'Molten' metal found at WTC 1, 2, and 7, 8 weeks after 9-11?

[DC]

DC, it is ridiculous to 'participate' in a discussion and encourage everyone to put you on ignore. That's the very definition of a troll. People are trying to have a sensible discussion here and yes, they can ignore you, but it would be preferable all round if you would just post on topic, stop drama-queening to turn every thread into a thread about you, and be sensible in your responses.

For example, what is the point in posting something like: I don't really believe this item has anything to do with this topic, but here - let's post a link anyway? If it's irrelevant, then it's off topic, and you shouldn't post it. If you don't think thermal cutters were used, then don't post information about them because it's irrelevant.

To steer us back to topic - I think the matter has been covered extensively above, and I don't know what other questions could be raised about the metal on site. It is not unusual for fires to burn in this manner, for so long, and there was plenty of fuel.

i experiance the same like you ppl experiance when you post on LC forum.
ok i did not get supected to be a payd shill, but im a troll, im a liar, i lack knowledge , noone takes me seriously, im an idiot and so on. alot accusations,

whats the point of it?
when i think someone is a troll i simply ignore him.

i get accused of faking my poor english, its claimed that i am JDX and/or PDHO. whoever that is.


and about the termite cutter charge.

there was a claim that such a thing does not exist, i showed that they exist.
but i knew the device in the video is way to small to use it in the WTC demolition.
so i wanted to make clear that i dont think that those devices was used.

and it did not help, anyway i got told that my evidence (i never called it evidence) is way to small and does not fit :/

the good posters on JREF , like apollo, Newton bit, anti soph, did not find it necesary toaccuse me of faking my english or any other personal atack.
Newton tested my knowledge cause i claimed that FE sims are part of my job. i think that was ok from him to do. and proly he still does not belive it, but there is no need to call me liar or anything from his side.

i never called anyone on this board a liar, a shill or whateverm i did call you Conspiracy-deniers, cause i got labeled with all kind of troofers names.

and when ppl dont like me "faked" bad english, or my way to post, they just should ignore me.

or like some do, just ask me some questions or give me some honest answers, like i did get already here, from the posters with real knowledge.

 

[uk_dave]

there was a claim that such a thing does not exist, i showed that they exist.
but i knew the device in the video is way to small to use it in the WTC demolition.

Therefore, in the context of this thread, such a device doesn't exist, so what was the point?

 

[T.A.M.]

I doubt you are JDX simply based on your posting times. PDoh, who lives in Manchester, is more likely, (I believe it is about 10-11AM over in England now).

That said, the problem most have with you is likely (A) your approach, and (B) the fact that you wish to discuss topics that ALMOST CERTAINLY have pre-existing threads on this forum, yet feel the need to start new threads. The Search function is your best friend.

Just my 2C

TAM

 

[johnny karate]

DC, at risk of further derailing and in violation of my previous decision to ignore you, I think you'll find that if you were to conduct yourself in an intellectually honest manner and behave as if you were actually interested in having a discussion, you would not be experiencing such derision.

 

[DC]

Therefore, in the context of this thread, such a device doesn't exist, so what was the point?

you quoted wrong, i said that, not beachnut

 

[DC]

I doubt you are JDX simply based on your posting times. PDoh, who lives in Manchester, is more likely, (I believe it is about 10-11AM over in England now).

That said, the problem most have with you is likely (A) your approach, and (B) the fact that you wish to discuss topics that ALMOST CERTAINLY have pre-existing threads on this forum, yet feel the need to start new threads. The Search function is your best friend.

Just my 2C

TAM

im not from Manchaster :/

my english is not faked, it is as bad as it is writen by me.

OT /

its no evidence, but thats the homepage from my sister (not a troofer), i myself have no homepage, you can find pictures of me and a few episodes from my live.
http://www.ninmesharra.ch.vu/

only real evidence would be my passport, maybe ill scann it and post it, so maybe the accusations will stopp. and i really doubt that anyone is really interested.

sometimes i eally wonder who is more paranoid, the twoofers or the conspiracy-deniers.

 

[T.A.M.]

do not misinterpret my analysis of "why they call you a sock puppet" as an allegation that you are one. On that I have not really thought much, as I do not follow things around here that much anymore.

TAM

 

[Apollo20]

Dictator Cheney:

I think the prolonged high temperature of the WTC rubble pile is indeed very interesting. But I am not sure what it proves. It certainly is NOT consistent with the use of thermite, which would burn out very rapidly, as many posters have already pointed out.

The most interesting feature of the rubble pile to me as a chemist is the high level of Cl found in very fine aerosols in the acrid smoke that issued from ground zero - an observation first reported by Tom Cahill at UC Davis. Cahill proposed the idea of "anaerobic incineration" to explain this phenomenon. The chlorine appears to have been derived from the combustion of PVC. Interestingly, bromine was also elevated in the rubble pile emissions which was undoubtedly caused by the combustion of plastics containing brominated flame retardents (BFRs). Plastics used in electronics, color TVs, etc, contain upto 12 % by weight of BFRs. Br and Cl (usually as HBr and HCl and/or Br2 and Cl2) promote the volatilization of metals such as Cu, Zn, and Pb. And by the way, plastics not only burn in air, they also undergo exothermic pyrolysis reactions in the absence of air. Thus the rubble pile could generate a lot of heat even if it was starved for oxygen.

 

[DC]

Dictator Cheney:

I think the prolonged high temperature of the WTC rubble pile is indeed very interesting. But I am not sure what it proves. It certainly is NOT consistent with the use of thermite, which would burn out very rapidly, as many posters have already pointed out.

The most interesting feature of the rubble pile to me as a chemist is the high level of Cl found in very fine aerosols in the acrid smoke that issued from ground zero - an observation first reported by Tom Cahill at UC Davis. Cahill proposed the idea of "anaerobic incineration" to explain this phenomenon. The chlorine appears to have been derived from the combustion of PVC. Interestingly, bromine was also elevated in the rubble pile emissions which was undoubtedly caused by the combustion of plastics containing brominated flame retardents (BFRs). Plastics used in electronics, color TVs, etc, contain upto 12 % by weight of BFRs. Br and Cl (usually as HBr and HCl and/or Br2 and Cl2) promote the volatilization of metals such as Cu, Zn, and Pb. And by the way, plastics not only burn in air, they also undergo exothermic pyrolysis reactions in the absence of air. Thus the rubble pile could generate a lot of heat even if it was starved for oxygen.

wow thx for that answer.
thats far beyond my english skills and especially far beyond my Chemist knowledge.

i did understand what you ment, but i have a hard time with some of your words, so i will have to translate that first

but its very interesting. i heard already about the "acid rain" in connection with fema's samples. but never in such detail.

and i had no clue about Plastics exothermic pyrolysis reactions. one of the things i have to translate^^ prolly wil already have enough trouble with it in german
was this already seen in a much smaller scale in other fires that endured a long time? and have there been tests into this? i mean practical tests. to reproduce that?

 

[DC]

aaah

what is causing the exothermic pyrolysis reactions in PVC?
what conditions are needed for that?

 

[Evilgiraffe]

Pyrolysis is the chemical decomposition of a compound in the absence of oxygen.
The word comes from the greek "Pyr = fire" and "lyein = to separate"

Effectively what happens is chemical bonds in the long PVC molecules are broken by high temperatures provided by the underground fires and new smaller molecules are formed. In this case the bonds formed to make new molecules release more energy than was used to break up the orignal PVC molecule. Hence the process is exothermic.

It's not a great way to create heat. Aerobic incineration should release more energy. In addition, the pyrolysis of PVC has been linked to the production of Dioxin^WP (a particularly nasty pollutant)

 

[DC]

Pyrolysis is the chemical decomposition of a compound in the absence of oxygen.
The word comes from the greek "Pyr = fire" and "lyein = to separate"

Effectively what happens is chemical bonds in the long PVC molecules are broken by high temperatures provided by the underground fires and new smaller molecules are formed. In this case the bonds formed to make new molecules release more energy than was used to break up the orignal PVC molecule. Hence the process is exothermic.

It's not a great way to create heat. Aerobic incineration should release more energy. In addition, the pyrolysis of PVC has been linked to the production of Dioxin^WP (a particularly nasty pollutant)

absence of Oxygen is the only condition needed?

 

[Dave Rogers]

absence of Oxygen is the only condition needed?

High temperature would be required as well as a limited oxygen supply.

Before you start obsessing over the discrepancy between the absence of oxygen needed for pyrolysis and the oxygen supply needed for an underground fire, note that both terms are relative. A limited oxygen supply would be expected both to reduce the combustion rate of a fire, and to make conditions more favourable to pyrolysis rather than combustion (if I understand the situation correctly - I'm a physicist not a chemist, so Apollo20 will know better then I). This is another explicable phenomenon, not a smoking gun anomaly.

Dave

 

[DC]

High temperature would be required as well as a limited oxygen supply.

Before you start obsessing over the discrepancy between the absence of oxygen needed for pyrolysis and the oxygen supply needed for an underground fire, note that both terms are relative. A limited oxygen supply would be expected both to reduce the combustion rate of a fire, and to make conditions more favourable to pyrolysis rather than combustion (if I understand the situation correctly - I'm a physicist not a chemist, so Apollo20 will know better then I). This is another explicable phenomenon, not a smoking gun anomaly.

Dave

your a real skeptic you even try mindreading. nice

and indeed, it does not work

 

[Evilgiraffe]

A limited oxygen supply would be expected both to reduce the combustion rate of a fire, and to make conditions more favourable to pyrolysis rather than combustion

Without knowing an awful lot more about the exact conditions under the rubble, I think this is the best anyone can say about it.

Limited oxygen supply => less heat from fire, more from pyrolysis.
Increased oxygen supply => vice versa.

In any case, there would have been plenty of interesting exothermic reactions going on under the rubble to keep it hot for months without invoking nonsense like thermite.

Sorry DC, no smoking guns here. Just rubble.... It's like the truth movement in microcosm

 

[defaultdotxbe]

your a real skeptic you even try mindreading. nice

and indeed, it does not work

im impressed, in a little over an hour youve not only overcome the language barrier but apparently become an expert on the subject, bravo

 

[jaydeehess]

i have no evidence
only that first hand witness that belives it is steel.

You were asked about molten steel, you danced around by saying you had not said it was steel, you were asked then if we were actually argueing about molten steel and finally you manage to tell us that it was a witness who looked at quantity of molten metal and assumed it was steel. Wow, that only took days for you to get around to.

 

[Apollo20]

Dictator Cheney:

Yes, pyrolysis and combustion of plastics can occur more or less simultaneously depending on the oxygen supply. Either way hydrochloric acid gas is released at temperatures above only about 300 deg C.

As for other examples of this sort of process there was a nasty fire about 10 years ago at a plastics recycling plant called Plastimet in Hamilton, Canada, near where I live. It released a huge cloud of noxious gas and smoke for about a week and continued to smolder for days thereafter. The plastics were not buried in a pile of rubble however.

But there are plenty of other reactions that could have kept things cooking in the WTC rubble pile. For example, iron (i.e. structural steel) reacts rapidly with water (steam) at temps above 400 deg C:

3Fe + 4H2O = Fe3O4 + 4H2.

One kg of iron would release about 2 MJ of heat by this reaction, not to mention the additional heat that would be released from the subsequent reaction of hydrogen.

Al, which was plentiful in the rubble pile, also reacts with hot water at high pH releasing hydrogen.

 

[jaydeehess]

Pyrolysis is the chemical decomposition of a compound in the absence of oxygen.
The word comes from the greek "Pyr = fire" and "lyein = to separate"

Effectively what happens is chemical bonds in the long PVC molecules are broken by high temperatures provided by the underground fires and new smaller molecules are formed. In this case the bonds formed to make new molecules release more energy than was used to break up the orignal PVC molecule. Hence the process is exothermic.

It's not a great way to create heat. Aerobic incineration should release more energy. In addition, the pyrolysis of PVC has been linked to the production of Dioxin^WP (a particularly nasty pollutant)

Would not some of the breakdown gasses of the PVC also be flammable when exposed to oxygen? In this way the PVC would breakdown releasing gasses which then rise through the rubble and are already above their flashpoint. when they percolate into a volume of air they will ignite.

It reminds me of the production of charcoal. Pile up a lot of wood and light it on fire but smother the pile with clay limiting the oxygen. The result is a fuel that burns slower, and IIRC, hotter than wood.

ETA: It strikes me that charcoal might burn hotter soley because the water content has been driven out.

 

[jaydeehess]

how much do you think it would need????
so you also dont belive the Progressive collapse theory?

Once again DC you lead a discussion in one direction, this time towards a lot of explosives, last time towards the molten metal being steel. Now, when confronted with a line of arguement against 1000's of pounds of expolosive/incindiaries, you ask if the poster then requires 1000's of pounds of it.

This is a line of arguement that you initiated that would require those explosives and you are being asked questions that arise from such a contention.