10 story hole in WTC 7

[Grizzly Bear]

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

*WTC7 debris pile
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.

I am not asking what FEMA stated about the temperatures in the debris pile. What temperatures define a high temperature atmosphere? That is all I asked.

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.

"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"

I can bold things too Chris... Perhaps I'm never clear enough on context with you. The coatings are intended to be applied to steel to protect the STEEL from corrosion in a high temperature environment. These corrosion resistant coatings are intended to be applicable in the 500-7-00 oC range

Why would they study the performance of corrosion resistant coating for steel in high temperature environments if there were no real possibility of corrosion in such conditions?

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.

In red: So a few months worth of heating at between 500 and 600 oC, hot enough to create such an environment capable of expediting the process of severe corrosion of metals?

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

That were of the same construction as any one of the three towers? That were still on fire when they collapsed entirely? Do tell....

Although I get the impression you're about to slap me with an example like the windsor tower, or another building which did not collapse due to any number of differences in construction, construction methods, or otherwise.

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.

This would be negligible any way since the sulfur wouldn't cause immediate oxidation of the steel if it were immediately released. The heat releases the water composed in the wallboard ensuring that temperature do not rise above 212 oF. Sorry to say, I'm not as familiar with the sulfur properties in gypsum wallboard but there are certainly other sources available in the lack thereof from the drywall

 

[phunk]

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

[qimg]http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3638/hotspotscompositrm5.jpg[/qimg]

Those are surface temps, the fire is necessarily hotter under the surface where it's actually burning. And the surface temp is not necessarily directly proportional to the underground temp, as the depth of the fire and the composition of the pile will change how much heat reaches the surface.

 

[Christopher7]

Why use explosives and thermate?

Why not?
This is speculation, it proves nothing and it's a waste of time.

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

If you have a fire, sulphur, water, oxygen present then you can have the same.

This is an unprecedented and unproven theory, pure speculation.

You have to provide proof that it could only have been thermate and then proof of the thermate.

No, i have quoted the FEMA C report and noted that Thermate is one possible explanation for the liquified steel.
There are no other known possibilities.

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.

Did the study on this metal not say it occurred while in the pile lying flat?

FEMA Apx.C pg 13
"It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakining of the steel structure."

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

I don't know and there is no point in speculating.

What i do know is; Thermite is the only known explanation for the liquified steel.

 

[Christopher7]

And the steel was from where in the building?

You do not know do you?

Correct

Where is your source for the hottest spot?

 

[Christopher7]

I am not asking what FEMA stated about the temperatures in the debris pile. What temperatures define a high temperature atmosphere? That is all I asked.

As you well know, there is no set definition of for high temperature atmosphere.

I was referring to the statement by Prof. Sisson:
"I don't find it bring mysteries at all. That if I had steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere, that is rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect."


Prof. Sisson is referring to what caused the liquified steel when he says "high temperature atmosphere"

Steel normally melts around 1500°C.
One would not expect steel to erode in this manner below 1500°C without Thermate because that has never happened before.

The beam from WTC 7 was heated to around 1000°C.
One would not expect steel to erode in this manner below this temperature even with Thermate.

Prof. Sisson was referring to these temperatures when he said:
"high temperature atmosphere"

Smoldering fires do not burn anywhere near 1000°C.

Hence, my statement:
It was NOT a "high temperature atmosphere"

It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakining of the steel structure."

"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"

The coatings are intended to be applied to steel to protect the STEEL from corrosion in a high temperature environment. These corrosion resistant coatings are intended to be applicable in the 500-7-00 oC range

Why would they study the performance of corrosion resistant coating for steel in high temperature environments if there were no real possibility of corrosion in such conditions?

In red: So a few months worth of heating at between 500 and 600 oC, hot enough to create such an environment capable of expediting the process of severe corrosion of metals?

This would be negligible any way since the sulfur wouldn't cause immediate oxidation of the steel if it were immediately released. The heat releases the water composed in the wallboard ensuring that temperature do not rise above 212 oF. Sorry to say, I'm not as familiar with the sulfur properties in gypsum wallboard but there are certainly other sources available in the lack thereof from the drywall

Speculation

Can you find an example of this kind of erosion that was not the result of Thermate?

 

[funk de fino]

C7, you are babbling

Probably best to stick to LCF with the half wits?

 

[GlennB]

Steel normally melts around 1500°C.
One would not expect steel to erode in this manner below 1500°C without Thermate because that has never happened before.

Babbling indeed.
Look at your own post #4843

 

[GlennB]

Steel normally melts around 1500°C.
One would not expect steel to erode in this manner below 1500°C without Thermate because that has never happened before.

Duplicate

 

[Christopher7]

Those are surface temps, the fire is necessarily hotter under the surface where it's actually burning. And the surface temp is not necessarily directly proportional to the underground temp, as the depth of the fire and the composition of the pile will change how much heat reaches the surface.

Yes, the temperatures under the pile here greater than the surface temperatures.

The thermal image was taken 5 days after the collapse and the surface temperature was 727°C.
That means the temperature under the pile was considerably greater.
FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
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.

Office contents, crushed between concrete floors, with restricted air flow, cannot burn anywhere near that hot.
The diesel fuel was at the other end of the building except for one 6,000 tank, a little west of center.

Office contents can only reach 1000°C with full ventilation. In a debris pile, the air flow is restricted. Office contents, or even diesel fuel, could not burn hot enough to liquefy the steel.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So temperatures under the surface have to be hotter

BUT because there is less air flow under the debris, it can't burn hotter.

And you guys wonder why people laugh at you.

 

[phunk]

Office contents, crushed between concrete floors, with restricted air flow, cannot burn anywhere near that hot.

You troothers keep saying that, yet I've never seen one of you offer any sort of evidence as to what temperature a giant burning rubble pile should reach.

Tell me, how hot should it be, and why?

 

[funk de fino]

Did the study on this metal not say it occurred while in the pile lying flat?

FEMA Apx.C pg 13
"It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakining of the steel structure."

Note here - this was the summary about Sample 1 (apparently from WTC7) and Sample 2 (from one of the Towers). This quote was for both samples.

Then we look at the NIST report specifically NCSTAR 1-3C - 6.3.4 for further research on Sample 2. It clearly states that this sample did not contribute to the collapse of the building and the erosion/corrosion (not melting) occured after collapse in the pile. It also states that any high temps reached were not long lasting and only for short times. It also gives suggestions for other sources of sulphur apart from gypsum.

C7 has done his usual flip flop between NIST and FEMA pulling out what he thinks support his guff.

Then in another post he contradicts an earlier argument he made about no diesel in the west of the building by stating.

The diesel fuel was at the other end of the building except for one 6,000 tank, a little west of center.

How much is a little C7? You have made a quite clear and categoric claim that this erosion can only have been caused by thermate/mite and you are wrong. You say we should not speculate when it suits you not to answer yet then proceed to make the biggest speculations of anyomne in this thread.

You are a hypocrite.

 

[Christopher7]

So temperatures under the surface have to be hotter

BUT because there is less air flow under the debris, it can't burn hotter.

And you guys wonder why people laugh at you.

Only because you refuse to consider the other possibility:

FEMA Apx. C pg 13
It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.

 

[Christopher7]

You troothers keep saying that, yet I've never seen one of you offer any sort of evidence as to what temperature a giant burning rubble pile should reach.

Tell me, how hot should it be, and why?

The "giant burning rubble pile" was primarily steel, concrete, drywall and other non-flammable building materials.

The rubble pile was smoldering, not burning.

Originally posted by GlennB
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3699111#post3699111
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).

*****************

FEMA Apx. C pg 13
It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.

 

[lapman]

Speculation

Can you find an example of this kind of erosion that was not the result of Thermate?

Can you provide a non-9/11 related example of this kind of erosion that was the result of Thermate?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Only because you refuse to consider the other possibility:

FEMA Apx. C pg 13
It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.

And you're fine with completely contradicting yourself so long as it helps your beliefs. Thank you for clarifying that your objective has nothing to do with truth or facts but simply to argue for an imaginary conspiracy theory at all costs. your dishonesty is noted.

 

[Christopher7]

Can you provide a non-9/11 related example of this kind of erosion that was the result of Thermate?

No
To my knowledge, this phenomenon has never been seen before.

From the BBC "Third Tower" program transcript:

[FONT=&quot][Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well [/FONT][FONT=&quot]it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.[/FONT]

In other words,[FONT=&quot] a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen[/FONT] came in contact with sample 1 and caused the erosion.

The question here is:

What melted the steel?

FEMA Apx. C pg 13
"It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings.

Smoldering fires cannot attain the temperatures needed to melt steel.

It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."

Thermite/thermate is the only KNOWN explanation for the molten metal and the erosion seen in sample 1.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So you're saying it was the first time in history to have happened? That sounds kind of familiar...

 

[Christopher7]

Reply to Funk 8 13 08

Note here - this was the summary about Sample 1 (apparently from WTC7) and Sample 2 (from one of the Towers). This quote was for both samples.

Correct

Then we look at the NIST report specifically NCSTAR 1-3C - 6.3.4 for further research on Sample 2. It clearly states that this sample did not contribute to the collapse of the building and the erosion/corrosion (not melting) occured after collapse in the pile. .

Correct
Referring to Sample 1 from WTC 7:
[FONT=&quot][Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Well[/FONT][FONT=&quot] it was attacked by what we determined was a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]liquid slag[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.”[/FONT]

It also states that any high temps reached were not long lasting and only for short times.

It also gives suggestions for other sources of sulphur apart from gypsum.

Do you mean this?
Pg 231 [281 on counter]
Therefore it is unknown what specific items (e.g., office furniture, office supplies, carpeting) were the sources of the corroding elements found in the scale, how long this process occurred, or at what temperature.
Thremate is the only known explanation for the [FONT=&quot]liquid slag.[/FONT]

Then in another post he contradicts an earlier argument he made about no diesel in the west of the building by stating.

I have previously stated that there were no diesel fuel tanks in the EAST half of WTC 7.
[see FEMA Ch. 5 pg 14 for location of the tanks and pg 6 for the location of low-rise elevators in east elevator shaft]

You have made a quite clear and categoric claim that this erosion can only have been caused by thermate/mite.

You are wrong!
I have stated that Thermate is the only KNOWN explanation for the molten metal and the erosion of sample 1.

 

[funk de fino]

Reply to Funk 8 13 08
Correct

Hope you were not trying to deceive?

Correct

Referring to Sample 1 from WTC 7:
[FONT=&quot][Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Well[/FONT][FONT=&quot] it was attacked by what we determined was a [/FONT][FONT=&quot]liquid slag[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.”[/FONT]

Water, iron, sulphur, heat and oxygen. All were present in the rubble piles. There is not evidence at all of thermite/ate. Zero.

Why use thermite and explosives? You were very tied to the CD with explosives and you seem to be distancing yourself from this?

Do you mean this?
Pg 231 [281 on counter]
Therefore it is unknown what specific items (e.g., office furniture, office supplies, carpeting) were the sources of the corroding elements found in the scale, how long this process occurred, or at what temperature.

No, earlier in the page C7. It gives two possible sources for the sulphur. Strange you miss that eh? Start at the end of the first line on that page.

Thremate is the only known explanation for the [FONT=&quot]liquid slag.[/FONT]

Speculation and also untrue.

I have previously stated that there were no diesel fuel tanks in the EAST half of WTC 7.
[see FEMA Ch. 5 pg 14 for location of the tanks and pg 6 for the location of low-rise elevators in east elevator shaft]

I apologize C7, I was incorrect.

You are wrong!
I have stated that Thermate is the only KNOWN explanation for the molten metal and the erosion of sample 1.

This is also incorrect, it is not the only explanation.