Merged So there was melted steel

[sheeplesnshills]

Hey, Oystein, I've been interested in developing a way to explain the comparitive energy potential of thermite, and I saw your comment about honey.

Help us laymen understand what the scoop is.

Well to keep it simple, thermite burns very fast and very hot but the total energy released is less than, say, a stick of wood of the same mass which burns cooler and slower but for much much longer.

Someone else can give you the exact figures but if you want to heat something up (like a steel column) a lb of wood will do a much better job than a lb of thermite.

 

[OCaptain]

Well to keep it simple, thermite burns very fast and very hot but the total energy released is less than, say, a stick of wood of the same mass which burns cooler and slower but for much much longer.

Someone else can give you the exact figures but if you want to heat something up (like a steel column) a lb of wood will do a much better job than a lb of thermite.

Which is why thermite works much better as a melting agent on metal than as an incendiary.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It doesn't matter how many theories were put forth. He agreed it can not be explained, if it [can't] (typo correction per post #480) be explained there is reason for it to be malicious.

This is probably one of the more moronic things to have escaped your fingertips. Having "no explanation" simply means "unknown cause", not "malicious cause".

For example, we don't currently have a proven explanation for the increasing rate of expansion of the universe, but that doesn't mean some evil trickster god is pulling things apart.

When the Mythbusters tried thermite paint I believe they ran into some problems with it being diluted. Wouldn't the same be the case with thermite mixed in with dust?

That's because they didn't have access to highly advanced, top secret technology.

 

[atavisms]

Sure they do, you see our hero truthers seem to be utterly bewildered by the concept of a "furnace."

.

The problem is that the 'furnace' in wtc7 was in all the right places at just the right instant to produce what has hitherto only ever been seen during controlled demolitions. And there was no evidence of this raging inferno on the exterior of the buildings immediately prior its collapse.

Office fires cannot 'melt' structural steel but can, given the right conditions, severely weaken it. Iin such cases however, the process takes time and the deformations gradual and asymmetrical.

The demolition features in the towers are impossible to dispute given the state of 'ground zero',,the pulverized concrete, shredded building..and 1100 missing human beings//

The persistent heat despite continuous efforts and special fire suppressants to put them out they burned for 100 days!..This clearly unnatural fire and levels of heat were documented different sources including NASA and
Bechtel for the ASSE:

"The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800º" -http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm

All these things point to additional energy sources beyond standard uncontrolled hydrocarbon fires and gravity

 

[NoahFence]

Out in the daylight, I doubt that igniting chips, most of which were invisible to the naked eye, could be readily observed.

You don't think a person standing on a fire would notice?

 

[Edx]

The persistent heat despite continuous efforts and special fire suppressants to put them out they burned for 100 days!..This clearly unnatural fire

You said this on page 8, you're still wrong now. We have landfill fires that Tmd claims are of low temperatures yet still having the same effects you just said prove extreme temperatures.

See my previous post you ignored.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7598382&postcount=298

 

[NoahFence]

The problem is that the 'furnace' in wtc7 was in all the right places at just the right instant to produce what has hitherto only ever been seen during controlled demolitions. And there was no evidence of this raging inferno on the exterior of the buildings immediately prior its collapse.

You mean besides the photographic evidence of flames? Besides, the fire was inside the building, not on the exterior...

Office fires cannot 'melt' structural steel but can, given the right conditions, severely weaken it. Iin such cases however, the process takes time and the deformations gradual and asymmetrical.

Takes time? Say....5-7 hours? Everything has a breaking point. The steel will deform, and contract and expand and contract and do whatever it is it does - until it fails. When it does, it only takes a moment, which is exactly what happened. A guy gets cancer and it can take years to finally pass on. But it only takes a moment to go from breathing to not breathing.

The demolition features in the towers are impossible to dispute given the state of 'ground zero',,the pulverized concrete, shredded building..and 1100 missing human beings//

Along with those missing humans are missing explosive residue, cutter charges, or any other evidence of anything other than what actually happened - a massive plane full of fuel slammed into the tower about 500 miles per hour, setting off a towering inferno, simultaneously on multiple acre-wide floors, and they were not fought for a nano-second. That they stood at all is a testament to their design.

The persistent heat despite continuous efforts and special fire suppressants to put them out they burned for 100 days!..This clearly unnatural fire and levels of heat were documented different sources including NASA and
Bechtel for the ASSE:

I love when you twoofers drop these words like "unnatural" -- No : sherlock.

All these things point to additional energy sources beyond fire and gravity

Let me guess - that's why we need an independent investigation - to figure out what.

Where did the previously molten slags of steel go? Why no reports of them?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The problem is that the 'furnace' in wtc7 was in all the right places at just the right instant to produce what has hitherto only ever been seen during controlled demolitions. And there was no evidence of this raging inferno on the exterior of the buildings immediately prior its collapse.

We are talking about molten metal seen in the debris pile months after 9/11
There are no reports of molten metal before WTC7 fell

Office fires cannot 'melt' structural steel but can, given the right conditions, severely weaken it. Iin such cases however, the process takes time and the deformations gradual and asymmetrical.

Yep, took about 7 hours.

The demolition features in the towers are impossible to dispute given the state of 'ground zero',,the pulverized concrete, shredded building..and 1100 missing human beings//

Nonsense, what else do you expect from a two 110 floor buildings and one 47 floor building and several smaller ones collapse?

The persistent heat despite continuous efforts and special fire suppressants to put them out they burned for 100 days!..This clearly unnatural fire and levels of heat were documented different sources including NASA and
Bechtel for the ASSE:

Nonsense, putting buried fires out is notoriously difficult

"The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800º" -http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm

All these things point to additional energy sources beyond standard uncontrolled hydrocarbon fires and gravity

like what? and how? You clearly have not read the whole thread. credible explanations have been given as to why there is nothing miraculous happening even IF molten steel was present.

 

[Miragememories]

"...If you think that dust can keep molten steel liquid..."

No, I proposed that sufficient heat can raise ambient temperature to a level high enough to make metal red hot or liquid.

In a small space, that is hermetically sealed, if a source of heat is not vented, the ambient temperature inside the space can be expected to continuously rise.

"Surrounded and thermally insulated by the dense mass of the pulverized debris pile, and constantly being re-supplied with falling dust, very high temperatures capable of melting metal could be achieved."

"Bollocks"

No that would not be testicles. Obviously you are out of your depth here.

Trapped heat will raise ambient temperature. If your "bollocks" are hot, that might be why.

Just as an example, I've seen a fire started by a small low wattage reading lamp having been knocked over by a cat and not getting sufficient ventilation.

As I postulated in an earlier post, the initial heat source inside these small pockets could have come from the unextinguished pre-collapse fires.

In a small confined space, they would only need to raise the temperature to 430 C to promote ignition of those red chips.

"As long as any one of these thermal pockets has a minimal temperature of 430 C and a steady supply of un-ignited dust, the hotspot will perpetuate.

As each pocket is excavated, the temperature inside would immediately begin dropping and once a pocket is exposed sufficiently to reduce the temperature below 430 C, the dust would no longer ignite."

"The same is true if you have pockets with common office materials such as paper and plastics, except these are several thousand times more potent that that dust.

(Of course, the dust that contains these miniscule amounts of low-energy "thermite" also contains more highly energetic components such as paint chips)
"

I do not disagree that burning paper and plastics can also raise the ambient temperature -except for one important detail.

My theory allows for a heat build up in a hermetically sealed space that has had its oxygen rapidly burned off.

As we all know, unlike pulverized paper and plastic (good insulation), thermitic materials do not require an external source of oxygen for ignition.

MM

 

[atavisms]

You mean besides the photographic evidence of flames? Besides, the fire was inside the building, not on the exterior.

-even if it was fully involved -as you imagine, it would not have produced this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ni0i2KZn9Hc
and it clearly was not even nearly fully engulfed.

it only takes a moment to go from breathing to not breathing.

What does that have to do with behavior of skyscrapers with office fires ?

It a meaningless thing to say.. it isnt even analogous.That you find it compelling shows how deluded your reasoning is,.. arguing a lost cause given of the overwhelming amount of evidence.

*"Unnatural fires" means an additional energy source must have been present. Instead of addressing the facts you respond with nonsense..
Yes, given the topic, I imagined you could make this leap but its obvious your goal here is not to question, explore, or research but to belittle and dismiss what you obviously are in denial of. Get a life

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No, I proposed that sufficient heat can raise ambient temperature to a level high enough to make metal red hot or liquid.

who said it couldn't

In a small space, that is hermetically sealed, if a source of heat is not vented, the ambient temperature inside the space can be expected to continuously rise.

If it is sealed how is additional heat being added? how is your fire retardant dust getting in???

No that would not be testicles. Obviously you are out of your depth here.

Cohones

Trapped heat will raise ambient temperature. If your "bollocks" are hot, that might be why.

no it won't unless heat is also being added to replace that lost form conduction.

Just as an example, I've seen a fire started by a small low wattage reading lamp having been knocked over by a cat and not getting sufficient ventilation.

Yep and where is the power coming from?

As I postulated in an earlier post, the initial heat source inside these small pockets could have come from the unextinguished pre-collapse fires.

No kidding!

In a small confined space, they would only need to raise the temperature to 430 C to promote ignition of those red chips.

and in seconds they would all be gone, now what? only 89 days and 23 hours to go.....

I do not disagree that burning paper and plastics can also raise the ambient temperature -except for one important detail.

My theory allows for a heat build up in a hermetically sealed space that has had its oxygen rapidly burned off.

sure but what keeps it hot?.....if its sealed it would quickly use up your thermite like it did the oxygen.

As we all know, unlike pulverized paper and plastic (good insulation), thermitic materials do not require an external source of oxygen for ignition.

given that land fiills and coal seams burn, lack of oxygen would not likely be an issue so we have no need to have something that needs no oxygen.

 

[NoahFence]

could have come from the unextinguished pre-collapse fires.

...or the hundreds of other things under the pile that caught fire after the collapse....

 

[sheeplesnshills]

-even if it was fully involved -as you imagine, it would not have produced this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ni0i2KZn9Hc
and it clearly was not even nearly fully engulfed.

argument from incredulity. Real expert say otherwise.

What does that have to do with behavior of skyscrapers with office fires ?

its an analogy....look it up. I got it.

It a meaningless thing to say.. it isnt even analogous.

Yes it is.

That you find it compelling shows how deluded your reasoning is,.. arguing a lost cause given of the overwhelming amount of evidence.

That you find it not compelling shows how deluded your reasoning is,.. arguing a lost cause given of the overwhelming amount of evidence.

*"Unnatural fires" means an additional energy source must have been present.

like jet fuel, 110 floor of offices and contents, dozens of cars and firetrucks, thousands of bodies.......yep you bet these were "unnatural" fires.....

Instead of addressing the facts you respond with nonsense..

Yes, given the topic, I imagined you could make this leap but its obvious your goal here is not to question, explore, or research but to belittle and dismiss what you obviously are in denial of

.

Get a life

Get Meds.

 

[NoahFence]

-even if it was fully involved -as you imagine, it would not have produced this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ni0i2KZn9Hc
and it clearly was not even nearly fully engulfed.

You provide a video that purposely distorts the truth and expect me to buy it? I can't say this enough - you truthers are not nearly as clever as you think you are.

There are dozens of reports from people at the base of the building detailing how pretty much the entire building was involved. You are lying. After 10 years, it can't be a simple mistake. It is a lie. You and your kind are liars.

it only takes a moment to go from breathing to not breathing.

What does that have to do with behavior of skyscrapers with office fires ?

It has everything to do with it and you know it. The building suffered massive damage and continued to do so.

It only takes a fraction of a moment to FAIL. Or to die.

Same thing happened with the buildings. They died.

*"Unnatural fires" means an additional energy source must have been present. Instead of addressing the facts you respond with nonsense..
Yes, given the topic, I imagined you could make this leap but its obvious your goal here is not to question, explore, or research but to belittle and dismiss what you obviously are in denial of. Get a life

Right back atcha. At least I'm not a flat-out liar like truthers are.

 

[GlennB]

In a small space, that is hermetically sealed, if a source of heat is not vented, the ambient temperature inside the space can be expected to continuously rise.

As I postulated in an earlier post, the initial heat source inside these small pockets could have come from the unextinguished pre-collapse fires.

In a small confined space, they would only need to raise the temperature to 430 C to promote ignition of those red chips.

And then it comes down to proportions, no?

If 5%, by weight¹, of the contents of this (theoretically perfectly sealed compartment) burned at 2000c while the rest was at an already high ambient temp of, say, 400c, what would be the peak final average temperature, ballpark?

This is little more difficult than calculating what happens when you add 100ml of boiling water to 500ml of freezing water.

Your problem here, MM, is that you take science to mean anything you want it to mean, from moment to moment.

Meanwhile - you seem to have ignored that request to source the claim that the WTC dust was rich with these red/gray particles, while actual scientific studies show otherwise.

¹ an insanely high figure, I should add.

 

[Sunstealer]

Meanwhile - you seem to have ignored that request to source the claim that the WTC dust was rich with these red/gray particles, while actual scientific studies show otherwise.

¹ an insanely high figure, I should add.

From the Harrit paper.

A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray).

Page 9.

At approximately 2.5 mm in length, the chip in Fig. (2a) was one of the larger chips collected. The mass of this chip was approximately 0.7
mg.

Page 10. (including the gray layer)

When you actually look at the data there is not a chance that this material can do what truthers say it can. Of the red material, roughly half of the sample, only 1.68% is aluminium.

I'd like to see the truthers do some maths, based on their own data, to show how such minuscule particles with such tiny amounts of aluminium can possibly be a source of liquid iron let alone liquid steel that is observable by eye.

How much of this stuff is required v how much was observed. Should be simple because every truther that posts on these boards seems to think they have the brains and scientific nous.

 

[Miragememories]

"In a small space, that is hermetically sealed, if a source of heat is not vented, the ambient temperature inside the space can be expected to continuously rise.

As I postulated in an earlier post, the initial heat source inside these small pockets could have come from the unextinguished pre-collapse fires.

In a small confined space, they would only need to raise the temperature to 430 C to promote ignition of those red chips. "

"And then it comes down to proportions, no?

If 5%, by weight1, of the contents of this (theoretically perfectly sealed compartment) burned at 2000c while the rest was at an already high ambient temp of, say, 400c, what would be the peak final average temperature, ballpark?

This is little more difficult than calculating what happens when you add 100ml of boiling water to 500ml of freezing water.

Your problem here, MM, is that you take science to mean anything you want it to mean, from moment to moment.

Meanwhile - you seem to have ignored that request to source the claim that the WTC dust was rich with these red/gray particles, while actual scientific studies show otherwise.

1 an insanely high figure, I should add."

Your tossing around unproven numbers equals nothing Glenn.

To disprove my theory, you have to prove that there was insufficient heat retention in those pockets to allow the small, but continuous, red chip ignitions to create enough heat to continually raise the ambient temperature in the pocket.

Your problem here, Glenn, is that you are trying to evaluate a hypothesis with a closed mind.

MM

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Your tossing around unproven numbers equals nothing Glenn.

as does you throwing around your silly theory, so your point is?

To disprove my theory,

why would we bother to do that? Its your theory......when you have all the required math done we'll give a sanity check

you have to prove

Wrong again, its your theory you have to prove it.

that there was insufficient heat retention in those pockets

What pockets? You have not shown that any sealed pockets even existed

to allow the small, but continuous, red chip ignitions to create enough heat to continually raise the ambient temperature in the pocket.

It doesn't even raise paper to get hot enough to burn! If anything its a fire retardant. And how continuous? where is it coming from? If its in a sealed chamber beside this "molten steel" why wouldn't it all simply swiftly warm up enough to reach the ingition point and all ignite and if its not in the chamber how does it get in if it sealed???

Your problem here, Glenn, is that you are trying to evaluate a hypothesis with a closed mind.

your problem here, MM, is that you are trying to form a hypothesis without a mind.

 

[NoahFence]

Your problem, MM is you're trying to prove something that is clearly not possible.

 

[Miragememories]

Your problem, MM is you're trying to prove something that is clearly not possible.

You mean like the Official Theory?

MM