I argued that unignited nanothermite dispersed randomly would increase the temperature of a smoldering pile. You made the following counter arguments
- (a) what fuel is there for the nanothermite reaction,
- (b) whether the nanothermite was aggregated,
- (c) how long will nanothermite react,
- (d) what ignition is there for unignited nanothermite
Of the four arguments (d) appears insurmountable. In Jones’s paper I overlooked an experiment with thermite and a propane torch
http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf. It is very unlikely that a smoldering pile could generate the temperatures of a propane torch (1995c) . So the unignited nanothermite is unlikely to have ignited even if it survived the collapse. However it would have provided a source of oxygen which would have prolonged the underground combustion. But that said in light of this information
I am forced to concede that nanothermites that survived the collapse are unlikely to have ignited in the smoldering rubble pile.
I would also argue based on my earlier questions to you, which you can address in tandem with this, that the same would as well apply to any thermite prior to the collapse initiations. This is a cumulative summation of the questions I've asked you in my last few posts... I know I keep repeating them, but it's for clarification's sake, so as to avoid confusing you... Since you haven't had the chance to respond to my posts yet I'd like to make it clear that you can simply apply your response to these on one post...
This regards issues with the metal flowing out of the 82nd floor of the WTC:
- Was the thermite charge that we supposedly see in that video 'dislodged' from where ever it was placed, and we just so happened to see it?
- or was it cutting the intended column?
- If the 1st is the case, then why do we see only one set of 'sparks' or charges? Clearly that shouldn't be the only one dislodged if that is the case. What claims can you make regarding other thermite charges?
- If the second is the case, and the thermite is cutting the intended column, then why do we see only one discharging? Clearly cutting a single exterior perimeter column does virtually nothing to violate the structural integrity. Why don't we see thousands of these going off?
- If your answer is that these thermite charges were located only within the core column grid, how do you connect it to the inward bowing perimeter columns 1st seen withing the 1st 20 minutes after the plane impacts?
- How did they ignite the thermite charges? Thewholesoul conceded that for his nano-thermite, the smoldering fires were not hot enough to serve as an ignition source, so how did it ignite? WHO ignited it, knowingly risking life and limb to make sure they went off?
- How did these thermite charges in the impact area survive the plane impacts? Were any dislodged?
But given that you accept that a thermite reaction can produce temperatures sufficient to melt steel and it is a natural consequence that if thermite was used to demolish the towers then we would expect to find molten steel immediately after the rubble pile.
Again, the key word is if, and the argument is pretty difficult to make with the concession you made in regards to the ignition source and whether it was sufficient or not.
At the end of the day neither myself nor the truth movement is wedded to thermite. But because thermite can melt steel
it can never be completely ruled out as a possibile cause for the molten steel found within the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7. But in this post I wish to put the spotlight on YOUR position i wish to argue that YOUR explanation is
not a possible cause of either (a) the high temepratures and (b) the production of molten steel in the WTC 1, 2 and 7 rubble piles.
---------------------------------------------
I posted a paper on “smoldering combustion”
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02074.pdf and within this paper the maximum temperatures, even under ideal conditions, are
not sufficient to melt steel. I then later asked whether or not you considered the rubble pile at WTC as a “smoldering” pile. You
avoided to answer my question.
It falls outside of my are of study, and considering I have not extensively studied how smoldering was to affect the debris pile over a period of months I'm not in a position to try and argue with you over that. I'll allow somebody with greater expertise in that are to debate with you on the matter. Consider that a concession.
However as molten metal is concerned, given my lack of expertise on the the effects of smoldering, I made the only argument which made little sense, the logistics of how thermite would create the molten metal weeks in advance and whether if we assume thermite was there at all, if the ignition source and other logistics were possible. All of which are apparently not user-friendly.
If you cannot find a source then concede the point. If you do not acknowledge that the WTC was a “smoldering” pile then please state what category of combustion you think it was.
Likely a combination of both the corrosive reactions as well as the smoldering caused by the remnants of the fires from the plane impacts. However, I never said that 'rusting' would ever be entirely responsible for such heat gain. I've clarified this further down...
You
contradict your own position. On one hand you try to explain the unusually high temperatures recorded at the WTC rubble pile with slow exothermic reactions then on the other hand you post the following:
From a website you cited in support of your position
http://www.howstuffworks.com/mre4.htm
So how can slow exothermic reactions - undectable to human touch - generate redhot spots recorded by USGS (16th and 23rd of sept) that actually melted the boots off the rescue workers?
This is where I wish you paid attention to my context and interpreted it better. I made an explicit point to state that 'rust', a slow exothermic reaction, would at best contribute to
the long term findings of 'molten metal'
not the short term. The debris pile was insulated, and for several months at that. If the heat has no where to disperse it becomes insulated. As to whether it alone would have been capable of drastically heating the metal in the pile, I've made a point to avoid assumptions that it would, only that it would play a contributory role in it. Parts of the debris pile was full of hot spots immediately following the collapse of the towers, and, heat speeds up oxidation be it in the form of 'smoldering', 'rusting', or burning. All are forms of oxidation. Unfortunately I never explained this point well enough. And until I actually study it in detail I am dropping the argument, and continuing in pursuing the other areas in which your argument is flawed.
If the corrosion and oxidation of steel is so effective in generating heat, then why do people put coal, wood and other carbonacious material ontop of their steel fire grates? Why dont they just splash a little water over the steel fire grate and break out the marshmellows?
Because it's not that effective thewholesoul...
Rust is obviously not going to cook anything unless it is insulated for a seriously long period of time, it's simply
that slow. I don't know why exactly you saw my argument as attempting to explain anything regarding hot spots early on... I made it a point of not stating that...
YOUR explanation that slow exothermic reactions produced molten steel several weeks later is not supported by the available evidence.
Neither is your thermite explanation. For reasons stated before.
The main point to be taken from the presence of molten steel on sept 12th is that it debunks your notion that slow exothermic reactions produced molten steel several weeks after the collapse. Does it not?
It would debunk me if I were arguing that they did... but I was talking of several weeks later, not 1, not 2, and so on days after the collapse.
[satellite thermal images] red hotspots were observed
just two hours after the collapse where WTC 1 and 2 once stood. How can a slow exothermic reaction explain this Grizzly?
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP05-screen.pdf
The answer is that the 'slow exothermic reactions I've been arguing for wouldn't have. The subject of oxidation in the context of steel is pretty broad, ranging from rust, to fire, to smoldering, you name it... I specifically argued
slow reactions such as rusting and the
contributory role it played later on. The 'hotspots', please, 2 hours after the collapses... those fires in the upper floors were never even fought, 2 hours after the collapse I'd definitely expect to have seen a number of hot spots just from the remnant fires, the fuel was immensely abundant for combustion... nor would those materials cool of to room temperature so quickly...
The wtc fires 20 mins after impact were estimated by NIST to have temperatures of “500c and below” [S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR. Gaithersburg”, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, September 2005] and given people were seen standing in the impact zone and given that firefighters reached the core area of the imapct zone we can begin to release just how much "below" 500c the temperatures in the south tower were.
At certain times portions of the burning burned as hot as 100 oC for short periods of time, Bio has brought this up, despite his argument being in line with yours. But we're talking about fires which progressed over the course of 50 and 100 minutes respectively. The fires in that time frame had time to spread before the towers failed. The 20 minutes may be an accurate representation, but it doesn't seem to comment for the remaining time.
and remember, even at temperatures of 500 oC, steel is already losing strength, as mentioned in this:
Source
The yield strength of steel is reduced to about half at 550 ºC. At 1000 ºC, the yield strength is 10 percent or less. Because of its high thermal conductivity, the temperature of unprotected internal steelwork normally will vary little from that of the fire. Structural steelwork is, therefore, usually insulated.
Apart from losing practically all of its load-bearing capacity, unprotected steelwork can undergo considerable expansion when sufficiently heated. The coefficient of expansion is 10-5 per degree Celsius. Young’s modulus does not decrease with temperature as rapidly as does yield strength.
Now not only were the fires
not evenly distributes amongsth the several floors they burned, they didn't need to burn throughout the structure all at one time either. The steel undergoes more than just softening in the heat, it undergoes thermal expansion and contraction. A good deal of this is exemplified by the concave bowing of the exterior perimeter columns.
As for the 'people', look it doesn't take showing a picture of somebody supposedly standing at the gaping hole to tell me that... there were a number of people who were
IN the impact zones that survived, not many, but there were a few. All that tells us is that the fires, as big and bad as they were, were not spread evenly inside the structures. Do you seriously think if the the fires were hot that the same temperature would be experienced globally throughout the floors?
in any event this means that temperatures at WTC 1 and 2 actually increased following their collapse! Normally when buildings collapse they do not create red hot spots seen in thermal images from space. Even the rubble pile of a conventional demolition will not produce red hotspots seen 2 hours later from satellite images. But this is what happened on 911 on three separate occassions.
Well common sense kind of tells you that most tall buildings aren't burning at the time of collapse now are they?
Moreover, just what relevance does this have to controlled demolitions? Do they just whip out the matches and set the building they demolish on fire before setting their explosive off? I don't thiiink sooo...
Again the point to be taken is that your noton of slow exothermic reactions as the explanation behind the temperatures generated at the WTC rubble piles is debunked by the satellite imagry. Is is not?
I'll get back to this...
I am looking forward to your next reply when your concede that slow exothermic reactions were not responsible for generating the sudden high temperatures or producing the molten steel observed at the WTC.
I got nothing to concede to that point because I never argued that such slow reactions would have contributed to the hot spots early on... sorry you wasted your time with that.... I was arguing for what was found many weeks later.
I expect you will run to debunking sites and invoke the argument that “iron burns” by Mark R Ferran. When you post this argument i will debunk that in turn.
Then go ahead and debunk them now if you have them all sussed out. It'll save me wasting my time if you just tell me what facts this paper has wrong. In fact I love how you just try to predict my actions. Are you psychic?
