10 story hole in WTC 7

[funk de fino]

C7

Is this you completely backtracking on your earlier CD with explosives argument?

You are now looking at silent thermite destruction?

 

[funk de fino]

He made three false statements.

Incorrect

1) It was NOT a "high temperature atmosphere"
Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C.

It is 20 deg ouside today if the atmosphere was 500 to 600 degrees it would be very hot and I would not survive, a high temperature environment if you will.

Bring us proof of the fire temps and then you can call someone a liar.

2) It was NOT "rich in oxygen".
The fires in the debris pile smoldered due to lack of air flow.

Source and proof there was not sufficient air in the piles?

3) It was NOT "rich in sulfur".
The sulfur in gypsum is locked in a chemical cage.
Gypsum is used for fireproofing. It does not contain the stuff matches are made of.

What are you wittering about here? Did you read the rest of the FEMA report you linked to with the chemical analysis of the samples which showed sulphur? Where did it come from if there was no sulphur from the gypsum?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

1) It was NOT a "high temperature atmosphere"
Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C.

Now you have 'defined' what counts as a high temperature atmosphere?
Do you have a source which explains this rule you have established?
1100 degrees Fahrenheit does not count as 'high temperature by your standard? Then define the set boundary and source it.

The abstract of this article: LINK seems to be concerned with high temperature corrosion resistance applications on steel in a temperature range of 500-700 oC

So where have you dawn the line to distinguish high temperature environments from the non?

2) It was NOT "rich in oxygen".
The fires in the debris pile smoldered due to lack of air flow.

My my, if you don't read the information I post you won't learn anything:

Corrosive gases

• Air, oxygen: The reaction between air and a material is normally called oxidation and is quite often observed as a separate discipline in regard to corrosion science. In most industrial cases where metal is in contact with air, the oxidation processes are not as much determined by plain oxidation by oxygen but one has to consider all possible contaminants of the air which can have disastrous consequences for the oxidation resistance.
  
  
• Steam: Steam in contact with steel can effect the carbon level of the steel can also oxidize the iron.
  
  
• Carbon, carbon oxides and methane: Compounds of carbon like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane can change the carbon level in the steel and subsequently influence the mechanical properties of the metal.
  
  
• Sulfur containing Gases: Even in small amounts, sulfur in various forms can accelerate corrosion at high temperatures.
  
  
• Hydrogen: Hydrogen gas is a reducing agent and in contact with steel at high temperatures can result in decarburization and the subsequent formation of hydrogen carbons; C(Fe) + 2H2 <==> CH4
  
  
• Nitrogen: Nitrogen plays in most cases no role in oxidation phenomena as it is overshadowed to the large effect of oxygen and most nitrides are only formed at high temperatures. However, active nitrogen produced from ammonia can form nitrides below 540oC.
  
  
• Combustion gases: The gas mixture arising from combustion of fuels contains for a large part carbon oxides and water vapor together with nitrogen. In situations with incomplete combustion hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and several hydrocarbons are present as well as oxygen. Most fuels contain sulfur compounds so that sulfur oxides and even hydrogen sulfide will be present in the combustion gases resulting in more severe corrosive conditions.
  
  
• Chlorine and hydrogen chloride: Dry chlorine and hydrogen chloride do not cause major problems as far as corrosion is concerned however, accidental or deliberate increases of the moisture in the gas result in rapid localized attack.

3) It was NOT "rich in sulfur".
The sulfur in gypsum is locked in a chemical cage.
Gypsum is used for fireproofing. It does not contain the stuff matches are made of.

Gypsum decomposes when exposed to the elements and constant heat source.

 

[bio]

I have the impression, the "debunkers" here ignore following statement:

FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation, sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C (1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3.The sulfidation attack of the steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

 

[phunk]

So when are you going to prove that the fires couldn't reach 1000C?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So when are you going to prove that the fires couldn't reach 1000C?

The irony being that they repeatedly prove that fires can get to those temperatures, while at the same time arguing that it's not possible.

Things that make you go hmm...

 

[Major_Tom]

C7, Apollo20 has given some pretty interesting arguments involving ammonium perchlorate.


One link to a post of his is here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2474191#post2474191

If you read the posts by Apollo20 in the thread "Debate, what debate?" he builds some very good arguments critical of the NIST report and towards other ways of viewing the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. He is a PhD Chemist and analyzes chemical signatures within the rubble in a way that I think you would appreciate.

It is an interesting read.

I'll try to put together the best links that cover some of these ideas.

 

[bio]

So when are you going to prove that the fires couldn't reach 1000C?

a smoldering fire cannot reach 1000 Grad C.

Fundamentals
The fundamental difference between smouldering and flaming combustion is that smouldering occurs on the surface of the solid rather than in the gas phase. The characteristic temperature and heat released during smouldering are low compared to those in the flaming combustion (i.e., ~600°C vs. ~1500°C).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoulder

I am talking about folowing statement:

FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation, sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C (1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3.The sulfidation attack of the steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

 

[GlennB]

a smoldering fire cannot reach 1000 Grad C.

Fundamentals
The fundamental difference between smouldering and flaming combustion is that smouldering occurs on the surface of the solid rather than in the gas phase. The characteristic temperature and heat released during smouldering are low compared to those in the flaming combustion (i.e., ~600°C vs. ~1500°C).

What makes you think the fires stopped vigorously burning (flaming) after the collapse?

 

[Christopher7]

What makes you think the fires stopped vigorously burning (flaming) after the collapse?

