Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

Christopher7 said:
Correct

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.
Click to expand...

:covereyes

Temperature of the surrounding materials (steel beams) is what we are really talking about. Don't erect a strawman.
Don't mistake heat for temperature
And don't mistake fire for flame.

Temperature of a flame is, by the way, an emergent phenomenon of heat production minus heat loss. A flame loses heat quicker in some environments and faster in others.
Generally, in thermodynamics, if the receiving system is already hot, heat transfer will be slower.

A candle that burns at room temperature may have a flame that is 1000°C hot at its core.
The same candle burning in a room that is already 1000°C hot, all other things being equal, will have a flame that is much hotter (assuming of course we have magix wax that does not melt any faster...). Such high environment temps can be more easily achieved with insulation, right? So yes, insulation can increase flame temperature.
(No, I don't have a source yet. This needs no source, as it is readily understandable to anyone with a basic grasp of thermodynamics. It's like saying a pitcher can pitch a faster ball if he stands on a moving train than if he stands on the ground. I might not have a source for that, as maybe no one ever document a baseball game played on a train, but I'd expect you to understand it on basic physical principles)


ETA: Do you think a candle burning in a room that is 1200°C hot would cool the room by releasing gases that are only 1000°C???
 
Last edited:
phunk said:
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?
Click to expand...

Urrr why pure oxygen? I'd have "open air" in the other section.

The interesting question would be: Does christopher think a fire would COOL the box if it was already heated to more than typical flame temp?
 
Christopher7 said:
Source?
Click to expand...

Any basic understanding of thermodynamics and what "heat" and "temperature" are.

You have no such understanding. You probably still wonder why ovens have doors and why people close windows in winter, but sometimes also in very hot summers.
 
Myriad said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Dang, I should have read all posts firsts - you beat me to it ^^

Myriad said:
...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 ...
Click to expand...

Nuh that of course is as wrong as the opposite. They are not hotter, they can be hotter. Most such fires are indeed cooler. I did some google search a while ago to find measured temps for smouldering fires and came across the phenomenon of peat fires which can burn underneath the ground in forests for weeks and months, progressing slowly, often hardly warming the surface at all, and reaching only like 550°C. (Limiting factor here is manly water that must evaporate first)
Because, well, as we said all along: Will heat loss is slow, heat production is too, and so the equilibrium is up for grabs.
 
Senenmut said:
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
Click to expand...

well, ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH said, that the wtc-steel had to be "yellow" hot. Did he retract from that?
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=abolhassan_astaneh_asl_1

Yellow hot indicates a temperature around 1200 Celsius.
 
Last edited:
bio said:
well, ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH said, that the wtc-steel had to be "yellow" hot. Did he retract from that?
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=abolhassan_astaneh_asl_1

Yellow hot indicates a temperature around 1200 Celsius.
Click to expand...

He called the "Conspiracy Theories" put forward by the likes of C7, senemut and you "absolutely misguided and baseless".

Has he retracted from that?

On the same page that you linked to (bolding mine):

He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.” [Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/7/2001]
Click to expand...

Have you seen the pictures of steel beams warped around surviving wood beams? Those were taken after ordinary building fires and show that steel members warping in a fire is not an unusual occurrence. 2000°F are not unusual in big fires like the ones we saw in the towers.
 
Christopher7 said:
Source?
Click to expand...

Any chemistry textbook. Each molecule that oxidizes releases a specific amount of energy. The starting temperature is irrelevant. So the number of oxygen and fuel molecules that combine determines the amount of energy (heat) released. The amount of that energy that ends up in the materials, which is the difference between how much energy is generated vs how much escapes, determines the temperature. You admit this much yourself when you say that fires get hotter with more oxygen. More oxygen = more combustion = more heat.

Seriously, if you don't know this, you have no business discussing fire temperatures. This is beginner chemistry.
 
Oystein said:
Urrr why pure oxygen? I'd have "open air" in the other section.

The interesting question would be: Does christopher think a fire would COOL the box if it was already heated to more than typical flame temp?
Click to expand...

Air or oxygen, doesn't matter. Just not "open", the experiment is a demonstration of insultation not allowing heat to escape.
 
Christopher7 said:
All the prattle here is meaningless until someone writes a scientific paper explaining the mechanism that heated the steel to 2000oF and how the sulfur in sample #1 got there, and publishes it in a journal.
Click to expand...

For the same reason they didn't bother to explain all of the aluminosilicate residues that they found. They were supposed to be there.

Tons of both substances.

Some of the sulfur was present from the get-go as sulphuric acid. Ever see what that does to steel in a hot environment? To a fire fighter or an educated construction worker, all of what you have dragged in here is laughable.
 
leftysergeant said:
For the same reason they didn't bother to explain all of the aluminosilicate residues that they found. They were supposed to be there.

Tons of both substances.

Some of the sulfur was present from the get-go as sulphuric acid. Ever see what that does to steel in a hot environment? To a fire fighter or an educated construction worker, all of what you have dragged in here is laughable.
Click to expand...
Your response does not address the point. Until someone writes a scientific paper and publishes it, all your speculation is just meaningless speculation.

ETA: How did the beam that Mr. Astaneh inspected get heated to 2000oF?
 
Last edited:
TheRedWorm said:
You missed this, C7.
Click to expand...
There are over a million people dead and it will never stop until the truth about 9/11 is brought to light.

All the speculation here as to how Sample #1 melted and where the sulfur came from is meaningless.

Jon Cole's experiment put to rest the absurd claim that the sulfur came from drywall.

Talk is cheap. The self proclaimed "experts" on this forum should write a scientific paper and publish it in a journal or STFU.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Your response does not address the point. Until someone writes a scientific paper and publishes it, all your speculation is just meaningless speculation.

ETA: How did the beam that Mr. Astaneh inspected get heated to 2000oF?
Click to expand...

Why on earth would anyone assume it was?

You ask some really stupid questions.
 
Christopher7 said:
There are over a million people dead and it will never stop until the truth about 9/11 is brought to light.

All the speculation here as to how Sample #1 melted and where the sulfur came from is meaningless.

Jon Cole's experiment put to rest the absurd claim that the sulfur came from drywall.

Talk is cheap. The self proclaimed "experts" on this forum should write a scientific paper and publish it in a journal or STFU.
Click to expand...



Um...That doesn't remotely answer my question. The question was: what do you hope to accomplish by posting here?
 
Christopher7 said:
Most intelligent response. :rolleyes:

A concerned citizen who can see that WTC 7 was a CD and the NIST reports are FOS.

And your "expertise" ?
Click to expand...

15 years of firefighting experience, and a masters in Fire Science. I have written 4 PROPER peer reviewed papers in my field of study.

So, if WTC7 was a CD, show me another CD that looks like it, and also sounds like it. I'll wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom