10 story hole in WTC 7

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, You have no appreciation for reality. There was molten metal in the debris pile weeks later.

If this is true, then the high temperatures required could not have arisen shortly after the collapse and then persisted for weeks. The only possible explanation for molten metal weeks later is that fires continued to burn in oxygen-starved conditions in the rubble pile. The difference between our respective appreciations of reality is that you're ignoring thermal conduction, and I'm not.

The sulphur in drywall is locked in a chemical cage and there is no precedent or scientific proof that it could have been the source for the sulphur in the steel. This is pure speculation.

Your claim that it could is meaningless without a credible scientific source to back it up. You talk about sulpheric acid. Please give the source that states how the sulphur in drywall can freed to form sulphiric acid.

"Locked in a chemical cage"? Seriously, if you're arguing on the basis of colourful metaphors, you're making yourself look even more ridiculous.

OK, let's start from Gypsum.

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

"Gypsum is a very soft mineral composed of calcium sulfate dihydrate, with the chemical formula CaSO4·2H2O.[1]"

"There are a large number of uses for gypsum throughout prehistory and history. Some of these uses are:

• Drywall"

Now let's move on to the chemical properties of calcium sulphate.

http://www.pelchem.com/pdf/CaSO4-MSDS.pdf

This is a Material Safety Data Sheet for calcium sulphate, the main component of gypsum wallboard, and present in the WTC7 rubble in huge amounts. An MSDS is an important document which is used in determining safety precaustions in handling materials in industrial processes. Note the following points under section 10, Stability and Reactivity:

"Stability: Hygroscopic, heating can release dangerous gases."
"Hazardous decomposition products: Sulphur oxides."

The oxides of sulphur are sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide. From Wikipedia:

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

"Sulfur Trioxide reacts with water to create sulfuric acid, though the reaction is too violent to be used in large-scale manufacturing."

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

"Since coal and petroleum often contain sulfur compounds, their combustion generates sulfur dioxide. Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2, forms H2SO4, and thus acid rain.[2]"

Therefore, the sulphur present in the wallboard is capable of decomposing when heated to liberate sulphur dioxide and trioxide, which combine with water to form sulphuric acid.

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

"Boiling point 290ºC"

Above 290ºC, sulphuric acid is therefore a vapour, and able to diffuse away from its point of generation and corrode metals in other places.

Gypsum, heat and water; all that's needed to create a corrosive atmosphere. Is that enough science for you?

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

If this is true, then the high temperatures required could not have arisen shortly after the collapse and then persisted for weeks. The only possible explanation for molten metal weeks later is that fires continued to burn in oxygen-starved conditions in the rubble pile. The difference between our respective appreciations of reality is that you're ignoring thermal conduction, and I'm not.



"Locked in a chemical cage"? Seriously, if you're arguing on the basis of colourful metaphors, you're making yourself look even more ridiculous.

OK, let's start from Gypsum.

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

"Gypsum is a very soft mineral composed of calcium sulfate dihydrate, with the chemical formula CaSO4·2H2O.[1]"

"There are a large number of uses for gypsum throughout prehistory and history. Some of these uses are:

• Drywall"

Now let's move on to the chemical properties of calcium sulphate.

http://www.pelchem.com/pdf/CaSO4-MSDS.pdf

This is a Material Safety Data Sheet for calcium sulphate, the main component of gypsum wallboard, and present in the WTC7 rubble in huge amounts. An MSDS is an important document which is used in determining safety precaustions in handling materials in industrial processes. Note the following points under section 10, Stability and Reactivity:

"Stability: Hygroscopic, heating can release dangerous gases."
"Hazardous decomposition products: Sulphur oxides."

The oxides of sulphur are sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide. From Wikipedia:

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

"Sulfur Trioxide reacts with water to create sulfuric acid, though the reaction is too violent to be used in large-scale manufacturing."

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

"Since coal and petroleum often contain sulfur compounds, their combustion generates sulfur dioxide. Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2, forms H2SO4, and thus acid rain.[2]"

Therefore, the sulphur present in the wallboard is capable of decomposing when heated to liberate sulphur dioxide and trioxide, which combine with water to form sulphuric acid.

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

"Boiling point 290ºC"

Above 290ºC, sulphuric acid is therefore a vapour, and able to diffuse away from its point of generation and corrode metals in other places.

Gypsum, heat and water; all that's needed to create a corrosive atmosphere. Is that enough science for you?

Dave

Very impressive.

Has this ever actually happened in a fire? If so, please give a source.

If drywall is so dangerous, why do the use it for fireproofing?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Has this ever actually happened in a fire? If so, please give a source.

Not necessary. The sole cause of decomposition is prolonged high temperature, and the high temperature caused by a fire is in no way different from the high temperature produced by any other means. The actual conditions in the WTC rubble pile fire were extremely rare, but we know that they included gypsum and temperatures close to 1000ºC. In those conditions, gypsum will decompose.

If drywall is so dangerous, why do the use it for fireproofing?

Because drywall is a hydrated form of calcium sulphate.

http://www.usg.com/resources/handbooks/ViewSection.do?bookId=1&chapterNum=0&sectionNum=7

Fire Resistance Neither gypsum nor portland cement panels will support combustion. When attacked by fire, the chemically combined water in the gypsum crystal is released and turns to steam to help retard the spread of flame and protect adjacent constructions. Cement board, too, is an effective fire barrier. Both constructions meet fire resistance and flame spread requirements of all model building codes. Fire resistance ratings up to four hours are available with specific gypsum partition, wall, floor-ceiling, beam and column fireproofing assemblies.

Note what this says: fire resistance up to four hours. Once the water of hydration is gone, the gypsum heats up and decomposes, but this requires times at elevated temperatures much greater than four hours. Several weeks, in this context, is very much greater than four hours.

Please note, also, the "up to". This is not a statement that structural members protected by gypsum wallboard cannot be damaged by fire exposures up to four hours, although I fully expect you to claim this in another thread.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Not necessary. The sole cause of decomposition is prolonged high temperature, and the high temperature caused by a fire is in no way different from the high temperature produced by any other means. The actual conditions in the WTC rubble pile fire were extremely rare, but we know that they included gypsum and temperatures close to 1000ºC.

Once again, fully ventilated fires burn at 1000ºC for a short time. Oxygen starved fires burn at 500 - 600ºC

Note what this says: fire resistance up to four hours. Once the water of hydration is gone, the gypsum heats up and decomposes,

Where does it say that it releases the sulphur?

How and under what conditions are the strong bonds in the chemical cage broken? Please give a reputable source.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Once again, fully ventilated fires burn at 1000ºC for a short time. Oxygen starved fires burn at 500 - 600ºC

Please give a reputable source.

How and under what conditions are the strong bonds in the chemical cage broken? Please give a reputable source.

I've had enough of running round after you. Look it up yourself.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

I know it sounds crazy but that appears to be the case. Many highly qualified people stated that there was molten metal in the debris pile, weeks later. You may think they are stupid or crazy or liars but then, you say that about anybody who says anything that destroys the official fairy tale.

Wrong. If the water put out the fires it would have cooled your molten metal. The water would have collected where the molten metal was. You are making the ridiculous claim.

I am not saying the fires would have been put out quickly.

Alas, only two.

Why only two out of the thousands of tons inspected by forensic investigators was there only two? If thremite was used why not more samples showing similar signs?

 

[Miragememories]

"Why only two out of the thousands of tons inspected by forensic investigators was there only two? If thremite was used why not more samples showing similar signs?"

Please provide a source that supports your statement that "...thousands of tons was inspected by forensic investigators..."?

MM

 

[jaydeehess]

Please, we are discussing a liquid slag that eroded a steel beam, not water or air.

Liquid slag containing iron, oxygen and sulphur is a byproduct of thermate.

You do not have another explanation for the liquid slag so you talk in circles.

"lead" solder contains a mix of lead and tin. Oddly enough, although I can melt the solder with my propane torch I cannot melt tin or copper with it. However when I solder copper using lead solder it not only melts the solder but also a thin layer of the copper forming the bond.

In fact solder is a eutectic mixture that functions to lower the melting temperature of the copper.

Sounds quite familiar in relation to the steel at WTC 7 , right?

 

[funk de fino]

Please provide a source that supports your statement that "...thousands of tons was inspected by forensic investigators..."?

MM

Here you go. I imagine you have seen it before but I suspect you will handwave it away. If you have a problem with the claim please contact the relevant person and do not cry to me.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

 

[Miragememories]

Here you go. I imagine you have seen it before but I suspect you will handwave it away. If you have a problem with the claim please contact the relevant person and do not cry to me.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf

You suspect I will hand wave it away?

This is a thread about WTC7.

Maybe you expect me to hand wave your document away because in it's references to WTC7, it doesn't say anything about;

""...thousands of tons was inspected by forensic nvestigators..."

MM

 

[funk de fino]

You suspect I will hand wave it away?

This is a thread about WTC7.

Maybe you expect me to hand wave your document away because in it's references to WTC7, it doesn't say anything about;



MM

All the steel from the site was taken to the inseoction areas. WTC7 and the towers steel was mixed together. The investigators inspected all steel. Therefore the steel from WTC7 was inspected as Blanchard states.

Did I say it was all in reference to WTC7 anyway? Lets see. I was talking about the two samples one of which was from the towers and one of which was from the WTC7.

Therefore you are wrong and I provided a source for my claims about the inspections. If you disagree with the claim contact Blanchard or the demo teams or the public officials and dont cry to me again.

PS The mentions of molten steel we are looking at in this thread are not exclusive to WTC7 either. Nice attempt to dodge rather than explain or admit the source is there.

 

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
Once again, fully ventilated fires burn at 1000ºC for a short time. Oxygen starved fires burn at 500 - 600º.

Please give a reputable source.

Originally 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.

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."

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

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Of course underground fires that have burned for centuries put a damper in Chris's thnking. As does the fact that thermite does not cause material to stay melted for months, so we can rule that out right away.

 

[jaydeehess]

Of course underground fires that have burned for centuries put a damper in Chris's thnking. As does the fact that thermite does not cause material to stay melted for months, so we can rule that out right away.

Chris wants the insulation properties of the debris pile to be enough to have the heat released by the therm*te dissapate so slowly that the steel would remain molten for months.

Chris wants a published source to explain how an underground fire can reach 900 degrees.

How about Chris demonstrating the math that would allow the insulative properties of the debris pile to allow for metal made molten during collapse to remain molten for months. ( even if one ignores the heat escape after therm*te ignition and before collapse )

Seems we are at an impasse then. Chris simply cannot demonstrate that any therm*te was present or used and since no one can know exactly the air supply conditions in the debris pile neither side could possibly convince the other.

,,, or are we? At the very least the so-called 'official story' can show that there were regular office fires in WTC 7 and that the debris pile contained a large amount of combustible material. The CT cannot supply anything at all other than pure unadulterated conjecture.

As for slag and eutectic mixtures;
"lead" solder contains a mix of lead and tin. Oddly enough, although I can melt the solder with my propane torch I cannot melt tin or copper with it. However when I solder copper using lead solder it not only melts the solder but also a thin layer of the copper forming the bond.

In fact solder is a eutectic mixture that functions to lower the melting temperature of the copper.

Sounds quite familiar in relation to the steel at WTC 7 , right?

 

[Christopher7]

Chris wants the insulation properties of the debris pile to be enough to have the heat released by the therm*te dissapate so slowly that the steel would remain molten for months.

Chris wants a published source to explain how an underground fire can reach 900 degrees.

Underground? The debris pile cannot be compared to a coalmine fire.

How about Chris demonstrating the math that would allow the insulative properties of the debris pile to allow for metal made molten during collapse to remain molten for months. ( even if one ignores the heat escape after therm*te ignition and before collapse )

How do you explain the molten metal weeks after the collapse?

Seems we are at an impasse then. Chris simply cannot demonstrate that any therm*te was presentor used

Wrong. The beam has the chemical signature of thermate.

since no one can know exactly the air supply conditions in the debris pile neither side could possibly convince the other.

Exactly?
Please. The air supply in a debris pile is far less than in a ventilated room.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You know someone should tell oven makers this. If they only would have open air ovens, then they would work so much better by Chris's 'logic'. Why on earth would we make ovens that are closed. And why don't we just leave the oven doors open when cooking so more air can get in there to heat things up? Hmmm...

 

[Christopher7]

You know someone should tell oven makers this. If they only would have open air ovens, then they would work so much better by Chris's 'logic'. Why on earth would we make ovens that are closed. And why don't we just leave the oven doors open when cooking so more air can get in there to heat things up? Hmmm...

Gas ovens are ventilated. If they were not, the fire could not burn.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Gas ovens are ventilated. If they were not, the fire could not burn.

So you do feel that they will work better with the door open, which gives them more ventilation. It goes with your notion that the rubble pile was air tight.

Say, guess we don't need to wear jackets in the winter anymore since insulation is not longer existent.

 

[Christopher7]

So you do feel that they will work better with the door open, which gives them more ventilation.

Johnny, gas ovens have built in ventilation for the fire.

It goes with your notion that the rubble pile was air tight.

Not airtight, air restricted.

 

[Christopher7]

Final word on 10 story hole

Jaydeehess says that anyone who takes the time to read the NIST report Apendex L doesn't believe that there was a 60' to 80' hole floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]
[post 801 Some simple Tower 7 questions thread]

Who believes that there was a '10 story hole' and who does not?

Pages 183 to 187 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 1 show the debris damage to WTC 7.

There was NO 10 story hole

as described in page 18 of the NIST Appendix L report.
“middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to
the ground”
and fraudulently depicted as “Possible Region of Impact Damage by WTC 1 Debris” on pg 23
and as “Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC 1 Debris” on pg 31 and 32.

[FONT=&quot]Shyam Sunder [/FONT][FONT=&quot]lied [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in the so called “Debunking“ article in Popular Mechanics Magazine.[/FONT]
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.”