Merged So there was melted steel

[tmd2_1]

Well done. So why is 1341°F (727°C) remarkable when a massive amount of burning material exists just below? 727°C is well in the range of ventilated building fires. But probably not landfill or mine fires where the ventilation is seriously restricted.

Incidentally - did you notice that the 727°C was based on 14% and 8% of a single pixel in the cases it was noted? Hardly widespread, eh, and you wouldn't want to bet the ranch on the accuracy of these measurements.

Yeah...so now the debris of the WTC are a well ventilated building fire?? Good to know. You guys keep changing your minds. Landfill fires are the closest resemblence and I did not find any that came close to that. Also remember that is on the surface...I did a rough caclulation of how hot it may have been underneath. It's probably high, but the point is that it got extremely hot, much hotter than even your "building" fires.

 

[jaydeehess]

First off It's Farenheit. Secondly, if you look at the NASA photos (I have them referenced a few pages back) you can see there are "hot spots" meaning isolated pockets of this high heat. The other areas are cooler.

Fine, so did you bother to read more than half of the first sentence in the post of mine that you quoted?
Here's the rest:

above the ignition temperature of the supposed red chips of thermite that MM says did not ignite on the surface because it was too cold

You can follow my query, right?
MM says that the supposed thermite chips ignite at 430 C while you say that there were hotspots where the surface temperature well exceeded this ignition temperature/ MM claims that the surface was too cold to ignite surface dust containing red chips and you claim hotspots where incidentally MM would have to be WRONG!

Conclusion: one of you has something incorrect.
My suggestion was that the two OF YOU PM each other and work out this difference. I am pretty sure neither of you want any of us bee-dunkers to do it for you.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yeah...so now the debris of the WTC are a well ventilated building fire?? Good to know. You guys keep changing your minds. Landfill fires are the closest resemblence and I did not find any that came close to that. Also remember that is on the surface...I did a rough caclulation of how hot it may have been underneath. It's probably high, but the point is that it got extremely hot, much hotter than even your "building" fires.

Perhaps address the second paragraph of Glenn's post?

You certainly twisted his first paragraph up I want to see what you can do to the rest.

 

[tmd2_1]

Fine, so did you bother to read more than half of the first sentence in the post of mine that you quoted?
Here's the rest:


You can follow my query, right?
MM says that the supposed thermite chips ignite at 430 C while you say that there were hotspots where the surface temperature well exceeded this ignition temperature/ MM claims that the surface was too cold to ignite surface dust containing red chips and you claim hotspots where incidentally MM would have to be WRONG!

Conclusion: one of you has something incorrect.
My suggestion was that the two OF YOU PM each other and work out this difference. I am pretty sure neither of you want any of us bee-dunkers to do it for you.

Yeah I'm pretty sure I can follow it. I did address it(I am not speaking for MM by the way), hot spots were in isolated areas, other areas were a good deal cooler.

 

[tmd2_1]

Perhaps address the second paragraph of Glenn's post?

You certainly twisted his first paragraph up I want to see what you can do to the rest.

He can take that up with NASA, I'm only using what they reported, and see no reason to think it incorrect. Twisted his first paragraph? It's not my fault he referred to a pile of debris that were on fire, to a building fire. I think there's a difference between the two.

 

[Edx]

Yeah...so now the debris of the WTC are a well ventilated building fire?? Good to know. You guys keep changing your minds.
.

I cant understand why you find this so difficult to follow.

It was like a landfill fire, no one said it was a landfill fire. It was like landfill fire in the sence that it was very hard to put out even with continuous water. Even though you dont appear to notice you already argued that even if the WTC pile was not even hot enough to melt aluminium you'd still have that problem.

It was unlike a landfill fire in that a landfill fire is closely packed, air pockets are not desireable because thats less room to dump more rubbish so they are intentionally minimised as much as possible. With the WTC there was plenty of scoures of oxygen, not least of which is was the subway. The WTC also had plenty of sources of fuel and fuel sources that wouldn't be around in a landfil.

We already know that office fires typically go over the temperatures you keep talking about, they are considered some of the worst kinds of fires because of how much hydrocarbon fuel there is. That is why molten metal is common and expected in fires, because fires get that hot.

So yes, the WTC rubble pile was evidently like that of a landfill fire and a office fire for different reasons.

 

[tmd2_1]

I cant understand why you find this so difficult to follow.

It was like a landfill fire, no one said it was a landfill fire. It was like landfill fire in the sence that it was very hard to put out even with continuous water. Even though you dont appear to notice you already argued that even if the WTC pile was not even hot enough to melt aluminium you'd still have that problem.

It was unlike a landfill fire in that a landfill fire is closely packed, air pockets are not desireable because thats less room to dump more rubbish so they are intentionally minimised as much as possible. With the WTC there was plenty of scoures of oxygen, not least of which is was the subway. The WTC also had plenty of sources of fuel and fuel sources that wouldn't be around in a landfil.

We already know that office fires typically go over the temperatures you keep talking about, they are considered some of the worst kinds of fires because of how much hydrocarbon fuel there is. That is why molten metal is common fires, because fires get that hot.

So yes, the WTC rubble pile was evidently like that of a landfill fire and a office fire for different reasons.

So let me rephrase this for you. Basically what you are saying is that it is whatever you want it to be, whenever you want it to be it, for no other reason than you simply want it to be that way? And it's "pointed" to debate me?

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's put it this way;

It is well known that dumping water on landfill fires is not particularily effective.
It is known that it is nigh on impossible to stop oxygen from getting to the site of the burn in landfill fires..

It is also known that in numerous above ground fires that reports of molten steel/metal are common and in fact there are pictures of molten aluminum from automobile fires..

Physics tells us that in an insulated volume if the heat produced from combustion exceeds the heat dissipated by conduction (heat dissipation by convection and radiation is extremly small and zero respectively) the the temperature will rise.

Increased heat retention can be acheived also by using some heat to raise the temperature of the incoming air and the fuels yet to be consumed. In fact this would increase the efficiency of the burn and heat supplied by such things as plastics and auto tires.

The debris volume of the WTC towers had an underground oxygen supply, was insulated well and contained an enormous supply of various fuels.

Given all of the above there is no reason to suspect any self oxidizing incindiary had to be involved.

The WTC rubble was like a landfill in that it was an insulated pile of both combustibles and non-combustibles.
It was also like a landfill fire in that cutting off air and dumping water on it was largely ineffective.
It was unlike a landfill in that it was not packed down to the extent that a landfill is and it had an underground tunnel to feed it air.
It was unlike a landfill as well in that it was contained in a concrete basin with engineered drainage and surrounded by paved streets. ("so what!" tmd cries - it means that the initial condition of the rubble and soil is DRY and thus a better insulator than what would be found at a landfill)

If I had the time and inclination here is the experiment I would perform:

Using a 3-5 gallon steel can put 1 gallon of gasoline, one cup of motor oil, a cup of sawdust in the can (a mixed hydrocarbon fuel)

On open ground set the gas on fire and take temperature readings and log observations of significant events every 5 minutes until the gas burns out. ( This will take about an hour)

IMO what you will see is a smokey fire that flares up and subsides depending on the breeze. It will be quite hot but not close to the melting point of aluminum. .

Now redo the experiment but make a few changes.
First, fashion a 1/2 inch copper tube that runs , outside of the can, from just above the rim to a level just above the bottom of the can then back up and into the can to just above the level of the fuel. Do the same with 1/2 inch aluminum tube on the opposite side of the can.
Install a BBQ sparker in the can and run the wire up through one of the tubes.

Now, surround the can with at least a foot of dry sand up to the rim of the can. ( a plywood box at least 2 feet wider than the diameter of the can with the can, surrounded by dry sand, in the center)

Cap the can with a cone shaped lid with a 3/4 inch hole at the top and cover up to the rim of the hole with more dry sand. ( a large tin funnel would suffice )

Ignite the fuel with the BBQ sparker and take temp readings at the center of the smoke hole.

After the fuel goes out examine the aluminum and copper tubes for signs of melting.

IMO this is what will be observed:
The temps will greatly exceed the first run due to the pre-heating of the air supply, and the retention of heat by the insulating sand. The exit speed of the gasses will be quite a bit more than the first run and there will be less smoke due to more complete burning.
The aluminum pipe , and possibly the copper pipe will show signs of melting. In effect this will be a natural draft furnace.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally posted by GlennB

727°C is well in the range of ventilated building fires. But probably not landfill or mine fires where the ventilation is seriously

Yeah...so now the debris of the WTC are a well ventilated building fire?? Good to know. You guys keep changing your minds. Landfill fires are the closest resemblence and I did not find any that came close to that. Also remember that is on the surface...I did a rough caclulation of how hot it may have been underneath. It's probably high, but the point is that it got extremely hot, much hotter than even your "building" fires.

He can take that up with NASA, I'm only using what they reported, and see no reason to think it incorrect. Twisted his first paragraph? It's not my fault he referred to a pile of debris that were on fire, to a building fire. I think there's a difference between the two.

You added that he was saying it was a "well" ventillated building fire. He did not say that. He was also simply showing that hydrocarbon fires regularily do get to that temperature.
I got that, you didn't.

Yes, that is what NASA reported, you have exaggerated its significance and I have noted that your characterization of it runs counter to what MM claims. I am not expecting you to answer for MM. I am simply suggesting that the two of you don't work at crossed purposes. However if you wish to, by all means cintinue to do so.

 

[jaydeehess]

So let me rephrase this for you. Basically what you are saying is that it is whatever you want it to be, whenever you want it to be it, for no other reason than you simply want it to be that way?

No, we are saying that it is the rubble pile of two city center, 110 storey office structures with several levels of parking garages and a subway tunnel beneath them,
which has some characteristics of a landfill,
and some characteristics that would be unigue to the rubble pile of two city center, 110 storey office structues with several levels of parking garages and a subway tunnel beneath them.

What part of that are you having trouble with?

 

[Edx]

So let me rephrase this for you. Basically what you are saying is that it is whatever you want it to be, whenever you want it to be it, for no other reason than you simply want it to be that way?

The WTC rubble pile was not a landfillfire, agree or disagree?
The WTC rubbble pile was not an building fire, agree or disagree?

The answer should be obvious, it was neither.

It was evidently not the same as any fire you can come up with, but we can still show in what ways its behaviour was like that of other fires. It behaved both like an office fire in the sence that it had the same fuel sources, it also behaved like a landfill fire in the way it was "an insulated pile of both combustibles and non-combustibles". Both of these are evidently true, something I fail to understand how you can disagree with. I don't understand why you can't conceed the fact that the WTC had characteristics of various kinds of fires.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Put my foot in my mouth again?? Forget about thermite for the moment, he agreed to that he would not know the source of molten steel. Most people (note I don't mean most of the posters here who of course won't admit it) would consider that a basis for something malicious.

You might as well forget about thermite completely...The science of thermite, as explained by others, does show you're barking up the wrong tree.
Since you continue to have these thoughts of malice being involved with the WTC's collapse, then fine, but thermite shouldn't even be on your radar.

 

[tmd2_1]

The WTC rubble was like a landfill in that it was an insulated pile of both combustibles and non-combustibles.
It was also like a landfill fire in that cutting off air and dumping water on it was largely ineffective.
It was unlike a landfill in that it was not packed down to the extent that a landfill is and it had an underground tunnel to feed it air.
It was unlike a landfill as well in that it was contained in a concrete basin with engineered drainage and surrounded by paved streets. ("so what!" tmd cries - it means that the initial condition of the rubble and soil is DRY and thus a better insulator than what would be found at a landfill)

If I had the time and inclination here is the experiment I would perform:

Using a 3-5 gallon steel can put 1 gallon of gasoline, one cup of motor oil, a cup of sawdust in the can (a mixed hydrocarbon fuel)

On open ground set the gas on fire and take temperature readings and log observations of significant events every 5 minutes until the gas burns out. ( This will take about an hour)

IMO what you will see is a smokey fire that flares up and subsides depending on the breeze. It will be quite hot but not close to the melting point of aluminum. .

Now redo the experiment but make a few changes.
First, fashion a 1/2 inch copper tube that runs , outside of the can, from just above the rim to a level just above the bottom of the can then back up and into the can to just above the level of the fuel. Do the same with 1/2 inch aluminum tube on the opposite side of the can.
Install a BBQ sparker in the can and run the wire up through one of the tubes.

Now, surround the can with at least a foot of dry sand up to the rim of the can. ( a plywood box at least 2 feet wider than the diameter of the can with the can, surrounded by dry sand, in the center)

Cap the can with a cone shaped lid with a 3/4 inch hole at the top and cover up to the rim of the hole with more dry sand. ( a large tin funnel would suffice )

Ignite the fuel with the BBQ sparker and take temp readings at the center of the smoke hole.

After the fuel goes out examine the aluminum and copper tubes for signs of melting.

IMO this is what will be observed:
The temps will greatly exceed the first run due to the pre-heating of the air supply, and the retention of heat by the insulating sand. The exit speed of the gasses will be quite a bit more than the first run and there will be less smoke due to more complete burning.
The aluminum pipe , and possibly the copper pipe will show signs of melting. In effect this will be a natural draft furnace.

Ah yes I'm sure it would be. Just like the WTC would have perfectly formed these conditions to have such a furnace. No doubt about it. Even Oystein doubts such a furnace took place, there's nothing more I can say. I have never found any similar type fire(due to collapse) or landfill fire that came close to coming hot enough to melt steel. Yet on this day that is what happened.

 

[tmd2_1]

No, we are saying that it is the rubble pile of two city center, 110 storey office structures with several levels of parking garages and a subway tunnel beneath them,
which has some characteristics of a landfill,
and some characteristics that would be unigue to the rubble pile of two city center, 110 storey office structues with several levels of parking garages and a subway tunnel beneath them.

What part of that are you having trouble with?

Besides the whole thing, I am having trouble with none of it. As I said before (and this is true not only in this case) things are whatever you would like them to be to suit your needs.

 

[tmd2_1]

The WTC rubble pile was not a landfillfire, agree or disagree?
The WTC rubbble pile was not an building fire, agree or disagree?

The answer should be obvious, it was neither.

It was evidently not the same as any fire you can come up with, but we can still show in what ways its behaviour was like that of other fires. It behaved both like an office fire in the sence that it had the same fuel sources, it also behaved like a landfill fire in the way it was "an insulated pile of both combustibles and non-combustibles". Both of these are evidently true, something I fail to understand how you can disagree with. I don't understand why you can't conceed the fact that the WTC had characteristics of various kinds of fires.

Right and again I ask it's "pointed" to debate me??

 

[Edx]

Right and again I ask it's "pointed" to debate me??

Do you think using a typo to ignore the point makes you sound smart?

• The WTC rubble pile was neither an office fire or a landfill fire. YES OR NO.
• The WTC rubble pile was like that of a landfill fire and an office fire in various ways. YES OR NO

What you still don't understand is that even if there really was thermite there, even if it really managed to help heat the pile, the answers to both of these would still be yes.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Ah yes I'm sure it would be. Just like the WTC would have perfectly formed these conditions to have such a furnace. No doubt about it. Even Oystein doubts such a furnace took place, there's nothing more I can say. I have never found any similar type fire(due to collapse) or landfill fire that came close to coming hot enough to melt steel. Yet on this day that is what happened.

How many controlled demolitions resulted in a smouldering rubble pile?

 

[tmd2_1]

Do you think using a typo to ignore the point makes you sound smart?

• The WTC rubble pile was neither an office fire or a landfill fire. YES OR NO.
• The WTC rubble pile was like that of a landfill fire and an office fire in various ways. YES OR NO

What you still don't understand is that even if there really was thermite there, even if it really managed to help heat the pile, the answers to both of these would still be yes.

Well I don't see how it can be like an office fire being that there were no offices, I think they were uh kind of destroyed.

 

[Edx]

Well I don't see how it can be like an office fire being that there were no offices, I think they were uh kind of destroyed.

.... seriously? You've been told in so many different ways by multiple people now, why do act like you can't even imagine what similarities there could be? They are collapsed office buidlings, the fire has the same fuel source as an office building so why would a collapsed 110 story office complex (x2!) fire be less likely to get up to at least the same temperatures as they would when they were standing? What is stopping that from happening?

So, in various ways it behaved like a landfill fire, but also had very different characteristics of a landfill the specifics of which explains why it would be much worse than most examples of these kinds of fire because landfill fires dont have the kinds of fuel and oxygen supply the WTC rubble pile would have had.

This is a fact independant of whether what truthers claim about thermite really is correct or not.

 

[tmd2_1]

.... seriously? You've been told in so many different ways by multiple people now, why do act like you can't even imagine what similarities there could be? They are collapsed office buidlings that have the same fuel source as an office building why would a 110 story office office comples be less likely to get up to at least the same temperatures as they would when they were standing? What is stopping that from happening?

Well lack of oxygen, ventilation...etc as in a landfill fire. But wait, that's one of the ways it's not like a landfill fire correct?? I mean seriously...all joking aside it really is in a lot of ways pointless to debate you. You just come back with anything and try to make it sound like it supports your cause. When it doesn't at all. Really take a second look back at this thread...how do you think any neutral person would view it?