Merged So there was melted steel

[NoahFence]

Think he'll ever say what he thinks happened at the Pentagon or Shanksville?

I'm almost tempted to offer $$ just to hear it.

(in the proper thread, obviously)

 

[jaydeehess]

Are you suggesting that fires cannot be smothered?

If you had bothered to follow this thread, you would not be wasting time on questions that have already been addressed. My theory primarily addressed the enduring hotspots well below the surface of the WTC Ground Zero debris pile.

You know, pockets well insulated by all that tightly packed pulverized dust I previously referred to.

Pockets that may have contained fires, but after running out of sufficient oxygen, were extinguished but retained combustion level temperatures.

Until the combustible materials in those pockets were exposed to a fresh source of oxygen, the only heat generating ignition, would be produced by substances which produced their own oxygen and were exposed to their required ignition temperature.

In the case of the thermitic red chips, 430 C would achieve this.

Therein lie two problems.

1) The supposed thermitic material has never been shown to exhibit self oxidation. Because the researcher investigating this substanmce already thought it was thermitic and only decided to test its ignition point and its heat output. IOW his was a circular arguement,

I.E. "I believe it is thermitic and displays two properties that it could have if it is a self oxidizing thermitic material therefore there is no reason to test if it is a self oxidizing thermitic material"

2) No one has shown anything to contest the math done that shows; that with the amount of these red chips, their total supposed thermitic content , and the heat output from them; could in fact supply enough heat to not only keep the hot spots at high temp but also raise the temp of the inert portion of the dust, which would far outweigh the amount of thermitic material by a few orders of magnitude(IIRC), to that same high temp.

 

[jaydeehess]

Think he'll ever say what he thinks happened at the Pentagon or Shanksville?

I'm almost tempted to offer $$ just to hear it.

(in the proper thread, obviously)

He would not be interested since in those two locations molten metal let alone molten steel is not a factor. The flooring in the Pentagon was wooden and columns concrete IIRC.

 

[GlennB]

....

You know, pockets well insulated by all that tightly packed pulverized dust I previously referred to.

Pockets that may have contained fires, but after running out of sufficient oxygen, were extinguished but retained combustion level temperatures.

Until the combustible materials in those pockets were exposed to a fresh source of oxygen, the only heat generating ignition, would be produced by substances which produced their own oxygen and were exposed to their required ignition temperature.

In the case of the thermitic red chips, 430 C would achieve this.

So, how would fresh supplies of thermitic dust enter these "insulated pockets" ? Pockets that even air cannot reach?

 

[Miragememories]

"As per conspiratorial method, Official Story supporters have no problem accepting crashing aircraft and fire.

And I presented an alternative explanation, nano thermite, and how it could account for molten steel."

"I am left speechless at people who see two midsize jets fly at high speed into two spectacularly tall, narrow buildings, see the explosions, see the fires, and see both buildings, that have stood for a quarter century collapse soon thereafter …

and conclude …

"Coincidence or diversion. The crashes had nothing to do with the collapse."

Hmm.

Apparently you are easily rendered speechless.

When the unexpected occurs, it is only rational to seek an explanation that would make the occurrence an expectation.

No?

When the unexpected occurs, not once, not twice, but, three times, at the same 16 acre site, on the same day, and all in the span of 7.5 hours, it is particularly reasonable to seek an explanation that would make the occurrences a logical expectation.

And the collapses were unexpected for good reason.

The WTC Twin Towers were designed to withstand aircraft collision and subsequent fire.

Yes I know there has been much debate on this issue, but no one has disproved the engineering white paper which claimed such design.

Unquestionably, the impacted floors were seriously damaged, and it is even possible that an area of partial collapse might have been a reasonable expectation.

But a total, high speed collapse, from aircraft impact and subsequent fires alone, for two of the three largest towers at the WTC site?

A big NO.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

When the unexpected occurs, it is only rational to seek an explanation that would make the occurrence an expectation.

No?

When the unexpected occurs, not once, not twice, but, three times, at the same 16 acre site, on the same day, and all in the span of 7.5 hours, it is particularly reasonable to seek an explanation that would make the occurrences a logical expectation.

More than 3. Try to keep up.

Two virtually identical aircraft struck two identical buildings in virtually an identical manner.

Both failed identically.

This is really surprising?


FYI - the use of that article proves how dishonest you people really are. It does NOT support you. Why can't you see that?

 

[carlitos]

More than 3. Try to keep up.

I'm just curious. Is there any video of the other collapses? Maybe if we find one, we can "analyze" the film for anomalies and start a whole new truthy meme on our own.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hmm.

Apparently you are easily rendered speechless.

When the unexpected occurs, it is only rational to seek an explanation that would make the occurrence an expectation.

No?

When the unexpected occurs, not once, not twice, but, three times, at the same 16 acre site, on the same day, and all in the span of 7.5 hours, it is particularly reasonable to seek an explanation that would make the occurrences a logical expectation.

[qimg]http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/6533/noconcernofwtccollapsea.jpg[/qimg]

And the collapses were unexpected for good reason.

The WTC Twin Towers were designed to withstand aircraft collision and subsequent fire.

Yes I know there has been much debate on this issue, but no one has disproved the engineering white paper which claimed such design.

Unquestionably, the impacted floors were seriously damaged, and it is even possible that an area of partial collapse might have been a reasonable expectation.

But a total, high speed collapse, from aircraft impact and subsequent fires alone, for two of the three largest towers at the WTC site?

A big NO.

MM

The towers were determined, on scratch paper to be able to withstand a 707 flying low and slow and looking to land (running low on fuel) impacting them. This was determined by hand calculations in the 1970s as an aside rather than as a deliberate part of the design. No one has ever specifically designed a civilian office structure to withstand the impact of large fast aircraft and the dumping of thousands of gallons of liquid fuel into them.

Now you complain that not one, not two but three office structures collapsed that day.
However once WTC 2 did defy the back of the napkin estimation that it could withstand an aircraft impact it was much more probable that its twin would do the same. Perhaps you'd care to give the estimation by the fire chiefs about the probability that WTC 1 would collapse after having witnessed WTC 2 having done so? Perhaps you'd care to reiterate the call to evacuate all personnel from WTC 1 at that time?
Perhaps you'd care to give the reason why the NYFD called for an exclusion zone around WTC 7 at least equal to its height if they felt that there was no danger of collapse.

Yes MM, they did not expect collapse at the first estimation. However with greater data, witnessing WTC 2 come down, they did the prudent thing and abandoned that estimation. Did any of them utter the thought upon seeing WTC 2 come down "No, that's simply not possible"? (other than the normal human escape mechanism that has us utter "NO!" when we witness events we simply don't want to see)

 

[jaydeehess]

When the unexpected occurs, it is only rational to seek an explanation that would make the occurrence an expectation.


More than 3. Try to keep up.

True, of course there were 7 WTC structures that were fully collapsed or utterly devastated. Then there was the Fitterman building, the Deutsche Bank Building.
I do recall that there were others but they escape me right now.

As an aside we had two identical space shuttles destroyed too, must be a conspiracy.

 

[BasqueArch]

Oh?

I thought you had a major disbelief about the degree of pulverization that occurred?

My theory about the sustained high heat levels and the relationship to melted steel, requires a couple of things.

It requires a very dense, oxygen-depriving dust debris field, and it requires an abundance of the red chips.

MM

By the way it’s not a theory, it’s an unquantified hypothesis, wishful magic.

It also requires that you ignore 220 acres of concentrated burning combustible material and instead believe , without evidence, that scattered, weak red chips can melt steel and continuously maintain these temperatures for weeks.

Can you answer this? Rhetorical question,

Can you give us ballpark figures for both?
- total amount of dust
- total amount of red chips
Both given as an absolute amount, a number with the unit "tons", please.

And then an indication whether the red chips were generally mixed with the other dust, or more generally seperate from all the other dust.

Well, all of this of course only if you don't feel this is off-topic here.

Thanks.

And answer this:

This theory is a multiple appeal to magic.

First of all, you fantasize about a "steady supply of un-ignited dust" - as if there was a mechanism that continually moved just the right amount of solif fuel to the hotspot, over the course of weeks, without interrruption. This in a chaotic, but largely steady debris pile. That's wishful thinking. buddy. Your magic: Dust is solid and liquid at the same time, and it moves wherever it's needed all by its own!

Secondly, you wish for nanothermite to do exactly what it is designed NOT to do: To burn slowly. The whole point of nano-sizing thermite is to make it burn a lot faster than regular thermite! Your magic: You make nano-thermite burn fast and slow at the same time!

Thirdly, there is a dissonance between keeping the hotspot just above 430°C, and having it hot enough to melt steel. Which is it? Your magic: The nano-thermite fire is fairly cool and extremely hot at the same time!

Fourthly, and that's what kills your theory: You want nanothermite, with its measly energy density of 1.5 kJ/g to keep burning and staying hot for weeks. This defies even the simplest considerations of thermodynamics. Even the best insulation in a debris pile could not do that, unless you have absolutely ridiculous amounts of the stuff at your disposal. Your magic: Little energy turns into great heat - You create energy out of nothing!

In short: With thermite, no matter how you turn it, you can't have it both ways: Burn it slowly over the course of weeks, and make it melt steel in the process.

I guess you will reject the points I raised, because you have zero understanding of the chemical physics and of thermodynamics behind them. You certainly don't have the faintest clue about why thermite can melt steel in the first place. You never grasped what energy density means, and how it relates to your problems. It is only because the science involved here is utterly foreign to you that you can, and must, believe in magic.

Clarke's third law applies to you, Miragememories: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Fire and insulation are, like falling things, technologies too advanced for you. You don't know where their science ends and your magic begins.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm just curious. Is there any video of the other collapses? Maybe if we find one, we can "analyze" the film for anomalies and start a whole new truthy meme on our own.

None that I'm aware of, they were obscured by the dust cloud or disassembled piece by piece later on.

(No det cord was found there, either!)

 

[triforcharity]

Hmm.

Apparently you are easily rendered speechless.

When the unexpected occurs, it is only rational to seek an explanation that would make the occurrence an expectation.

No?

When the unexpected occurs, not once, not twice, but, three times, at the same 16 acre site, on the same day, and all in the span of 7.5 hours, it is particularly reasonable to seek an explanation that would make the occurrences a logical expectation.

[qimg]http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/6533/noconcernofwtccollapsea.jpg[/qimg]

And the collapses were unexpected for good reason.

The WTC Twin Towers were designed to withstand aircraft collision and subsequent fire.

Yes I know there has been much debate on this issue, but no one has disproved the engineering white paper which claimed such design.

Unquestionably, the impacted floors were seriously damaged, and it is even possible that an area of partial collapse might have been a reasonable expectation.

But a total, high speed collapse, from aircraft impact and subsequent fires alone, for two of the three largest towers at the WTC site?

A big NO.

MM

And you realize that once it collapsed, there was no question among those fire chiefs, as to why it collapsed, correct?

You also realize that what TFK said, has nothing to do with the article that you've posted, right?

Can you name the logical fallacy that you're committing?

 

[Miragememories]

"Are you suggesting that fires cannot be smothered?

If you had bothered to follow this thread, you would not be wasting time on questions that have already been addressed. My theory primarily addressed the enduring hotspots well below the surface of the WTC Ground Zero debris pile.

You know, pockets well insulated by all that tightly packed pulverized dust I previously referred to.

Pockets that may have contained fires, but after running out of sufficient oxygen, were extinguished but retained combustion level temperatures.

Until the combustible materials in those pockets were exposed to a fresh source of oxygen, the only heat generating ignition, would be produced by substances which produced their own oxygen and were exposed to their required ignition temperature.

In the case of the thermitic red chips, 430 C would achieve this."

"Therein lie two problems.

1) The supposed thermitic material has never been shown to exhibit self oxidation. Because the researcher investigating this substanmce already thought it was thermitic and only decided to test its ignition point and its heat output. IOW his was a circular arguement,

I.E. "I believe it is thermitic and displays two properties that it could have if it is a self oxidizing thermitic material therefore there is no reason to test if it is a self oxidizing thermitic material"

Until you and/or others can disprove the red chip findings of the Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe paper by Dr. Harrit et al, my theory stands on those findings. They have concluded the material is thermitic and to be so, it must be self-oxidizing.

"2) No one has shown anything to contest the math done that shows; that with the amount of these red chips, their total supposed thermitic content , and the heat output from them; could in fact supply enough heat to not only keep the hot spots at high temp but also raise the temp of the inert portion of the dust, which would far outweigh the amount of thermitic material by a few orders of magnitude(IIRC), to that same high temp."

There is no math which shows the actual concentration levels of red chips in the debris pile. Earlier in this thread, I hypothesized that it was logical to assume red chips to be in higher concentration in the debris pile compared to the dust samples tested from the WTC peripheral locations.

I'll explain this reasoning once again.

My theory accepts the nanothermitic nature of the WTC dust's red chips.

Nanothermite had no non-hostile reason for existing at the World Trade Center.

A finding of nanothermite in all the known WTC dust samples would require an acceptance of its existing for the sole purpose of aiding in the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC7.

It is logical to believe such pre-planned thermitic activity was still occurring when global collapse was initiated for each of the three towers.

It is also logical to assume that during the collapse, which was shown to exhibit an incredible amount of pulverization, a great deal of thermitic material did not get ignited and was also pulverized into dust.

The overkill pulverization would also have the added advantage of hiding the thermitic material from any post-collapse investigations that were not forensically looking for it.

Since the most effective means of demolition, would require the largest concentrations of the nanothermitic material to be placed at the core, it is reasonable to expect the greatest concentrations of the thermitic red chips would be focused in the pulverized debris pile at the core base.

Tests on dust samples known to have come from those locations would be of great interest.

MM

 

[Newtons Bit]

The towers were determined, on scratch paper to be able to withstand a 707 flying low and slow and looking to land (running low on fuel) impacting them. This was determined by hand calculations in the 1970s as an aside rather than as a deliberate part of the design. No one has ever specifically designed a civilian office structure to withstand the impact of large fast aircraft and the dumping of thousands of gallons of liquid fuel into them.

Now you complain that not one, not two but three office structures collapsed that day.
However once WTC 2 did defy the back of the napkin estimation that it could withstand an aircraft impact it was much more probable that its twin would do the same. Perhaps you'd care to give the estimation by the fire chiefs about the probability that WTC 1 would collapse after having witnessed WTC 2 having done so? Perhaps you'd care to reiterate the call to evacuate all personnel from WTC 1 at that time?
Perhaps you'd care to give the reason why the NYFD called for an exclusion zone around WTC 7 at least equal to its height if they felt that there was no danger of collapse.

Yes MM, they did not expect collapse at the first estimation. However with greater data, witnessing WTC 2 come down, they did the prudent thing and abandoned that estimation. Did any of them utter the thought upon seeing WTC 2 come down "No, that's simply not possible"? (other than the normal human escape mechanism that has us utter "NO!" when we witness events we simply don't want to see)

I imagine the designers looked at the 1945 crash into the Empire State Building as a comparison. The WTC was a far more robust design, the exterior tougher and more resilient to column failure than the Empire State Building. I doubt calculations would have even been done, except perhaps to verify that the building could support the loss of a few exterior columns.

 

[twinstead]

Until you and/or others can disprove the red chip findings of the Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe paper by Dr. Harrit et al, my theory stands on those findings. They have concluded the material is thermitic and to be so, it must be self-oxidizing.

My theory accepts the nanothermitic nature of the WTC dust's red chips.

It's not anybody's job to disprove the red chip "findings". Your theory accepts something that is NOT proven by anybody who is respected in their fields

 

[Miragememories]

And you realize that once it collapsed, there was no question among those fire chiefs, as to why it collapsed, correct?

You also realize that what TFK said, has nothing to do with the article that you've posted, right?

Can you name the logical fallacy that you're committing?

What is more telling, is the combined professional pre-collapse opinions of the chiefs, opinions based on the aircraft crashes and the subsequent fires.

Their post-collapse conclusions were were based on an abandonment of their original professional assessments. Like the whole world at that moment, the chiefs were forced to accept the only information that was readily available.

Based on your absurd analytical requirements, shock 'n awe was the only investigative requirement.

For you apparently, there was no need for a FEMA or NIST investigation, if it was so easy to determine cause.

MM

 

[twinstead]

Jesus MM you act as if your opinion is the majority, and we are just some small cult supporting some ridiculous made up story. Do you have any idea just how much in the abject minority you are?

 

[jaydeehess]

Until you and/or others can disprove the red chip findings of the Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe paper by Dr. Harrit et al, my theory stands on those findings. They have concluded the material is thermitic and to be so, it must be self-oxidizing.

If A, then B DOES NOT MEAN that if B then A.

What logical fallacy is that, I forget.

Harrit simply CLAIMS its thermitic which would require self oxidation. He claims this because the material displays SOME characteristics of a thermitic material BUT he never tested at all for self oxidation.

If its thermite it would require that it be self oxidizing but other materials can have the same heat output and certainly have similar ignition points. IOW if thermite then self oxidizing, if NOT self oxidizing then NOT thermite. This is the one most required test to support a claim of thermite but was simply skipped because of the personal opinion of the researcher.
THAT is the antithesis of scientific method.

THAT in and of itself disproves his conclusion that it is thermitic since all we have to go on is his personal opinion rather than data.

There is no math which shows the actual concentration levels of red chips in the debris pile.

IIRC it was Oystein who took the concentrations given by Harrit and the amount of claimed thermitic material in those red chips as opposed to the constituent of the red chips that is not thermitic, and the heat release numbers given by Harrit and concluded that they simply cannot supply enough heat to do what is claimed to have been accomplished by them.
To my knowledge Harrit also has not bothered to do such calculations, believing instead that as long as he claims there was thermitic material then there must be enough to do what he wants it to do.
Self deluded sophist would be a polite term for that.

Earlier in this thread, I hypothesized that it was logical to assume red chips to be in higher concentration in the debris pile compared to the dust samples tested from the WTC peripheral locations.

I'll explain this reasoning once again.

My theory accepts the nanothermitic nature of the WTC dust's red chips.

a property never established for this material. Wishful thinking does not count.

Nanothermite had no non-hostile reason for existing at the World Trade Center

.
I'll grant you that I suppose. I can't think of a reason off hand. However as said above none has been shown to have existed there.

It is logical to believe such pre-planned thermitic activity was still occurring when global collapse was initiated for each of the three towers.

Perhaps but just how much excess do you suppose would there be? Enough to burn a little at a time for weeks? How much would be required to be 'left over' to burn a little at a time as well as keep the underground sufficiently hot?
No answers on this from you. Again you simply wish it to be so.

It is also logical to assume that during the collapse, which was shown to exhibit an incredible amount of pulverization, a great deal of thermitic material did not get ignited and was also pulverized into dust.

Only if one assumes a huge amount of 'leftover'. You do realize that if a volume A of steel was melted over a long period by a slow release of heat by burning thermite, then the amount of thermite required to do that must be the same as if it melted it by burning all at once. In fact it requires more since a slow release of heat would require that more heat lost to the environment be accounted for. No insulation is perfect.

The overkill pulverization would also have the added advantage of hiding the thermitic material from any post-collapse investigations that were not forensically looking for it.

,,,,and mix it in with an enormous amount of inert material which the thermite would have to also heat up thus making less heat available to heat the underground steel. Thus even more thermite required than if it all burned at once and melted that steel

Since the most effective means of demolition, would require the largest concentrations of the nanothermitic material to be placed at the core, it is reasonable to expect the greatest concentrations of the thermitic red chips would be focused in the pulverized debris pile at the core base.

Inconvenient fact that the core stood longer than the perimeter thus negating this argument altogether.

 

[NoahFence]

Jesus MM you act as if your opinion is the majority, and we are just some small cult supporting some ridiculous made up story. Do you have any idea just how much in the abject minority you are?

No kidding.

MM - the ORGANIZER of a truther gathering couldn't be bothered to show up this past weekend.

Your cult is dead. Your arguments moot. Your evidence fabricated.

FIND A NEW HOBBY.

 

[jaydeehess]

What is more telling, is the combined professional pre-collapse opinions of the chiefs, opinions based on the aircraft crashes and the subsequent fires.

Their post-collapse conclusions were were based on an abandonment of their original professional assessments. Like the whole world at that moment, the chiefs were forced to accept the only information that was readily available.

Based on your absurd analytical requirements, shock 'n awe was the only investigative requirement.

For you apparently, there was no need for a FEMA or NIST investigation, if it was so easy to determine cause.

MM

On the contrary, the Chiefs, post WTC 2 collapse, did not need a detailed engineering assessment of the probability of a total collapse of WTC 1. All they needed to do was to put prudence ahead of valour. Same went for WTC 7 when, later that same day, WTC 7 suffered unfought fires, the complete loss of one corner column for a couple of dozens storeys, and was exhibiting creaking and groaning and seen to be bulging.

Later on yes, a detailed engineering investigation would be required as a post mortem to these collapses.