• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chemistry, Fire, and Collapse

Crazy Chainsaw said:
The floor pans are non structural they were not insulated.
Click to expand...
And the floor pans, being non-structural, held up the building in what way?
Guys, it seems that you are venturing farther and farther afield to support the old "It could have happened!"
The trusses beneath the floor pans were definitely structural. They sagged, drawing the verticals inward, imparting a crippling load into the columns. This implies that whatever happened, happened to the trusses, not the floor pans.
 
Apollo20 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I appreciate your quotes...

What do you make of this one, also from NISTNCSTAR1-5:

shaking table experiments were conducted to determine the magnitude of building impact that could have led to significant dislodging of ceiling tiles. Forces of the order of 5g caused significant damage to the framing. Since the aircraft impact forces were estimated to have been about 100g, NIST
assumed there was not enough of the ceiling system in place to provide significant thermal protection.
Click to expand...

TAM:)
 
rwguinn knows he's schtuff.

To elaborate on metal decks (floor pans) in buildings, they do more than just hold up the concrete. If the engineer designs his joists and deck right, he can basically create one giant beam where the concrete deck is part of the compression flange (where it has a large capacity). It's part of the entire gravity resisting system.
 
Newtons Bit said:
rwguinn knows he's schtuff.

To elaborate on metal decks (floor pans) in buildings, they do more than just hold up the concrete. If the engineer designs his joists and deck right, he can basically create one giant beam where the concrete deck is part of the compression flange (where it has a large capacity). It's part of the entire gravity resisting system.
Click to expand...
Im not sure if that was an attaboy or an aws%^$!:)
I'm not a big fan of parasitic weight. If you're going to add mass to the structure, it will do something for it if I have any say.
Had the floor pans disappeared by combusting as CC describes, the concrete would have been pretty well unsupported. I need to review the way it was poured, and I am absolutely not a concrete guy, but if the concrete was unsupported and the trusses sagging, the lower surface of the concrete would have been in tension, in spite of the embedded mesh and/or rebar--absolutely the worst case for that material. I do know its hell-for-stout in compression, but all that mass hanging from the compression (upper) side would have fractured and rubbleized pretty quickly. Not all of it, but a goodly fraction--this was not high-strength concrete, but a floor mix-Lightweight (for concrete). Again, I'm not a concrete guy, so that is merely a SWAG. Additionally, since the bending center of the system was beneath the floor, somewhere in the truss, the concrete would have been in bending strain, as well. Not a good scenario, at all.
The rubble would have fallen through the trusswork, relieving some of the bending load on the truss, which in turn would have reduced the crippling load on the verticals at that floor level.
That is my take on the situation. I will gladly stand corrected if anybody has a better idea with some experience to back it up.
 
R.Mackey said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is one things I have been thinking of myself, I thought if I took away the aluminum Chloride, the reactions would not occur I thought that the Aluminum Chloride was releasing free Chlorine and that was the catalyst and I was wrong. Free Chlorine would increase the reaction, Oxygen will also cause the reaction with hydrogen.

The hydrogen rises up anywhere it is trapped with oxygen next to a Zinc metal the reaction is likely.
HCl and steam cause the reaction right at the Zinc on the bottom of the floor pans.
Also the metal is attacked from both sides and do not even get me talking about the concrete HCl can dissolve it in seconds in the early fire.
However only if the HCl is trapped under the concrete it forms Calcium Chloride and that falls on the Zinc below producing more hydrogen that heats up the Zinc from above and below.

IT is weird the hot water molecules that make up the hydrogen flame just seem to rise so quickly that they literally drill themselves past he oxides into the metal.
To react and form hydrogen again.

R.Mackey What you do not understand is I hope I am wrong, can you imagine the potential danger of theses reactions in other fires in modern buildings?
I really want some one to actually point out a reasonable fatal flaw in my hypothesis.
You guys asked me to update you if I found a reaction that could form the spheres in the buildings and that is really all I have done.
I can not help where the results of the experiments have led, I am only along for the ride.

There is one way, if we could find out if galvanized bolts were not used in the trade center towers.
Also if PVC pipe was not used in the live decking, that would slow the reaction down but would not eliminate it entirely.
I thought about the spheres being created during construction to, but no zinc metal was welded or Cut with torches in the buildings so that rule out the particles associated with Zinc being from construction.

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.
Click to expand...

That is kind of what I did, I took the concrete recipe as much as I could discover about it, and the metal and rebuilt a test model of he live decking where the electrical conduits were run.
Hit the area with a large fuel fireball like what the floors were subjected to in the fireball of he planes.
I would like to do more experiments on it but My respirator filters need changing, and I have to wait until I can really find better protective gear.

This type of experiment is beyond my resources actually, but at least I am trying. The reactions are just so energetic that I can not see how they can be avoided.

I want you Ladies and Gentile men to honestly tell me that I am wrong, not just to go into Debunking mode like I am some Stupid CTer, proposing Klingon Disrupters brought the towers down.
 
Oridginally posted by gumboot;2567631]Here is where I hav

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[/QUOTE]

Please explain to me the amount of carbon fuels it would take to sustain the fires as they released heat all the time and kept the ground warm to hot.

The old Thermos bottle idea will work so long as the heat is not released though the ground.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Snip>>
I want you Ladies and Gentile men to honestly tell me that I am wrong, not just to go into Debunking mode like I am some Stupid CTer, proposing Klingon Disrupters brought the towers down.
Click to expand...
nobody is saying that, but I for one would appreciate it if you would :
give us an indication of how you determined what was actually taking place--chemical analysis, spectrograph readings, something other than
" The hydrogen rises up anywhere it is trapped with oxygen next to a Zinc metal the reaction is likely
Click to expand...
. How do you know it was hydrogen? Data! Data! not assertions;
How do you know how
"hot water molecules that make up the hydrogen flame just seem to rise so quickly that they literally drill themselves past he oxides into the metal To react and form hydrogen again."
Click to expand...
High speed photography? What? How did you observe this?
Show us your test set-up and instrumentation.
Now, concrete poured on galvanized steel has been happening for a long time. It is SOP for buildings, parking garages, and bridges. Surely somebody would have noticed by now. Yet I find no reference to it anywhere in any of my books.
Give us a hand. Tell us how you did it, what you used, and how you observed.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
R.Mackey What you do not understand is I hope I am wrong, can you imagine the potential danger of theses reactions in other fires in modern buildings?
I really want some one to actually point out a reasonable fatal flaw in my hypothesis.
You guys asked me to update you if I found a reaction that could form the spheres in the buildings and that is really all I have done.
I can not help where the results of the experiments have led, I am only along for the ride.
Click to expand...

But you see, I don't hope you're wrong or right. Nor do I call you another dumb Troother. If this effect is important, then it's important that we find out about it.

I agree with you and Dr. Greening that these experiments are worth doing. I just don't want us to leap to conclusions for the wrong reasons. While what you've done so far is interesting, it lacks controls. Furthermore, since NIST was able to come up with a credible scenario that doesn't involve any unknown, spooky effects, the burden of proof is upon you. Where it should be.

I reiterate that I find your experiments and speculation worthwhile. I also think, as far as I know, the best way to prove or disprove your hypothesis is to conduct a more accurate simulation. There are fire dynamics and fire chemistry groups in universities all over the place -- it's not my field, but that would seem to be the place to start. You might even get funding to do it right!

So, please, proceed. Just keep in mind that we are a long way from proving that you are right. But we haven't proven you're wrong, either. This is a legitimate scientific inquiry, no woo here at all.
 
rwguinn said:
nobody is saying that, but I for one would appreciate it if you would :
give us an indication of how you determined what was actually taking place--chemical analysis, spectrograph readings, something other than . How do you know it was hydrogen? Data! Data! not assertions;
How do you know how High speed photography? What? How did you observe this?
Show us your test set-up and instrumentation.
Now, concrete poured on galvanized steel has been happening for a long time. It is SOP for buildings, parking garages, and bridges. Surely somebody would have noticed by now. Yet I find no reference to it anywhere in any of my books.
Give us a hand. Tell us how you did it, what you used, and how you observed.
Click to expand...

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13433835


http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge/designmemos/Guidelines%20for%20Steel%20Bolts.htm
1. M 164 (A325) High strength, headed structural steel bolts for use in structural joints. Suitable
heavy hex nuts and plain hardened washers are covered by this specification.
These bolts may be hot-dip galvanized.

Are you actually looking for the information, maybe this is something that does not normally happen because large hydrocarbon fires from planes flying into buildings are not common occurrences.


PS. Hydrogen has a caricteristics flame you can see it burning visually and recognize it, DA.
 
R.Mackey said:
But you see, I don't hope you're wrong or right. Nor do I call you another dumb Troother. If this effect is important, then it's important that we find out about it.

I agree with you and Dr. Greening that these experiments are worth doing. I just don't want us to leap to conclusions for the wrong reasons. While what you've done so far is interesting, it lacks controls. Furthermore, since NIST was able to come up with a credible scenario that doesn't involve any unknown, spooky effects, the burden of proof is upon you. Where it should be.

I reiterate that I find your experiments and speculation worthwhile. I also think, as far as I know, the best way to prove or disprove your hypothesis is to conduct a more accurate simulation. There are fire dynamics and fire chemistry groups in universities all over the place -- it's not my field, but that would seem to be the place to start. You might even get funding to do it right!

So, please, proceed. Just keep in mind that we are a long way from proving that you are right. But we haven't proven you're wrong, either. This is a legitimate scientific inquiry, no woo here at all.
Click to expand...

