Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

Dave Rogers said:
Since I don't understand the question, I'll just follow truther etiquette and repeat a quote that supports my argument.
If that doesn't answer your question, can I pretend you asked a question it does answer, the way truthers usually do?

Dave
Click to expand...

from what i remember, he said that he didnt see any molten metal. someone stated they saw steel or metal flowing like lava. from dr astaneh-asl quote, i think he was speaking about molten metal flowing.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Then please list the specific variables whose values it was meant to replicate, the estimated values of those variables in the fire it was replicating, and the measured values of those variables in the experiment. You'll find that you can't. For example, this was supposed to be an experiment to investigate high temperature corrosion processes; what was the temperature profile of the experiment? Not measured.

That's a truly embarrassing level of incompetence.

Dave
Click to expand...

and you think putting powders on steel is a good way replicate a office/debris fire?
 
Perhaps this would help.

-----Original Message-----
From: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl [mailto:astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance

Dear Ronald: All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth, the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase "molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion . You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " . But will they listen?

Best wishes and hoping that these conspiracy theorists will stop using my name in any context.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
University of California , Berkeley
Click to expand...
 
Dave Rogers said:
we know that more oxygen = hotter fire, less oxygen = cooler fire.
Click to expand...
Correct

We also know that more insulation = hotter fire
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
Insulation does not effect the temperature of the fire, that is controlled by the amount of oxygen. Insulation just retains the heat.

ETA: Please show a reliable source that says "insulation will increase the temperature of a "fire" [not the surrounding materials] or stop claiming that it does.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Incorrect.
Insulation does not effect the temperature of the fire, that is controlled by the amount of oxygen. Insulation just retains the heat.
Click to expand...

Uhm, I'm not an expert or anything, but this seems to be a mix-up of "temperature" and "heat".

As I understand it, oxygen is a part of controlling the amount of heat produced by the fire - not the temperature. Insulation - as you say - retains the heat, allowing temperature to rise. As such, insulation would control temperature while oxygen controls heat.
 
uke2se said:
Uhm, I'm not an expert or anything, but this seems to be a mix-up of "temperature" and "heat".

As I understand it, oxygen is a part of controlling the amount of heat produced by the fire - not the temperature. Insulation - as you say - retains the heat, allowing temperature to rise. As such, insulation would control temperature while oxygen controls heat.
Click to expand...
Insulation retains the heat but it cannot increase the temperature of the fire, only more oxygen can do that. Insulation cannot cause the temperature to rise above the temperature of the fire.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
This is the result of a very successful propaganda campaign.
"Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars because they are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence"

Any crime committed by two or more people is a conspiracy by definition. Therefore, conspiracies are very common and the above statement is not true.

OBL has been charged with "conspiracy" to murder Americans outside the U.S. but he has not been charged with 9/11 because there is no hard evidence that he was involved. That is just a nutty conspiracy theory. :cool:
Click to expand...

Ah, so there's actually a conspiracy to tarnish the phrase "conspiracy theory"?

By the way, the reason "the above statement is not true" is because you quote-mined it. The full text is:

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains an historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.

Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism by scholars because they are rarely supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals.
Click to expand...

which is true.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Insulation retains the heat but it cannot increase the temperature of the fire, only more oxygen can do that. Insulation cannot cause the temperature to rise above the temperature of the fire.
Click to expand...

Can oxygen cause the temperature to rise above the temperature of the fire?
 
Christopher7 said:
Insulation retains the heat but it cannot increase the temperature of the fire, only more oxygen can do that. Insulation cannot cause the temperature to rise above the temperature of the fire.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Oxygen controls the rate that heat is generated in the fire, not the temperature. The temperature is determined by the difference between heat generated and heat lost.

Here's a thought experiment for you, which any HS chem student should be able to answer. Imagine a perfectly insulated box, with an airtight divider in the middle. In one section is fuel that burns at 500F in open air. In the other is pure oxygen. The whole box and its contents are heated to 500F and sealed off, then the divider is removed, and the fuel starts to burn. Does it get hotter inside?
 
carlitos said:
Perhaps this would help.
-----Original Message-----
From: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl [mailto:astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance

Dear Ronald: All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth, the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase "molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion . You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " . But will they listen?

Best wishes and hoping that these conspiracy theorists will stop using my name in any context.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
University of California , Berkeley
Click to expand...

now that we know he was not talking about molten steel dripping off the girders, does anyone want to revisit what astaneh-asl said:

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.


he went to the freeway site 3 days after it happened. there was no more fire and a clean up crew was there. he looks at and relates the freeway steel to wtc steel. what the article says is that the freeway girders did not melt, he saw melting of girders at the wtc. he is speaking of steel that had melted but when saw the wtc girder, it was no longer in that state. so he saw no molten metal at the wtc site. whats the big deal. we know that extremly high temps were reached in the destruction.

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
 
Fire does not emit temperature. Fire releases heat. Adding heat raises the temperature, regardless of where the temperature starts.

That's why all figures for temperatures of fire and flames are valid only under certain "typical conditions" assumptions about the environment in which the reaction is taking place. For instance, most sources will tell you that an oxy-acetylene flame has a temperature of about 3,500°C. But suppose you took some oxygen and some acetylene and separately pre-heated them to 4,000°C, then mixed them to create a flame within a chamber also pre-heated to 4,000°C. Would you still expect that flame to have a temperature of 3,500°C? Which would mean the flame would have to be cooling down the reagents and surroundings by 500°C? Of course not. The flame would still be releasing heat and so must be hotter than the reagents started, that is, hotter than 4,000°C.

Enclosed smoldering fires, including kiln fires, coal seam fires, closed room fires, cargo hold fires (very nasty!), landfill fires, and the WTC rubble pile fires, are hotter than normal fires because heat can accumulate sufficiently to pre-heat the reagents and thus raise the combustion temperature itself. The WTC rubble fires were enveloped in concrete rubble and had air inlets (such as subway tunnels) feeding air in at a slow controlled rate at the bottom. That's an ideal design for a kiln.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
triforcharity said:
Here is an intersting paper that I have studied in depth, and use often in teaching probies about fire science.

http://cfbt-us.com/wordpress/?tag=oxygen-consumption-principle
Click to expand...
After pages of prattle, platitudes and a plethora of childish condescending comments, a bit of actual relevant information.

Thank you triforcharity. This one line seems to say what Dave has been trying to say:
"Heat of combustion is dependent on the chemical makeup of the fuel."

I will look into this further but for the time being this indicates that temperatures could theoretically reach 1000oC in the debris pile.

OTOH:
[FONT=&quot]"When you have a huge mass of materials deeply buried like this, it's sort of analogous to the Centralia [/FONT][FONT=&quot]mine fire[/FONT][FONT=&quot]," said Dr. Thomas J. Ohlemiller, a chemical engineer and fire expert at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md. "Very little heat is lost, so the reaction can keep going at relatively low temperatures, provided you have a weak supply of oxygen coming through the debris." [/FONT][FONT=&quot]nytimes.com[/FONT]
The odds that there would be enough fuel to reach and then sustain such temperatures long enough to contribute to the melted steel beam are remote given the dispersal of combustibles with non-combustibles.

There is still the problem with the sulfur. Jon Cole's experiment rules out sulfur from drywall, which was absurd from the get go anyway. Drywall is used for fireproofing. ;-)

WPI ends their slide show with "We still don't know".
 
Christopher7 said:
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl does not yet realize that what he believes "OBL and 19 hijackers did it" is a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

I am fairly certain that he is smart enough to realize that OBL and 19 hijackers conspired. But I find you at your semantic tricks again. You snipped some important words from consideration. I'll highlight them for you:

absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories
Click to expand...

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl does not wish his words to be associated with absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories. I presume he is fine if he is quoted in connection with well-guided and soundly based conspiracy theories ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom