• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
1] office contents
2] small pieces mixed with a greater volume of noncombustibles

,,, and automobiles in the garage areas, and transformers with their oil supply etc.. In point of fact Chris, your arguement seems to be that there is not enough combustible material in an office building to support a large fire. That is shown to be incorrect in that office fires do occur just fine with the amount of fuel available. The ratio of non-combustibles to combustibles remains the same in a building that has been destroyed as it was when the building stood.
The combustible material has also been shredded which would increase its ratio of surface area to volume meaning that more material can be presented to an available oxygen supply and thus burn more efficiantly.

BTW has anyone here actrually argued that any material burns hotter in low oxygen than in high oxygen. Fact is that the flame itself will always be at the same temp. If a specific reaction requires oxygen and s exothermic then it will aways release the same amount of heat. All that changes in a well ventilated situation is that more material is undergoing that reaction AND the air entering the combustion is taking heat away. By forcing air in you aloow more material to burn at the same time thus increasing the amount of heat produced which is then relaesed to the surroundings. So to increase the temp one can burn more stuff(ie increase the oxygen supply) or decrease the ability of the surroundings to take that heat away. In a room in which there is a fire and if one then slows the oxygen supply less material will now be burning BUT since the room(or woodstove for that matter) still can transfer heat away as well as it could before and so the room cools.
Take the same situation and as you slow the oxygen supply also blanket the room with an greater insulation and the room will cool slower and never get as cool as it would have without adding that insulation.

Insulate a woodstove enough and you will easily reach the point where the steel is red hot even if you restrict the airflow. (of course also restrict chimney size to allow gasses to exit only as fast as oxygen is entering the system so as to again decrease the hat loss.)



that has run out of oxygen. [no air]

Specious arguement. An unventilated anything in which one means absolutly no oxygen supply means no fire and thus no heat being produced and thus the temperature of that room will depend soley on its heat loss by convection and radiation.

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


Why would a debris pile have "less air than in an unventilated room"? You still have not made that arguement stick Chris. Obviously there were some voids in the pile as people were found in the debris. You say they were on near the surface buit you also state that the pile was covered by concrete that had been reduced to gravel or smaller chunks as well as all office material reduced to chunks no bigger than a telephone. That would preclude any survivors at all, anywhere in the debris pile. In fact all survivors were people who were near the ground level when collapse started so 110 stories of debris came down around them. It has been pointed out that the subway allowed a way for air to enter, the hollow columns allow a way for air to enter[/quote]

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.

What?? bunk beds??

As air came to a fire face it would burn only that material of the surface area it came in contact with. It would release heat and expanding gases. The heat is absorbed by the surrounding mass. The material burns through and the air supply follows the opening passage created by the smaller volume of materail as it is consumed in the fire and at the same time the heat being produced is not escaping readily thus the nearby volume heats up. Now the fire is more efficient as the material about to be burned is already close to or even at, its ignition temp when it gets oxygen.
You now have a situation in which much of the surrounding non-combustible amterial can reach a temp where it glows red hot. If aluminum or copper is present it can reach its melting point and become liquid. Steel and iron deform under any strain, torgue or tension as it has lost much of its strength.

Thermite requires no oxygen, it reacts rapidly, very rapidly, and even a large amount will be gone within minutes releasing a very large amount of heat in a very localised volume. It will chew through steel and spall concrete and fireball of such a large mass will head for the center of the earth creating something that will resemble a small volcanic pipe. It will not do what was seen to occur in the debris pile where the fire travelled around the pile.
 
CORRECTION:
in my above post I wrote
AND the air entering the combustion is taking heat away

more to the point its is the large convection currents in the room which allow for the heat to escape to the walls or be carried away in the gases. Radiative heat is collected by the soot that also escapes and to the walls of the room.
 
CORRECTION:
in my above post I wrote
AND the air entering the combustion is taking heat away

more to the point its is the large convection currents in the room which allow for the heat to escape to the walls or be carried away in the gases. Radiative heat is collected by the soot that also escapes and to the walls of the room.

jaydee - the following quote might be of interest. A few years ago I was trying to learn more about this entire subject and I put some questions to a UK fire technician over on the UK firefighters forum. He replied:

"A fire in solid fuel which is heat-limited will smoulder and the maximum expected temperatures would be in the order of 500 - 600°C rather than the normal values of 900°C.

The rate of combustion is very slow. Pyrolysis of any flammable material will produce smoke, but the radiant heat output is insufficient to ignite the gases, or other solid objects in the scene. Some convection may be present in the immediate vicinity but the lower temperatures cannot develop a plume so ventilation which is limited anyway can not develop and therefore the fire cannot generate a sustainable self perpetuating air flow. This lack of oxygen will limit the development of the fire and not permit a flaming fire to occur... there is just enough air entering the system to allow the pyrolosis of the materials.

Smouldering fires are slow, circa 5-6cm / hour, so the heat build up tends to be local and can maintain the peak for periods of weeks given the circumstances of building collapses, especially when buried under materials such as concrete which give some insulation but more they hold the heat well (look at the principle of electric storage heaters).

So to answer your question... no the temperature of a smouldering fire cannot get hotter than a flaming fire.... if it did the smouldering material would burst into flame."


Given the idea of temperature gradient, we then have to conclude that no amount of insulation will get the surroundings of a smouldering fire to a higher temperature than the fire itself.

This appears to suggest that the higher temperatures required for the eutectic corrosion would need to be present at the point of collapse (then maintained for a time, presumably) or there were areas where the flames were being fed by localised air supply (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread).
 
jaydee - the following quote might be of interest. A few years ago I was trying to learn more about this entire subject and I put some questions to a UK fire technician over on the UK firefighters forum. He replied:

"A fire in solid fuel which is heat-limited will smoulder and the maximum expected temperatures would be in the order of 500 - 600°C rather than the normal values of 900°C.
Steel melts at about 1464°C
So to answer your question... no the temperature of a smouldering fire cannot get hotter than a flaming fire.... if it did the smouldering material would burst into flame."

Given the idea of temperature gradient, we then have to conclude that no amount of insulation will get the surroundings of a smouldering fire to a higher temperature than the fire itself.

This appears to suggest that the higher temperatures required for the eutectic corrosion would need to be present at the point of collapse (then maintained for a time, presumably) or there were areas where the flames were being fed by localised air supply (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread).
Even with a localized air supply, the fires would be 400-500°C shy of melting steel.
 
What melted steel?

Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.


Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.
Regards,
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926



moltenmetalcr4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.


Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.
Regards,
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926



[qimg]http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1925/moltenmetalcr4.jpg[/qimg]


Is that all you have? I need to see a source that can identify molten steel from any other molten metal. I'm afraid hearsay and speculation do not wash here. You have no proof of molten steel thererfore we do not require the extreme temps.

What do you think excavators buckets are made of Chris?

Anyway this is off topic as it clearly mentions tower 2 and this is WTC7 thread.
 
Is that all you have? I need to see a source that can identify molten steel from any other molten metal. I'm afraid hearsay and speculation do not wash here. You have no proof of molten steel thererfore we do not require the extreme temps.
[FONT=&quot] This is one of the photographs that Mark Loizeaux referred to.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Molten metals glow orange to yellow at roughly 900-1100°C.
They glow white at about 1200°C
Aluminum melts at 660°C, therefore, this glob is not aluminum.

The molten metal is most likely steel.
However, it does not matter.
Planck’s Radiation Law—See
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Planck’s Law gives the spectral radiance of electromagnetic radiation of a black body. This is a function of frequency (or, equivalently, wavelength) and temperature. This law embodies the concept that the radiated spectrum as a function of frequency at a given temperature is the same shape for all radiating materials. The only factor affecting the radiated spectrum that depends on the nature of the material is emissivity, a constant, independent of frequency.

What do you think excavators buckets are made of Chris?
These machines are necessarily very robust.
No doubt the claw [perhaps several] was ruined, but that was the only way to remove the molten metal.
The claw was in contact with the molten metal for the short time. [pick up to drop]
It would take longer than that to transfer enough heat to melt the crab claw teeth. IMO, the problem would be metal solidifying and sticking to the crab claw.

Anyway this is off topic as it clearly mentions tower 2 and this is WTC7 thread.
Molten metal was found under WTC 7.
This discussion is currently about what that molten metal was and what melted it in the first place.
[/FONT]
 
These machines are necessarily very robust.
No doubt the claw [perhaps several] was ruined, but that was the only way to remove the molten metal.

What does robust mean?
In reference to the claw, you stated "perhaps several". Do you have any proof of this?
 
[FONT=&quot] This is one of the photographs that Mark Loizeaux referred to.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Molten metals glow orange to yellow at roughly 900-1100°C.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]They glow white at about 1200°C [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Aluminum melts at 660°C, therefore, this glob is not aluminum.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The molten metal is most likely steel. [/FONT]

Chris, your reasoning is precisely inverted. The orange-yellow material is molten at a temperature of less than 1200ºC. Aluminium melts at 660ºC, strutural steel at 1510ºC, and iron at about 1530ºC. Since the material is molten at less than 1200ºC, it may possibly be aluminium, but cannot possibly be iron or steel. Why do truthers have such a hard time grasping this? It should be obvious to a primary school pupil, or even a professor from Brigham Young.

Dave
 
Chris, your reasoning is precisely inverted. The orange-yellow material is molten at a temperature of less than 1200ºC. Aluminium melts at 660ºC, strutural steel at 1510ºC, and iron at about 1530ºC. Since the material is molten at less than 1200ºC, it may possibly be aluminium, but cannot possibly be iron or steel.
Dave
Your double talk is inverted.
The glob of molten metal is orange to yellow - 900-1100ºC. [roughly]
Aluminum is a liquid at those temperatures.
 
Your double talk is inverted.
The glob of molten metal is orange to yellow - 900-1100ºC. [roughly]
Aluminum is a liquid at those temperatures.

Do you seriously not know the definition of the word "molten"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting

Melting is a process that results in the phase change of a substance from a solid to a liquid. The internal energy of a solid substance is increased (typically by the application of heat) to a specific temperature (called the melting point) at which it changes to the liquid phase. An object that has melted completely is molten.

"Molten metal" means "liquid metal". The glowing liquid pouring from the 82nd floor cannot be molten iron or steel (or liquid iron or steel, which is the same thing) because it's orange to yellow (900-1100ºC). The same is true of your glob of molten metal. Iron or steel is a solid at those temperatures.

I don't know what you think you're trying to say here, but you're making no sense whatsoever.

Dave
 
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The claw was in contact with the molten metal for the short time. [pick up to drop] [/FONT]

Chris - I notice you ignored my previous post from a few weeks back .... ah, but what the hoo. But this latest of yours makes no sense. If the metal was molten, the claw could not pick it up. The molten metal would run away, just as you and I cannot pick up liquid water from a bowl in our fingers. The best we can do is get our hands wet.

It's MOLTEN , therefore it flows. That stuff in the photo didn't flow, Chris.
 
Do you seriously not know the definition of the word "molten"?
Encarta dictionary:
molten:
1)melted
changed into liquid form by heat
2)glowing
glowing with great heat


The glowing liquid pouring from the 82nd floor cannot be molten iron or steel (or liquid iron or steel, which is the same thing) because it's orange to yellow (900-1100ºC).
We are discussing the molten metal in the debris pile.

The same is true of your glob of molten metal. Iron or steel is a solid at those temperatures.
The glob is semi solid [pliable] with white hot liquid metal dripping off the bottom.

moltensteelincrabclawce0.jpg


The molten metal is most likely steel. [definitely not aluminum]
What other metal is semi solid at those temperatures?
[FONT=&quot]Metal . . . melting point [/FONT]ºC
[FONT=&quot]gold . . . . . . 1063[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]copper . . . . 1083
cast iron . . . 1100-1300
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]manganese . 1225
[/FONT][FONT=&quot] steel . . . . . . 1400-1500[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] nickel . . . . . 1450
cobalt . . . . . 1480

[/FONT] http://www.weights-and-measures.com/xcommetalsalt.html


Carbon based fires cannot heat any metal to 1100ºC + outside of a blast furnace or kiln with the aid of force fed oxygen.

Thermite or Thermate* is the ONLY known explanation for the molten metal under all three buildings.

*The sulfur in Thermate lowers the melting point of steel.
 
Last edited:
Encarta dictionary:
molten:
1)melted
changed into liquid form by heat
2)glowing
glowing with great heat


We are discussing the molten metal in the debris pile.

The glob is semi solid [pliable] with white hot liquid metal dripping off the bottom.

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/7007/moltensteelincrabclawce0.jpg

The molten metal is most likely steel. [definitely not aluminum]
What other metal is semi solid at those temperatures?

Problem 1 - nobody else in the world takes "glowing with great heat" as any kind of definition of molten. Molten is from the same root as melt. Use a better dictionary.

Problem 2 - you cannot possibly know that there's molten anything falling off that glowing lump. You merely want to believe it and are prepared to make the assertion.

Problem 3 - why can't it be aluminium? Why can't it be a burning cupboard or cubicle partition with cinders falling off it?
 
could be sheet metal, a hollow core steel door. or light gage steel from office furniture or office partitions. Interior or exterior architectural cladding. Does not look like any heavy structural steel to me. And its not molten or a grapple would not pick it up.
 
"A fire in solid fuel which is heat-limited will smoulder and the maximum expected temperatures would be in the order of 500 - 600°C rather than the normal values of 900°C.


Burning Mountain in Australia is "a fire in solid fuel" and smoulders (I am not sure what is meant by "heat-limited").

Temperatures in the Burning Mountain seam are approximately 1700 degrees C.

The Burning Mountain seam is 30m below ground, so it is very well insulated. Perhaps in other building fires expected smouldering temperatures are expected to be this low because the amount of insulation would be limited - how many building fires end with 30m deep debris piles?

In many ways the WTC debris piles were a unique phenomenon, and as such what we "expect" may not be what actually was there.
 
The glob is semi solid [pliable] with white hot liquid metal dripping off the bottom.

The molten metal is most likely steel. [definitely not aluminum]
What other metal is semi solid at those temperatures?

That steel is nowhere near molten. The majority of steel that digger is picking up isn't even incandescent at all. You simply couldn't get that degree of temperature range in a piece of steel that small. Even just taking the glowing section into account you have a temperature range of about 800 - 1000 degrees C. You are claiming that the very peripheral sections are a further 500 degrees C hotter than that? No way.


Carbon based fires cannot heat any metal to 1100ºC + outside of a blast furnace or kiln with the aid of force fed oxygen

This is untrue.
 
could be sheet metal, a hollow core steel door. or light gage steel from office furniture or office partitions. Interior or exterior architectural cladding. Does not look like any heavy structural steel to me. And its not molten or a grapple would not pick it up.

Quite.

And why the clear line between the glowing material and the dark material in the main body of the grab? If the glowing stuff were steel, why would the rest *not* be glowing? In fact, how could it *not* be glowing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom