Merged So there was melted steel

Zeuzzz said:
Ok the last few posts seem to be impervious to the fact that I backed down my my previous proclamation:
Click to expand...

My bad. I click on "First New post" and start replying from there. Glad to see that you've backed away from that.

One of the biggest problems with "Truthers" is that they will go to any and all lengths to never admit mistake or admit they're wrong. That is why I personally, do not label you a truther.

Zeuzzz said:
The fires underground dont seem to mysterious to me anymore. But I'd still like to see the NASA > white house data.
Click to expand...

NASA AVIRIS thermal image of ground zero on 9/16/01 (google This. Skip any forum posts or links to CT websites. )

For instance, I found this.
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-sp05-screen.pdf

Which leads me to EarthData.

http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc03/p0136.pdf

Which leads me to this.
USGS Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center Area, New York City, after September 11, 2001:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0050-02/fs-050-02_508.pdf

Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center area after the September 11, 2001 attack.:

http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/wtc/

Cheers!
 
Oystein said:
Are you surprised that there were fires on the surface of a debris pile? Or are you surprised that fires reach temperatures ranging from 800 degrees to 1,000 degrees (Celsius, I presume)?
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
The fires underground don't seem too mysterious to me anymore. But I'd still like to see the NASA > white house data to get a temperature scale on the AVIRIS thermal image of ground zero. Its not the the fact that there were fires, more what temperature they were burning at.
Click to expand...

The hottest hotspot measured was around 1000°K , or some 725°C. Source

Not really very remarkable.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
The hottest hotspot measured was around 1000°K , or some 725°C. Source

Not really very remarkable.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
From that measurement and extraploating by making assumptions about the depth of the fire and smokestack effects and insulative effects a few estimations of the temperatures reached underground have been put forth.

The hilited portions of the above statement illustrate what the margin of error on such numbers would be.
 
triforcharity said:
Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001.:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
Click to expand...

Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16
Click to expand...

So Z, yes the fires were burning out and cooling down.

The Sept 23 shot shows only a few really hot spots. Where does the 6 weeks of super hot fires come from in regard to these images?
 
Last edited:
From trifor's first link
Problems that were
encountered should not be dismissed, such as the need for absolute temperatures,
rather than arbitrary digital numbers. There are technologies such as Light
Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) imagery that some found useful, while others
questioned their value.

.............


.....3.4 Thermal Imagery
In simple terms, thermal imagery records the temperature of a designated
surface, in this instance the debris pile at Ground Zero. The ‘temperature’ is
actually a calibrated measure of emitance in the thermal region of theelectromagnetic spectrum, which falls just above the visible wavelengths that
were studied using multispectral sensors (see Section 3.2). For the World Trade
Center, data was collected using both airborne and satellite sensors. The SPOT
4 coverage was acquired soon after the terrorist attacks, with airborne imagery
from EarthData Aviation and AVIRIS delayed until the 16th September, due to
the ban on air traffic..........It is important to
note that output shows the relative (hot versus cold), rather than absolute (in
terms of degrees Kelvin) magnitude of temperatures on the ground surface.
........3.4.2 Uses and Usefulness
With fires raging at Ground Zero, the thermal data was used in a number of
ways. Overlaid with orthophotographs, it was used for planning fire-fighting
strategies, which needed to consider the location of hot spots in the pile. It was
also used to evaluate firefighting strategies (B. Oswald). For example, wherevarious chemicals were being used to tackle hotspots, chiefs assessed the success
of fire-fighting techniques by visually noting the difference between a time series
of the images (B. Oswald). However, there is no indication that this subtraction
was performed digitally, or numerically.
Integrating thermal and attribute data also assisted operations. Superimposing
the thermal data on GIS locations of transformers, and underground
infrastructure highlighted potential hazards to the response teams (D. Kaplan).
For fire fighters, building plans and maps showing hazardous materials and
fuel sources provided a focal point for wetting down the areas around fuel and
freon tanks (A. Leidner). From visual examination, firefighters also noted a
correlation between hot spots and depressions in the terrain model (N. Visconti).
They also attempted to track occurrences of ‘flash-over,’ when hot areas jump
or migrate from one location to the other (D. Kehrlein)..
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
It's exactly because the fire was buried and starved of oxygen that it kept on burning for so long. To burn, a fire needs fuel, heat, and oxygen; when the fuel runs out the fire goes out. Restrict the oxygen supply and the fire will burn more slowly, so the fuel will last longer; but slow it down enough and the heat will leak away and the fire won't be hot enough to keep on burning. But if the fire is buried, it's insulated, so it's harder for the heat to escape, so it keeps on smouldering, never going out because it still has plenty of heat and fuel, but never flaring up and burning the fuel away because there's very little oxygen available.

Dave
Click to expand...

Choke the fire and unless it is receiving a steady stream of falling nanothermitic dust, it will be extinguished.

As Dave so nicely pointed out, "...if the fire is buried, it's insulated, so it's harder for the heat to escape..."

Which accounts for what was observed in the WTC Ground Zero debris pile.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Choke the fire and unless it is receiving a steady stream of falling nanothermitic dust, it will be extinguished.
Click to expand...


You've never been in a house with a wood-burning stove, have you? Because I'm pretty sure there's no thermite feeder in the one at my parents' house...
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
You've never been in a house with a wood-burning stove, have you? Because I'm pretty sure there's no thermite feeder in the one at my parents' house...
Click to expand...
I am burning wood now, I starve the air so the wood will last 8 hours, and burn at 1000F, poor MM might not have the pleasure to split wood, after gathering wood all year to make it through the winter, and then maximize the burn. If I had the contents of the WTC, I would have more fuel then I would use in 10 lifetimes, maybe 100.

Wood has more heat energy than thermite; we would need over 1,200 tons of thermite to beat the heat energy of the WTC office fires. When will 911 truth use math, logic, knowledge, and evidence? never
 
Dave Rogers said:
..... so it keeps on smouldering, never going out because it still has plenty of heat and fuel, but never flaring up and burning the fuel away because there's very little oxygen available.

Dave
Click to expand...

Miragememories said:
Choke the fire and unless it is receiving a steady stream of falling nanothermitic dust, it will be extinguished.
Click to expand...

So while Dave makes it clear he's talking about a limited air supply and a slow-burning fire you misrepresent his point by discussing a fire which is totally starved of oxygen? In order to promote your "falling thermitic dust" theory? Tsk tsk.

Your "thermitic dust" is primarily concrete and drywall residues. If it's (say) 99% concrete and gypsum then every injection of new dust is 99% cool non-flammable material which itself must be raised in temperature as the thermite burns, absorbing the very heat that you propose will melt steel.

Every new injection of fuel carries with it a damn great heat sink.

You clearly didn't study even basic thermodynamics at school or college or you'd know your proposal cannot work. Hell, even rough+ready statistics is plenty good enough to show the flaw in your theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom