767 as Thermite in WTC?

[ULTIMA1]

Actually, the color of the smoke depends on what's being combusted, not if there's abundant oxygen or not.

Oh, good Lord, not the "oxygen starved low temperatures" myth again...

So do you have evidence from a source to debate my evidence, YES or NO ?

 

[CurtC]

Gee, it is so fun and easy to prove poeple wrong when they only listen to the media and do not do any research.

Where Does Black Smoke Come From?

In general, a hotter fire will convert more fuel into elemental carbon, which forms into tiny particles that absorb light and appear in the sky as black smoke. A cooler combustion—or one that doesn't work as efficiently—yields less-pure forms of carbon. These tend to reflect light, making the smoke look white.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I've read some of the reports of thermite residue in the wreckage. Seems a lot of the folks espousing controlled demolition say this.

I don't claim to be an expert on either demolition or chemical combustion agents, but here's what I do know:

Back in my Navy days, they taught us all about the four different classes of fire. Alpha being combustible organic matter (anything that leaves ash), Bravo is a fuel fire leaving thick black smoke, Charlie is an electrical fire, and Delta is a metal/ordnance fire.

Of these, the Delta is the absolute worst since it can involve aircraft materials which contain magnesium/aluminum etc.

A 767 with plenty of aluminum impacts the towers, and you have a large fuel fire in an environment with a lot of dissimilar metals - one of them being magnesium which has an autoignition temperature of about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Could the magnesium ignition have produced a reaction with the aluminum in the aircraft frame and the steel alloys in the building?

It seems to me if you had a thermite-type reaction brought about by the plane impact and the high temperatures associated with it, that would negate the "jet fuel can't melt steel" argument completely, because a thermite reaction certainly can. It would also seem to explain the gutting of the supports in the top ten floors as well as the "presence of thermite" in the wreckage.

I'm hoping someone who is more well read on this particular aspect of it can help me out here.

There is evidence for the ignition-Oxidation of metals in the world trade center to a limited extent.

Aluminum, magnesium, Titanium, Chromium, Molybdenum, and other metals including thin steels.

There is also some evidence for other chemical effects, sulfidication, for formation of AlN, and for zinc embrittlement and hydrogen embrittlement on a limited extent from the action of both zinc and sulfides from sulfate reduction with carbon, effecting micro fissures formed in the steel though cold working action over time as during the life of the structure.

Interesting Zinc can have an effect on aged A36 steel if the right chemical coattail is present, for the production of sulfide pyrite crystals in the steel giving the Zinc chloride and zinc sulfide and entry point.

I did test the Idea, Now the usual crowd can jump all over this post for suggesting it, however the Idea does not come from applying stainless steel characteristics to A36 but from testing a chemical effect on actual A36 steel itself.

Does anyone know of anymore chemical tests that were done on A36 that might help in this?

The effect would be most prevalent in cold worked welds from motion induced micro fractures over time, or from microfactures left from the welding process itself.

Since tests for similar effects are not usually done on A36 steel for good reason, this might have gone over looked It would have greatly affected weld stability in the impact zone.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So do you have evidence from a source to debate my evidence, YES or NO ?

Good grief, read my post! A link is right there! It's from the Basic Fire Science section of the National Fire Protection Association's "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations".


--------


Your post is erroneous for the reasons I stated in my previous post. Also, regarding your previous statement:

Also as the photos and videos show the fire was buring out well before the collaspe and the thick black smoke means fire is burning at low temps.

That analysis was indeed made by some - they watched video and examined photographs - but it is an early opinion, and is incomplete. It is not honest to state it as if it's the final word on how the fire acted. Further investigation revealed how the fire progressed and how it affected the structure. Simply stating things as "the fire was burning out well before the collapse" and "burning at low temps" is incorrect; the fire spread to different locations within the compromised floors (NCSTAR 1-5 & 1-6) and while it was indeed "burning out" in some locations, it was engulfing others. And it was affecting the steel structure in the areas it was burning. Your oversimplification of the situation amounts to a distortion of what actually occurred.

Instead of relying on conspiratorial talking points like "black smoke=low temps" and "the fire was burning out", try actually understanding what happened. You seem to be subscribing to some long refuted myths in your posts. The evidence nullifying the notion that the fires were going out overall is in the NCSTAR reports I mention; the evidence that your characterization of black smoke is erroneous is in the NFPA document I linked. And the evidence that refutes your implied assertion that the fires were insufficient to result in the collapse is the very same second source you yourself linked, which was the Arthur Scheuerman article. Titled, appropriately enough, "IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE". You should perhaps read the entirety of the very source you choose to link. Note, too, that none of the sources I cite came from "the media", but are in fact original sources uncovered by the work of doing research. Whereas yours are not, and I doubt that you put much effort into doing your research. You should take your own advice.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I've read some of the reports of thermite residue in the wreckage. Seems a lot of the folks espousing controlled demolition say this.

I don't claim to be an expert on either demolition or chemical combustion agents, but here's what I do know:

Back in my Navy days, they taught us all about the four different classes of fire. Alpha being combustible organic matter (anything that leaves ash), Bravo is a fuel fire leaving thick black smoke, Charlie is an electrical fire, and Delta is a metal/ordnance fire.

Of these, the Delta is the absolute worst since it can involve aircraft materials which contain magnesium/aluminum etc.

A 767 with plenty of aluminum impacts the towers, and you have a large fuel fire in an environment with a lot of dissimilar metals - one of them being magnesium which has an autoignition temperature of about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Could the magnesium ignition have produced a reaction with the aluminum in the aircraft frame and the steel alloys in the building?

It seems to me if you had a thermite-type reaction brought about by the plane impact and the high temperatures associated with it, that would negate the "jet fuel can't melt steel" argument completely, because a thermite reaction certainly can. It would also seem to explain the gutting of the supports in the top ten floors as well as the "presence of thermite" in the wreckage.

I'm hoping someone who is more well read on this particular aspect of it can help me out here.

There is evidence for the ignition-Oxidation of metals in the world trade center to a limited extent.

Aluminum, magnesium, Titanium, Chromium, Molybdenum, and other metals including thin steels.

There is also some evidence for other chemical effects, sulfidication, for formation of AlN, and for zinc embrittlement and hydrogen embrittlement on a limited extent from the action of both zinc and sulfides from sulfate reduction with carbon, effecting micro fissures formed in the steel though cold working action over time as during the life of the structure.

Interesting Zinc can have an effect on aged A36 steel if the right chemical coattail is present, for the production of sulfide pyrite crystals in the steel giving the Zinc chloride and zinc sulfide and entry point.

I did test the Idea, Now the usual crowd can jump all over this post for suggesting it, however the Idea does not come from applying stainless steel characteristics to A36 but from testing a chemical effect on actual A36 steel itself.

Does anyone know of anymore chemical tests that were done on A36 that might help in this?

The effect would be most prevalent in cold worked welds from motion induced micro fractures over time, or from microfactures left from the welding process itself.

Since tests for similar effects are not usually done on A36 steel for good reason, this might have gone over looked It would have greatly affected weld stability in the impact zone.

It seems that the World Trade Center fires might have been as unique as the World Trade Centers were themselves however good data on the chemistry is lacking.

 

[Travis]

About the smoke. Since Truthers like home experiments here's one for you.

Place a tire in an open outdoor space. Pour gasoline on it. Light the fire and observe the smoke color. Note that being outside the fire has all the oxygen it needs and if you don't think it is hot then try to jump over it.

You might want to have some money set aside to pay the fine for polluting the air with all that smoke.


However if you don't want to do something like that then here:http://www.google.com/images?q=kuwa...avclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS255US255

 

[Zipster]

About the smoke. Since Truthers like home experiments here's one for you.

Place a tire in an open outdoor space. Pour gasoline on it. Light the fire and observe the smoke color. Note that being outside the fire has all the oxygen it needs and if you don't think it is hot then try to jump over it.

You might want to have some money set aside to pay the fine for polluting the air with all that smoke.


However if you don't want to do something like that then here:http://www.google.com/images?q=kuwa...avclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS255US255

ULTIMA doing a real-world experiment? No... The internet is where the real facts and evidence are.

And because he knows that real-world experiments will prove him wrong.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Good grief, read my post! A link is right there! It's from the

Well i also have several sources that state the black smoke does mean low temps. How many do you need me to post?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I smoked a nice fat rack of ribs this last weekend. No black smoke there, and that fire was certainly low-temperature. I think if I saw black smoke coming out of my hoss charbroiler I'd either reconsider the composition of my awesome dry rub...or quit using diesel fuel as an accelerant.

 

[Disenchanted]

Well i also have several sources that state the black smoke does mean low temps. How many do you need me to post?

His sources show that you and your sources are wrong. Quality of sources trump quantity.

He also included pics showing black smoke from fires that were not oxygen starved.

I guess you ignored them because they show that you are wrong, which is your MO.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well i also have several sources that state the black smoke does mean low temps. How many do you need me to post?

It does not matter how many you post. The point is that black smoke meaning low temperatures is only one possible way for a combustion to occur. Black smoke does not always mean low temperatures, nor does it always mean that a fire is close to burning itself out. Again, my source admits that black smoke can indicate low oxygenation, or "post flashover" situations (i.e. after the fire really gets started, and is beginning to die down), or it can indicate what fuel is burning. But in neither case is temperature tied into smoke color; that is a function of what material is released into the smoke, the efficiency of combustion, etc. You cannot shoehorn "black smoke means low temperatures" into every situation because it does not apply to every situation. The firefighters in this forum can tell you that, and they have said that to the rest of us many times in the past.

When you cite a source that only discusses one possibility, and when you ignore the other evidence that the fires were indeed not relatively cool and not near completion at the time of collapse, then you discuss a situation other than what occurred in the Twin Towers. It's that simple. Again, you're oversimplifying, and trying to make one single situation apply where it does not fit.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Gee, it is so fun and easy to prove poeple wrong when they only listen to the media and do not do any research.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.


http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
The smoke emitted by the fire at times seriously interferes with the transfer of heat by radiant energy within the fire building. Test fires use smokeless natural gas, so radiant heat transfer is important in tests.(Brannigan p206). A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)

I just need one link to distroy everything you posted,

http://science.nasa.gov/msl1/combustion_why.htm

Soot retains heat making the effects of he fire worse, it is caused by the fuels reaction to high temperatures in a chemical reaction, known as pyrosis.

Black soot like coke in a steel furnace is almost pure carbon black, it is a more energetic fuel than hydrocarbons.
Explosive carbon monoxide is also produced that can lead to dust and other explosions and can cause a reducing as well as an oxidizing environment where multiple chemical reactions, can take place including reduction of sulfates to sulfides and sulfidication effects can be seen.
Soot has no relationship to temperature combustion is a chemical Oxidation reaction, the fuel and the oxidant have more control over flame temperature than soot formation which is basically an after effect, a metal fire can burn hotter than any hydrocarbon and can lead to pyrosis of Hydrocarbons, and Carbohydrates the main fuels in the twin towers and the heavy black soot Produced from pyrosis of carbonate material that is not oxidizing in the metal fire itself, can absorb the white light and transmit it back as heat, though black body radiation.

Go back research and get it right next time.


PS. and do not take the word of laymen on the Scholars for truth website as fact they know less than you do!

You can not be sure of the specific chemical reactions taking place in the towers so the Idea of commenting on the fires being oxygen starved based solely on the smoke is well just stupid.

 

[Dave Rogers]

http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm

Although the "black smoke = low temperatures" canard has been as extensively refuted as it's possible to imagine, I'd just like to point out the most hilarious aspect of this debacle. The title of the article ULTIMA1 has cited to prove that the fire didn't cause the Twin Towers collapses?

(That is, apart from the one by well-known structural engineer, demolition expert, avionics engineer, firefighter and definitely-not-a-software-engineer-no-siree Jim Hoffman.)

IT WAS THE FIRE,
CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE

Words fail me.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yeah, Dave, I pointed that out too, up above. But it's worth repeating.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yeah, Dave, I pointed that out too, up above. But it's worth repeating.

So you did, sorry. I think I tune out parts of some threads from sheer fatigue.

The black smoke is a perfect example of a well-known truther practice known as "rebunking". A claim is made by the truth movement. It's debunked so thoroughly that the slightest mention of it is an embarrassment to see. Then, for a while, everyone talks about a whole slew of new absurd claims. A few months later, when the truthers think we've forgotten, they repeat the original claim and try to pretend they honestly believe it.

Didn't someone mention pods under UA175 in another thread?

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, no, don't apologize. I was just underlining the fact that we both mentioned this for emphasis, that's all.

And yes, we all have seen the round robin of truther claims more than once. Free fall and explosions were the ones just a bit ago. And with DRG's book out in the past few months, I imagine we'll be seeing the voice morphing and fake calls myths brought up again here soon. Now I don't recall seeing a "pods" mention, but I might have missed that one. Anyway, yeah, it just seems to be a litany of the old, disproven myths over and over again.

That's why I have to give Steven Jones credit. As wrong as he is, at least his microspheres work was new ground.

 

[ULTIMA1]

I just need one link to distroy everything you posted,

I only need 1 to destroy the official story.

According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)

 

[A W Smith]

I only need 1 to destroy the official story.

date of that paper was Dec 2001, what data did he use to come to this conclusion? since the photos and video tapes NIST used had not even been accumulated yet. Also I see no mention of smoke color in that document.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, Clifton did write that. And he based his opinions on observations in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. You truthers need to quit quoting statements made before the full extent of the evidence was evaluated; that's the equivalent of trying to falsify modern astronomy with Ptolemaic observations, or modern chemistry with medieval alchemy. Conclusions from new knowledge builds on and eventually supercedes old, incomplete observations. Clifton made those remarks in 2001 (source: http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF Files/Elaboration on WTC Paper.PDF), and additional information has been gathered and analyzed since then.

You also need to realize that Clifton did indeed cite sources available to him at the time saying that some beams never exceeded 600 degrees C, but you need to read his work to realize that he believes that was still enough to account for the tower collapsing. Unlike Arap/Edinburgh, Quintiere, and some other critics, he believes the structural damage was more relevant to the collapse than the fire, but he does not eliminate the fire as being a contributor to the problem:

In my opinion, based on the available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-storey fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be. (More on this below). However, the observations show that fire temperatures of over 500oC would have been probable over enough of the core to cause an ongoing loss of compression load carrying capacity in the remaining core columns.

(My bolding for emphasis). And he continues this train of thought in his further works:

I contend that, immediately following the impact, the core region of all the floors above the impact region would have sagged downwards due to the partial loss of vertical support in the core region. This sag would have progressively grown as the fire and ongoing yielding of the remaining damaged core columns reduced the core vertical load carrying capacity.

(http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p5.htm... again, my own bolding).

Note that at no time does he try to state that the fires were insufficient to account for the collapse. Note also that his observations were made well before significant work on the NIST report was started, let alone finished, and that early observations cannot account for discoveries made after those observations were conducted.

The lesson here is that, once again, you attempt to oversimplify an event and shoehorn it into your preferred narrative in order to forward your stance. The oversimplification is grossly misrepresentative of the original source, and also fails to serve the overall narrative you push when simple review of the original source you yourself cite is done. In short, you once again demonstrate the opposite of your claim with the source you cite.

Lastly, let's also consider this: Clifton also did not say that the temperatures were low. Reread his statement. He mentioned that they were not as severe. He ended up being wrong, given that his observations were early ones, but if you'll note, he was discussing extent and severity, not temperature. As noted in his own article, he fully believed the fire was hot enough to contribute to the collapse.

Again, you really must read the entirety of your sources before you cite them. They directly contradict your assertions.

 

[ULTIMA1]

You truthers need to quit quoting statements made before the full extent of the evidence was evaluated; that's the equivalent of trying to falsify modern astronomy with Ptolemaic observations, or modern chemistry with medieval alchemy. .

Well then you believers will have to stop using quotes from NIST wont you.

I mean since the original NIST model was made before the full extent of evidence was evaluated.