NO one is going to listen to me R.Mackey, I thank your for your thoughts, they might listen to Dr. Greening, but I doubt that now.
I really wish now that I never started looking into Sept. 11/2001 what has it done but lead me to a dead end with only questions that no one can answer it is frustrating indeed.
I Wish that NIST had done more accurate fire tests with more accurate models, but that did not happen.
I have nightmares now that I might have stumbled onto something important, and that it will never see the recognition that it might require to save lives in future fires.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13433835


http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/bridge/designmemos/Guidelines for Steel Bolts.htm
1. M 164 (A325) High strength, headed structural steel bolts for use in structural joints. Suitable
heavy hex nuts and plain hardened washers are covered by this specification.
These bolts may be hot-dip galvanized.

Are you actually looking for the information, maybe this is something that does not normally happen because large hydrocarbon fires from planes flying into buildings are not common occurrences.


PS. Hydrogen has a caricteristics flame you can see it burning visually and recognize it, DA.
Click to expand...
CC:
Engineering specifications are just that: Specific. If the engineer wants Gavanized A325, he will actually call it out that way, through a material spec. If galvanization is not desired or required, or if undesirable, he will nhot call it out.
Now, I do not know what the actual spec is on galvanization, since I don't use it, but I have it on good authorityn that galvanized fasteners are not used even on bridge construction, except where dissimilar metals can cause a problem--and those are not generally load-bearing applications. Load-bearing pertains to the primary load path--if it holds a trim piece on, sure, it carries a load, but it is not in the primary load path. Galvanization weakens steel, and why specify a process that weakens it unless you need it?
Again, if it is not specified, it isn't supposed to be there, and the Engineer in charge will raise an extreme fuss till it is fixed. Violation of the material spec is a cardinal sin.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Please explain to me the amount of carbon fuels it would take to sustain the fires as they released heat all the time and kept the ground warm to hot.

The old Thermos bottle idea will work so long as the heat is not released though the ground.
Click to expand...



Underground fires burn incredibly slowly, with very little oxygen. Only a minor amount of fuel is required. Burning Mountain has been going for 6,000 years, moving at an estimated 1m a year. The Centralia fire is expected to burn for a total of 300 years.

At the WTC we're only talking about SIX WEEKS.

-Gumboot
 
WildCat said:
Hydrogen burns with an invisible flame, which is what makes a hydrogen fire especially dangerous.
Click to expand...

It burns with a nearly invisible flame you can see it if you know how.

http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEsoft/CCA/CCA3/MAIN/CLH/PAGE1.HTM

Hydrogen gas and chlorine do not react at room temperature, just as hydrogen gas and air do not react. If the hydrogen is ignited in air, the increase in temperature due to the exothermic reaction between hydrogen and oxygen allows the reaction to proceed at a fast rate and a flame appears. The hydrogen flame in air is nearly invisible. Once ignited in air the hydrogen flame can be moved to an atmosphere that consists of mainly chlorine. Then the chlorine takes over as the oxidizing agent. The flame becomes much more visible and appears larger. A chemical reaction continues, but the flame temperature and reaction products are different.
Click to expand...

I give up guys you win you have debunked me I just do not feel like arguing any more on this.
 
rwguinn said:
CC:
Engineering specifications are just that: Specific. If the engineer wants Gavanized A325, he will actually call it out that way, through a material spec. If galvanization is not desired or required, or if undesirable, he will nhot call it out.
Now, I do not know what the actual spec is on galvanization, since I don't use it, but I have it on good authorityn that galvanized fasteners are not used even on bridge construction, except where dissimilar metals can cause a problem--and those are not generally load-bearing applications. Load-bearing pertains to the primary load path--if it holds a trim piece on, sure, it carries a load, but it is not in the primary load path. Galvanization weakens steel, and why specify a process that weakens it unless you need it?
Again, if it is not specified, it isn't supposed to be there, and the Engineer in charge will raise an extreme fuss till it is fixed. Violation of the material spec is a cardinal sin.
Click to expand...

I know all that, but the bolts in the world trade center seemed to fail rather rapidly. NO Embrittlement tests were preformed on them that I can find in the NIST DATA.

None Nada ZIP.
 
rwguinn said:
Show us something, guy! We're willing to help, but we need something! We don't know anything about your test, except your word that all those things were there. Show us! Give us data! Your data!
Click to expand...

Do you know what live decking is?
 
gumboot said:
Underground fires burn incredibly slowly, with very little oxygen. Only a minor amount of fuel is required. Burning Mountain has been going for 6,000 years, moving at an estimated 1m a year. The Centralia fire is expected to burn for a total of 300 years.

At the WTC we're only talking about SIX WEEKS.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

I know all that but the data shows that can not explain the continued release of heat at ground Zero, over the intervening months when you release heat it takes a constant fuel supply.
If reactions were breaking down water into hydrogen then the fuel supply would have been constantly refreshed by the environment, and from the oxidation of the hydrogen into water again.
The reaction of steel into hydrogen is impractical because of the carbon fuel needed to create the steel in the first place not because the reaction will not work.
The heat of the oxidizing hydrogen can theoretically keep the steel hot enough to sustain a continued reaction as long as a recurring source of oxygen is available.
It is similar to the reaction of sodium chloride as an ion carrier in your very blood stream.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom