplool20:
You keep dodging the questions.
Since the failure point was at the damaged location, i.e., floors of impact, how does damage to ceiling tiles 2-3 floors above and below relate to the fire protection damage in the vicinity of the impact?
You seem to be spending all your time picking nits with NIST, while ignoring the gaping holes in whatever hypothesis you have in mind. If you don't actually have one, let us know, huh?
now--How could the supposedly intact fire coating prevent the passage of heated gasses while allowing those same gasses to chemically react with the steel underneath?

edited to add: See R Mackey's posts here for more insight as to what could have damaged the insulation

 

[R.Mackey]

Just to address a few issues about the state of the Twin Towers after the aircraft impacts:

Please check out NCSTAR 1-5D. Here are a few snippets:

...

"The test results showed that all "ceiling systems resisted significant damage up to about 1g applied to the test platform."

NIST's own estimation of the MAXIMUM magnitude of the acceleration caused by the impact of the aircraft was about 0.25g.

Hence we have NIST's own studies showing that the aircraft impacts couldn't do more than dislodge a few ceiling tiles just a couple of froors from the center of the impact!

R. Mackey: Yes, I would like to see a test like the one you described, but who is interested in doing it?

Ceiling tiles are often dislodged by displacement, not just acceleration.

My own organization doesn't do that kind of testing. However, there should be numerous universities studying fire response of structures. I'm willing to bet we could find the right research group. This discussion would make a splendid thesis topic.

 

[FactCheck]

What if the missing insulation was due to the towers being one of the first buildings to use fireproofing of this type and they didn't know how to put it on correctly? How do you rule that out? I don't think the spheres found around GZ can be used to rule this out.

Also, every time someone says you are assuming the the spheres came from the collapse the response seems to be "Yeah but the NIST assumes the fireproofing was knocked off" Why is one different than the other? I think this is a fair question.

 

[rwguinn]

What if the missing insulation was due to the towers being one of the first buildings to use fireproofing of this type and they didn't know how to put it on correctly? How do you rule that out? I don't think the spheres found around GZ can be used to rule this out.

Also, every time someone says you are assuming the the spheres came from the collapse the response seems to be "Yeah but the NIST assumes the fireproofing was knocked off" Why is one different than the other? I think this is a fair question.

I think you're reaching. I'd kinda like to keep it to things that are stipulated or assumed. We get into "What if's and we've ventured into folklore.

 

[uk_dave]

Ceiling tiles?
Suspended ceiling tiles?
The sort of tiles which are lightweight and designed to be removeable?

Suspended ceiling tiles forming a void for services below the trusses?

Are we now saying that hese tiles were the fireproofing to the trusses?

Or are NIST using the only available data (eyewitness reports) from the floors above and below the impact zone to speculate regarding the possibility of enough structural movement to cause the actual fireproofing applied to the trusses to be disturbed?

There cannot be any doubt that the trusses and fireproofing in the path of the debris was damage.

If you want to speculate on the condition of the trusses away from the debris field, then you have to look for signs that there was some disruption to the fabric of the building in those areas.

Hence, ceiling tiles.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Ok, Apollo20:
If the insulation was intact, then, as a spray-on, it would have acted as at least a partial protective chemical barrier, also.
How did your reactions take place through this barrier? I remind you that if gasses can penetrate it, then the heat carried by those gasses will also penetrate.

The floor pans are non structural they were not insulated.