10 story hole in WTC 7

[jaydeehess]

N

ISTIR 7213 PG 41[43 on pg counter]
Temperatures in this simulated room fire were 700-800 °C.
When the window was opened, the temperature rose to 900-1,000 °C.
Thats a difference of 200 °C.
An oxygen starved fire would smolder at a lower temperature than the unventilated room

.

The situation is simply not a well insulated system such as an underground fire. there were enough spaces in the rubble to allow several people to survive being trapped in it, smoke escaped from the rubble indicating nothing near the solid cap of concrete dust you propose.

The molten steel was burning the combustible material scattered throughout the debris, not the other way around.

Steel cannot 'burn' anything. It can cause items it touches to reach ignition temperature. Are you proposing that the molten steel gave up heat to combustibles in order to raise their temp to ignition, then moved on to other combustibles and continued doing so for months? What then supported the combustion of the combustibles that were ignited by the molten steel? I though you said that there was no oxygen to do so.

 

[Open Blinded]

i talk only about the 4 blackboxes from the Twintowers.

Ok, just wanted to get that clear.

i know the NTSB reports about AA77 and UA93.

Good, you did some research.

but didnt find the other reports.

It didn't cross your mind that there might not be reports because they were not recovered from the debris?

i did do my research

No, you didn't. This is my point, if you had done your research you would have found that they were not recovered.

and i never claimed they are undestructable. and i really dont care what this Ventura guy says.

Ok, but you did say:

those balckboxes are designed to survie some of the worst things we can imagen.

Yes, they are built to withstand a lot, but they don't always survive intact. Can you accept that they were either never found in the rubble or just damaged beyond recognition?

Does this answer your questions?

 

[Christopher7]

N.

The situation is simply not a well insulated system such as an underground fire.

The fires under a pile of rubble would have less air and would therefore not burn as hot as a fire in a room.

there were enough spaces in the rubble to allow several people to survive being trapped in it,

Near the top and on the fringes of the pile.

The molten metal was found in the basement, deep in the pile

smoke escaped from the rubble indicating nothing near the solid cap of concrete dust you propose.

Smoke is expanding gas and will find a way out thru small openings or force it's way out thru dust.

Steel cannot 'burn' anything. It can cause items it touches to reach ignition temperature. Are you proposing that the molten steel gave up heat to combustibles in order to raise their temp to ignition, then moved on to other combustibles and continued doing so for months?

I'm suggesting that the intense heat of the ongoing Thermate reaction heated the surrounding debris and ignited any nearby combustible matter. I'm not suggesting that the molten steel moved around.

What then supported the combustion of the combustibles that were ignited by the molten steel? I though you said that there was no oxygen to do so.

Things smolder rather than flame when deprived of air. This creates a lot more smoke because the lower temperature fires don't burn the fuel clean.


The point here is: There was very limited air in the debris pile. The air flow determines how hot a fire burns.
There was a 200 °C increase when the window was opened in the test.
Conversely, the limited the air in a debris pile would be much less than the unventilated room which was already too low to cause the steel on the beam to melt. [700-800 °C]

 

[DC]

Ok, just wanted to get that clear.



Good, you did some research.



It didn't cross your mind that there might not be reports because they were not recovered from the debris?



No, you didn't. This is my point, if you had done your research you would have found that they were not recovered.



Ok, but you did say:



Yes, they are built to withstand a lot, but they don't always survive intact. Can you accept that they were either never found in the rubble or just damaged beyond recognition?

Does this answer your questions?

so i did not do my research? well when you would have done your research you would know that the blackboxes was reported to be found........

 

[DC]

and no i does not answer my question
try harder

 

[Dave Rogers]

You are asking for something that doesn't exist. There has never been a case where there were smoldering fires under the debris of a collapsed steel and concrete building.

The how do you claim to know for certain that temperatures over 1000ºC cannot be reached in such a situation? Your entire argument rests on the assumption that you know something that you now admit that you don't know and can't possibly know.

until the temperature of the smoldering fire is reached.
until the temperature of the smoldering fire is reached.

You don't understand enough about thermodynamics to have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. You're treating the smouldering fire as a thermal reservoir with a specific temperature. It isn't; it's a source of thermal energy. If that energy can't escape at the same rate it's generated, the temperature will rise. The fire itself doesn't have a specific temperature; it attains an equilibrium temperature when the rate of energy loss is equal to the rate of energy release. Therefore, there is no such thing as "the temperature of the smouldering fire"; fire is a process, not an object.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

The how do you claim to know for certain that temperatures over 1000ºC cannot be reached in such a situation? Your entire argument rests on the assumption that you know something that you now admit that you don't know and can't possibly know.

You don't understand enough about thermodynamics to have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. You're treating the smouldering fire as a thermal reservoir with a specific temperature. It isn't; it's a source of thermal energy. If that energy can't escape at the same rate it's generated, the temperature will rise. The fire itself doesn't have a specific temperature; it attains an equilibrium temperature when the rate of energy loss is equal to the rate of energy release. Therefore, there is no such thing as "the temperature of the smouldering fire"; fire is a process, not an object.

These facts we both know.

1) The combustible materials in a building burn at about 900-1000 °C in a ventilated room and about 700-800 °C in a non ventilated room.
The highest air temperatures in the Trade Towers were about 1000 °C
That is consistent with the tests NIST conducted.

2) Everything in the Trade Towers, except the steel, was pulverized and mixed together in the debris pile.

Do you agree?

 

[jaydeehess]

These facts we both know.

1) The combustible materials in a building burn at about 900-1000 °C in a ventilated room and about 700-800 °C in a non ventilated room.
The highest air temperatures in the Trade Towers were about 1000 °C
That is consistent with the tests NIST conducted.

Yes, and this has very little to do with the behaviour of an underground and well insulated fire.
You're comparing an underground fire to a large volume room fire and the two behave very differently.
In an underground fire the air supply enters the fuel volume and the fire occurs closest to that supply. In burning it releases heat that is absorbed by nearby mass. If that mass is itself conbustible it will reach its combustion temp BUT not combust until it gets an oxygen supply. Many materials will undergo a breakdown in such a situation and the resultant compounds can have a higher combustion temp than the original material.

This is similar to the situation in a wood stove chimney. The difference is that when the wood actually combusts it releases gases some of which do not burn. They then condense on the cooler chimney in the form known as creasote. That creasote has a much higher combustion temp than does dry wood. If one does not clean out the chimney it can build up and when it does ignite it can burn through a stainless steel chimney. That is why a wood stove chimney must be rated to withstand 2100 F. If one does have a chimney fire one is supposed to have the chimney inspected and in many cases the chimney must then be replaced. The rated chimney has kept the house from burning down though.

In an underground situation those gases are produced by raising the temp of the material in the absence of oxygen. Those gases may now travel through the mass, at a temp at which when they contact oxygen they will immediatly react with it and combust. As the material at the fire front is consumed the passage of air goes further into the mass allowing more areas to be on fire. The entire volume has also been continually heating, releasing gases percolating those gases to areas that have oxygen or simply building up there until oxygen reaches it and then burning at a temp higher than the materail from which the gas orginates. Furthermore the longer this goes on the more water is released from the underground mass due to heating. The drier material will burn hotter when it finally does become involved in the fire and the drier mass becomes a better insulator as well. Because of the nature of the covering of debris not a lot of the water being poured on top actually reaches the deeper fires just as standing under a tree in a rain can keep uou dry.

2) Everything in the Trade Towers, except the steel, was pulverized and mixed together in the debris pile.

No, I do not agree with your characterization of 'pulverized'. Broken up, twisted, smashed and some portion of the concrete was broken down into dust but you have continued to try and characterize the underground situation as a solid mass of material with very little ability to pass gasses through it.

I'm suggesting that the intense heat of the ongoing Thermate reaction heated the surrounding debris and ignited any nearby combustible matter. I'm not suggesting that the molten steel moved around.

On going thermite reaction Chris?? Just how much thermite was planted in the complex to allow it to continue reacting for weeks? Still postulating massive amounts of thermite being placed throughout the towers or in the underground complex. Does your woo now know no bounds? Next thing you know, you'll be a no-planer!
Face it Chris, the best explanation for the movement of the underground fire is that it followed the fuel and was burning in the same fashion that a coal seam fire does.

 

[LashL]

The World Trade Center was a federal crime scene and an official investigation by the FBI was mandatory.

The FBI did investigate, Christopher. Your persistently pretending otherwise does not change reality.

I don't know the statute and LashL will not post it because he/she knows it requires the preservation of evidence at a crime scene involving multiple deaths.

That is not only untrue, it is also stupid to suggest that either the state or federal statute required the preservation of all of the steel, etc. from the site. There was absolutely nothing illegal about the removal of the steel, or the eventual destruction of some of it.

Even though I disagree with your entire line of thinking, I am going to hang in there with you for another comment. If NIST/FEMA didn't have plans to use the steel in an official proceeding then the statute you cited was not violated. That is all I was getting at. You can say it was a dereliction of duty but that doesn't make disposing of the steel illegal.

And they conducted largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI. Here is a little tidbit of their investigation (sorry can't post links yet) -- "Nationwide we covered over 500,000 investigative leads and conducted over 167,000 interviews. We collected over 7,500 pieces of evidence which were submitted for analysis. Working in conjunction with New York City agencies and authorities, we helped process over 1.8 million tons of debris for investigative leads and victim identification and took more than 45,000 crime scene photographs."

<snipped for brevity, although the entire post is worthy of re-reading several times.>

That was a terrific post, Jwheelz.

However
The intent of the law is to prevent what happened.

No, that is not the intent of that law at all. You really should stop making pronouncements on legal issues when it is obvious that you lack - profoundly - the education, knowledge, training, or ability to do so correctly.

Your fanatic loyalty to the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory is rather transparent.
You parrot their talking points with passion.

Now, that is just stupid. Jwheelz did not write anything that could rationally lead you to such lame and unfounded accusations. You seem to be getting upset, Christopher7. Perhaps you need a little lie down.

The concrete was reduced to dust and would have blocked any air from coming up thru several stories of debris.

What a staggeringly ignorant comment that is.

You [Christopher7] don't understand enough about thermodynamics to have the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

Ahh, the beauty of a well placed understatement is a sight to behold.

You might appreciate this story, then. My father's best friend, Rex, used to teach high school, and back in the 1980s, he was dating a woman from Canada. One day Rex brought her to school with him, and afterwards she commented, "I never believed that American schools were like they're shown on Welcome Back, Kotter, but I was wrong."

Heh! That's a great story!

 

[Christopher7]

Yes, and this has very little to do with the behaviour of an underground and well insulated fire.
You're comparing an underground fire to a large volume room fire and the two behave very differently.

The amount of air determines the how fast and how hot a fire burns.

Do you agree?

In an underground fire the air supply enters the fuel volume and the fire occurs closest to that supply.

There is far less air in a debris pile than there is in a non ventilated room.

Do you agree?

In burning it releases heat that is absorbed by nearby mass. If that mass is itself conbustible it will reach its combustion temp BUT not combust until it gets an oxygen supply.

If that mass is itself combustible.
The debris pile was mostly pulverized* concrete, drywall, insulation, pieces of metal desks and filing cabinets etc.
*dust and gravel

Do you agree?

Many materials will undergo a breakdown in such a situation and the resultant compounds can have a higher combustion temp than the original material. This is similar to the situation in a wood stove chimney. The difference is that when the wood actually combusts it releases gases some of which do not burn. They then condense on the cooler chimney in the form known as creasote. That creasote has a much higher combustion temp than does dry wood. If one does not clean out the chimney it can build up and when it does ignite it can burn through a stainless steel chimney.

The creosote is in the smoke and builds up in the chimney over a period of time.
Do you have any data on the buildup of compounds in smoldering fires that burn at 1000 °C ?

In an underground situation those gases are produced by raising the temp of the material in the absence of oxygen. Those gases may now travel through the mass, at a temp at which when they contact oxygen they will immediatly react with it and combust.

The debris pile was smoking, not burning, because the temperature of the smoke was below the flash point.

As the material at the fire front is consumed the passage of air goes further into the mass allowing more areas to be on fire. The entire volume has also been continually heating, releasing gases percolating those gases to areas that have oxygen or simply building up there until oxygen reaches it and then burning at a temp higher than the materail from which the gas orginates.

There was a very limited air supply in the debris pile.
As you have stated, the fires in the debris pile were well insulated, that is to say, airflow was very restricted.

Furthermore the longer this goes on the more water is released from the underground mass due to heating. The drier material will burn hotter when it finally does become involved in the fire

but not as hot as an open air fire.

No, I do not agree with your characterization of 'pulverized'. Broken up, twisted, smashed and some portion of the concrete was broken down into dust but you have continued to try and characterize the underground situation as a solid mass of material with very little ability to pass gasses through it.

All of the concrete was broken down to gravel and dust. There were no large chunks. There were no pieces of furniture, carpet, computers or other combustibles larger than a telephone keypad.

On going thermite reaction Chris?? Just how much thermite was planted in the complex to allow it to continue reacting for weeks?

I don't know. That's why i said "suggesting".

You have offered nothing to support your contention that smoldering fires in the debris pile could burn hotter that a fire in an unventilated room.

 

[Major_Tom]

Dave comments:

You don't understand enough about thermodynamics to have the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

Industrial processes which generate extreme heat have existed for a long time.

The making of ceramics and the melting of metals have existed long before classical or quantum thermodynamics.

Heat generated during these processes tend to be related to the capacity to force-feed oxygen and the fuel used.

I'm not aware of extreme heat generating methods in industrial processes that favor smoldering the fuel supply as opposed to force-feeding oxygen.

Dave, given the fuel supplies within the WTC rubble and your advanced understanding of thermodynamics, could you please explain how smoldering a fire can produce higher temperatures than allowing a steady oxygen supply?

Metal smelters throughout the ages have seemed to prefer to feed oxygen rather than smolder their fuel sources.



jaydeehess comments:

This is similar to the situation in a wood stove chimney.

Anyone who has used a Franklin stove (sealed stove) to control a fire and produce heat for their home, be they man or woman, old or young, Physicist or hermit, will quickly learn how to control the damper and air intake to warm their home.

The chimney is hottest when you allow full oxygen flow (sometimes too hot).

Your house is warmest when it is half shut down (lessening the heat but redirecting it into the home rather than up the chimney).

You almost totally close the vent (smolder the fire) when you go to bed to lessen the heat and preserve your coals until the morning. If you don't do this you won't have any red coals in the morning.

If you totally shut down the stove, you'll probably kill the fire.



Note: I'm not a big fan of the notion that thermite reactions continued in the rubble for a month or more. It, too, would burn up it's self-contained supply of oxygen rather quickly.

But the argument that smoldering fires burn hotter is silly and is not to be found in heat generating processes that have existed for thousands of years.



Christopher7: If you recall, I asked you whether you have summerized many of the points you are making in this thread in a more presentable and linkable form. You referred me to some threads in the new Loose Change forum.

I checked those links, but I find your arguments in this thread to be much better than the links you gave me.

I'm particularly interested in your analysis of the fake NIST photo showing damage to the SW corner of WTC 7, among other points you have raised. I would like to be able to link to your arguments through other websites but I cannot link to a 117 page thread and not confuse the reader.

So I assume you have not condensed these arguments into a more digestible form, like a PDF or a power-point presentation? Have you?

If not, I guess I will try to extract them myself. Your presentation is very good.

 

[Dave_46]

I'm going to comment on the first two points.

The amount of air determines the how fast and how hot a fire burns.

Do you agree?

No. This is one of the factors that "determines the how fast and how hot a fire burns"

Other factors are (including, but not limited to) fuel type, fuel configuration (geometry, volume:surface ratio), thermal feedback from surroundings.

There is far less air in a debris pile than there is in a non ventilated room.

Do you agree?

No. There may be "far less air in a debris pile than there is in a non ventilated room", but there may not be. If the unventilated room has had a fire in it, the fire has probably gone out, due to lack of oxygen. A debris pile could well have air channels through it, so there could be more air available in a debris pile than an unventilated room.


Christopher. You seem intent on oversimplifying fire. Fire is a complex phenomenon, and it is not correct to generalise as you seem to be doing. If you are going to draw comparisons then you will have to specify the conditions you are comparing.

Dave

 

[DC]

i see i see

the magic debris pile, was a superb insulation while it still had a good ventilation for months.

 

[Dave_46]

i see i see

the magic debris pile, was a superb insulation while it still had a good ventilation for months.

I was making a general point, in response to Christopher7's general point. He said "a" debris pile not "the" debris pile.

I was making the point that fire is complex, and one should be careful not to oversimplify.

I think that English is not your first language. If so it is understandable that you may have misunderstood what I was posting.

Dave

 

[DC]

collapses are also very complex and one should be careful not to oversimplify.

 

[Christopher7]

Dave comments:

Industrial processes which generate extreme heat have existed for a long time.

The making of ceramics and the melting of metals have existed long before classical or quantum thermodynamics.

Heat generated during these processes tend to be related to the capacity to force-feed oxygen and the fuel used.

I'm not aware of extreme heat generating methods in industrial processes that favor smoldering the fuel supply as opposed to force-feeding oxygen.

Dave, given the fuel supplies within the WTC rubble and your advanced understanding of thermodynamics, could you please explain how smoldering a fire can produce higher temperatures than allowing a steady oxygen supply?

Metal smelters throughout the ages have seemed to prefer to feed oxygen rather than smolder their fuel sources.


jaydeehess comments:

Anyone who has used a Franklin stove (sealed stove) to control a fire and produce heat for their home, be they man or woman, old or young, Physicist or hermit, will quickly learn how to control the damper and air intake to warm their home.

The chimney is hottest when you allow full oxygen flow (sometimes too hot).

Your house is warmest when it is half shut down (lessening the heat but redirecting it into the home rather than up the chimney).

You almost totally close the vent (smolder the fire) when you go to bed to lessen the heat and preserve your coals until the morning. If you don't do this you won't have any red coals in the morning.

If you totally shut down the stove, you'll probably kill the fire.

Well stated. Thank you

Note: I'm not a big fan of the notion that thermite reactions continued in the rubble for a month or more. It, too, would burn up it's self-contained supply of oxygen rather quickly.

The fact is, there was molten metal in the basement of both towers and under the debris pile of WTC 7, three to five weeks after 9/11. This was reported by several people including Peter Tully of Tully Construction and Mark Loiseaux who said "[FONT=&quot]It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with."

I don't know how long a thermate reaction continues but the release of oxygen is a chemical process and could last a while.
[/FONT]I would suggest that the debris pile provided an insulating blanket that kept the metal molten.

But the argument that smoldering fires burn hotter is silly and is not to be found in heat generating processes that have existed for thousands of years.



Christopher7: If you recall, I asked you whether you have summerized many of the points you are making in this thread in a more presentable and linkable form. You referred me to some threads in the new Loose Change forum.

I checked those links, but I find your arguments in this thread to be much better than the links you gave me.

I'm particularly interested in your analysis of the fake NIST photo showing damage to the SW corner of WTC 7, among other points you have raised. I would like to be able to link to your arguments through other websites but I cannot link to a 117 page thread and not confuse the reader.

So I assume you have not condensed these arguments into a more digestible form, like a PDF or a power-point presentation? Have you?

No, but here is a list of URLs for the specific threads:

Flaws and omissions in NIST hypothesis
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52284/1/#new

No evidence to support NIST hypothesis
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52282/1/#new

No "10 story gouge" in the middle of WTC 7
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52258/1/#new

Fires at south west corner
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/47142/1/#new

Damage to SW part of WTC 7; had no significant effect on AIE
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52274/1/#new

If not, I guess I will try to extract them myself. Your presentation is very good.

Thank you. If you have any suggestions as to how i could condense, clarify and improve the summaries, i would love to hear them.
Given your arguments in this post, i'm sure you could make some improvements. Feel free to post or PM any thoughts you may have.

 

[bonavada]

These facts we both know.

2) Everything in the Trade Towers, except the steel, was pulverized and mixed together in the debris pile.

Do you agree?

No:-

I think we see more than steel in the debris pile here.

Do you agree?

BV

 

[Christopher7]

No. This is one of the factors that "determines the how fast and how hot a fire burns"

Other factors are (including, but not limited to) fuel type,[1] fuel configuration (geometry, volume:surface ratio)[2], thermal feedback from surroundings[3].

1] office contents
2] small pieces mixed with a greater volume of noncombustibles
3] please explain how thermal feedback works, with references.

No. There may be "far less air in a debris pile than there is in a non ventilated room", but there may not be. If the unventilated room has had a fire in it, the fire has probably gone out, due to lack of oxygen.

When the fire went out the temperature dropped to less than 100 °C.

A debris pile could well have air channels through it, so there could be more air available in a debris pile than an unventilated room

that has run out of oxygen. [no air]

Christopher. You seem intent on oversimplifying fire. Fire is a complex phenomenon, and it is not correct to generalise as you seem to be doing. If you are going to draw comparisons then you will have to specify the conditions you are comparing.

Dave

OK
1] ventalited room [ample air] 900-1000 °C
2] unventilated room [limited supply of air] 700-800 °C
3] debris pile [less air than in an unventilated room] ???
4] unventilated room [no air/oxygen] less than 100 °C

Trying to say the combustibles in a debris pile, mixed with and surrounded by noncombustibles, could burn as hot as a well ventilated fire with combustibles like bunk beds surrounded by air, is just silly.

 

[Dave_46]

1] office contents
2] small pieces mixed with a greater volume of noncombustibles
3] please explain how thermal feedback works, with references.

I don't know what you're getting at with 1 and 2. with regard to 3, any basic fire engineering text book should help.

When the fire went out the temperature dropped to less than 100 °C.

that has run out of oxygen. [no air]

Not sure what you're getting at, but you seem to be moving from general to specific, and I was posting in general terms. Do I detect shifting goalposts.

OK
1] ventalited room [ample air] 900-1000 °C
2] unventilated room [limited supply of air] 700-800 °C
3] debris pile [less air than in an unventilated room] ???
4] unventilated room [no air/oxygen] less than 100 °C

Trying to say the combustibles in a debris pile, mixed with and surrounded by noncombustibles, could burn as hot as a well ventilated fire with combustibles like bunk beds surrounded by air, is just silly.

Agian i'm not sure what you're getting at. I was not trying to claim what you say I was. I was making the point that fire is very complex, and you seemed to be oversimplifying.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

When the fire went out the temperature dropped to less than 100 °C.

No.

That's where you're thinking of water going off the boil.

Is there no end to your ignorance?