What makes you think they didn't?

Do you see fires burning vigorously in these photos?

The ventilation in a debris pile is very restricted. Fires cannot burn vigorously without an unrestricted air supply.

 

[Christopher7]

The irony being that they repeatedly prove that fires can get to those temperatures, while at the same time arguing that it's not possible.

Not in a debris pile.

Posted by GlennB
"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.

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.

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 [1000°C] 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).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3699111#post3699111

WTC 7 did not have a basement and the subway tunnels were several stories below ground.

 

[GlennB]

What makes you think they didn't?



The ventilation in a debris pile is very restricted. Fires cannot burn vigorously without an unrestricted air supply.

Nonsense. I can make a bonfire on flat solid ground and it will burn like crazy. Air enters from the sides through things known in the firefighting business as "holes" or - sometimes - "gaps". The WTC7 debris pile (as you have illustrated) was not one solid compacted mass.

And it would be nice if you could post a date and time taken against your photos before using them to claim there were no vigorous fires after the collapse. There are no fires there today, right? So would that prove there were not vigorous fires there, post-collapse, on 9/11 itself and up to the point when your photos were taken?

 

[funk de fino]

Post 4821 please C7?

 

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
1) It was NOT a "high temperature atmosphere"*
Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C.

*WTC7 debris pile

Now you have 'defined' what counts as a high temperature atmosphere?
Do you have a source which explains this rule you have established?

FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C (1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

The abstract of this article: LINK seems to be concerned with high temperature corrosion resistance applications on steel in a temperature range of 500-700 oC

Abstract:
Relates to the development of high temperature resistant coating applicable in the temperature range of 500°C to 700°C. A12O3, TiO2 and ZrO2 have been incorporated in aluminium phosphate and ivory-400 used as binders. Aluminium phosphate as a binder has not performed well in comparison to ivory-400. Aims mainly to study and to highlight the behaviour of the corrosion-resistant coating at high temperature.

So where have you dawn the line to distinguish high temperature environments from the non?

There is no "line" but 500-600°C is 400°C below the "approaching 1000°C" necessary to result in "the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

Corrosive gases
Air, oxygen:, Steam:, Carbon, carbon oxides and methane:, Sulfur containing Gases:[etc.]

These take place in small amounts over a period of time.

The "high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation" is unique to this beam.

There have been more intense, longer lasting fires, and there is no other reported case of this happening.

Gypsum decomposes when exposed to the elements and constant heat source.

The gypsum [drywall/wallboard] falls apart but the gypsum molecules don't. The chemical bonds are very strong. If gypsum released its sulfur in a fire, it wouldn't be used for fireproofing.

Just for S&G, this is cool:
[left click and hold on molecule, as you move the mouse around, you can rotate the molecule in any direction]
CaSO4
http://www.webmineral.com/jpowd/JPX/jpowd.php?target_file=Gypsum_1.jpx

Gypsum
[the roller will zoom in and out on this one]
http://openmopac.net/data_solids/Gypsum%20(CaSO4_2H2O)_Jmol.html

 

[GlennB]

Diesel oil contains sulphur.

WTC7, as we know, contained diesel.

Personally, I would consider the diesel as a prime candidate for both fuelling the fires and providing the detected sulphur. But that's no better than an educated guess.

 

[Christopher7]

Nonsense. I can make a bonfire on flat solid ground and it will burn like crazy. Air enters from the sides through things known in the firefighting business as "holes" or - sometimes - "gaps". The WTC7 debris pile (as you have illustrated) was not one solid compacted mass.

Be sure to crush your combustible material between 40 concrete slabs in your bonfire and cover it with the exterior walls like this:

Certainly not airtight but air flow is severely restricted in this debris pile.

And it would be nice if you could post a date and time taken against your photos before using them to claim there were no vigorous fires after the collapse. There are no fires there today, right? So would that prove there were not vigorous fires there, post-collapse, on 9/11 itself and up to the point when your photos were taken?

The only reference i could find as to when the picture was taken is this:
[FONT=&quot]"Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11"[/FONT]
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

[Christopher7]

Diesel oil contains sulphur.

WTC7, as we know, contained diesel.

Personally, I would consider the diesel as a prime candidate for both fuelling the fires and providing the detected sulphur. But that's no better than an educated guess.

There's a couple problems with that.

1) Diesel fuel is a carbon fuel like office contents. It can only burn at about 500-600°C in an air restricted environment, 400°C below the 1000°C" necessary to result in "the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

2) The diesel fuel was in the west end of the building* and the hottest spot was in the east end of the building.

*see: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf page 14

 

[Christopher7]

C7

Is this you completely backtracking on your earlier CD with explosives argument?

You are now looking at silent thermite destruction?

No, i'm just pointing out that the only known explanation for;[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]"The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."
is Thermate.

 

[funk de fino]

No,

Why use explosives and thermate?

i'm just pointing out that the only known possible explanation for;[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]"The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."
is Thermate.

No you are not. This is a lie.

If you have a fire, sulphur, water, oxygen present then you can have the same. You have to provide proof that it could only have been thermate and then proof of the thermate. Did the study on this metal not say it occured while in the pile lying flat?

Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of exceedingly high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades.

How would this have led to molten metal for many weeks?

 

[funk de fino]

2) The diesel fuel was in the west end of the building* and the hottest spot was in the east end of the building.

And the steel was from where in the building?

You do not know do you?

Where is your source for the hottest spot?