Merged So there was melted steel

[tfk]

MM,

Are you suggesting that fires cannot be smothered?

Never said, never suggested, anything of the sort.

Where do you get such silliness?

I said that I'd like to hear your theory about how & why the fires lasted as long as they did. And what thermite had to do with it.

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've said before, and now you reiterate, that you "have a theory".

You have not yet, as far as I have seen, explained your theory in the slightest. Perhaps you could point me to your post in which you detail the sequence of events. And provide your evidence, of course.

Simply saying the word "nanothermite" is amusing as all get out, but it is not explaining your theory.

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.

Well, now you're actually onto something. With a bunch of mistakes mixed in.

Choking BACK the oxygen supply is the most common way to make a fire long-lasting.

Ground Zero had the perfect mixture to match the choke back condition: a huge amount of unburnt fuel from about 230 acres of office contents, highly compacted into about a 20 acre site.

GZ was an absolutely ideal structure for those long lasting fires. No pixie dust, no voodoo & no thermXte required.


Now, the mistakes:

Choking OFF the oxygen does not make a fire long-lasting. It puts the fire out.

"Extinguished fires" do NOT retain "combustion level temperatures". The fires are what generate the high temperatures. Once they have been extinguished, the whole mass cools down.

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.

Ahhhh, here seems to be (a portion of? all of?) your "theory". Even tho you don't state it as such.

Is your theory that "the termitic material sustained the fires thru 3 months of oxygen deprivation, and maintained the extreme temperatures 'seen' in the debris pile"?

Rather than my wasting my time guessing, please confirm whether or not this is so.

If it is not your theory, please state clearly what IS your theory.

tk

PS.

Please explain what you think the red chips are, and what role they play in your theory.

A critical question: please lay out, in detail, any falsifiable features of your theory.

Thanks.

No.

If you can't be bothered to read this thread where I have already covered your questions, than you are of no interest to me.

Wow. Let's see. 40 pages, >1500 comments.

And you can't post "I explained in these X posts"...

Not real interested in making your case, are ya?

 

[tfk]

Deleted double post.

 

[Edx]

What you are ignoring, MM, is that Edx DID provide the very citation you falsely claim he has not.

Your research skills are horrible. I had to go back all of 8 pages to find the exact citation you could not.

Here it is.



Did you see the citation this time? If not,
HERE IT IS.

Thanks Dave.

I just read the article again and I think this example is inconclusive now as I think the examples in the newspaper I originally thought were the same are different stories. Without knowing more about the story I wouldn't want to include it in my examples anymore.

No matter though, there's plenty more!!

Here are some links for MM to ignore... for the nth time:

fire "Melting steel beams":
https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&...&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1900,cd_max:2000&authuser=0

"fire "Melted steel girders"
https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&...=754&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&cad=b

You can find countless examples if you alter the search criteria.


Here are just a few examples: (Note also how many of these talk about "explosions" in the fires.)



"The heat of the fire that erupted when the tanker crashed melted the heavy steel girders supporting the overpass, causing it to sag about 7 feet toward"
-
Bridge repair rushed
Connecticut Post - NewsBank - Mar 27, 2004

A fire in a wrecked chemical truck Friday caused an estimated million damage by melting bridge girders
-
Truck Fire Burns Hole In Bridge .
Youngstown Vindicator - Dec 3, 1977

The massive six-alarm blaze caused by a construction accident, melted steel girders on nearby construction projects
-
Massive Fire Engulfs Several Blocks .
Boca Raton News -May 20, 2000


"PITTSBURGH - A spectacular general alarm fire, its heat so intense that it melted steel girders, has destroyed a vacant warehouse in the city's Strip"
-
Spectacular Fire .
Gettysburg Times Aug 9, 1975


"The fire, fueled by the undersea oil and gas the crewmen worked each day to harness, burned so hot it melted the steel girders. First the derrick collapsed"
-
DISASTERS STRIKE WORLDS APART OIL RIG
Miami Herald - July 8, 1988




The NFPA 921 advises not to attribute melted metals to an additional incendiary (like thermite), they are also trained to know what metals melt in fires. It also says that other metals dripping onto steel can make it look like the steel has melted.

22.3.3 Solid Fuels. Investigators should not interpret the presence of melted
metals to be an indicator of the use of an ignitable liquid as an
accelerant, in the belief that only an ignitable liquid can produce
sufficiently high temperatures. Common combustibles
and ignitable liquids produce essentially the same flame temperature.
Melting temperatures given in handbooks and in
this guide are for the pure metal, unless otherwise stated. In
many cases, alloys are used rather than the pure metal. The
melting temperature of an alloy is generally lower than that of
its constituents. The actual composition of a metal part and its
melting temperature should be determined before any conclusions
are drawn from the fact that it has melted. Accidental
alloying may occur during a fire. For instance, zinc may drip
onto a copper wire or tube and form a brass alloy, which melts
at a lower temperature than copper. Likewise, molten aluminum
can drip onto steel sheet metal, which can cause the
appearance of melting of the sheet steel. Some properties and
uses of solid fuels are given in Table 22.3.3"

-
NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations: (Screenshot)

 

[tfk]

MM,

Apparently you are easily rendered speechless.

You've read my posts.
You know this to not be true.
You say it anyway.

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

No?

Nope.
Depends on who considers something to be "unexpected".
Amateurs' opinions carry no weight.
Experts' opinions carry weight.

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.

What utter bilge.

The events happened "at the same 16 acre site" because they built the buildings on the same 16 acre site.

They happened "on the same day" because the airplanes crashed into the buildings on the same day.

Each event happened EXACTLY according to the time constants associated with the causes NIST describes. The towers' collapses at 1 & 2 hours match the time constant for heat accelerated creep.

WTC7 collapse (5 hours after fires stated by the collapse of WTC1) happened according to the time constant required for fires to move thru the building.

Your "time frame gotcha" do nothing except CONFIRM NIST's conclusions.

If you weren't such an amateur, you might be able to appreciate this fact.

And the collapses were unexpected for good reason.

Unexpected by amateurs.

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

Amateurs think that they were "designed to withstand aircraft impact".

Professionals know better.

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

Professionals know better.

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?

Bilge.

Professionals know better.

Your problem is that you keep playing with (& listening to) amateurs.

tk

 

[jaydeehess]

Odd, when I am at my cottage I have a woodstove going. If the doors are open the fire burns cheerily. AS I shut the doors it begins to roar. How is this possible ?? I am choking down the air supply?

Then when I am going to bed I throw in a few more logs and screw in the dampers almost shut. The fire last all night long hot enough to keep the cabin warm(sometimes too warm) and it manages to do this despite the outdoor temp being -20 Celcius when we are there in February.

In MMs world this is simply not possible. Yes I know MM you are claiming that ALL oxygen is somehow cut off by the dust yet you seem to be ignoring the fact that all the dust came from above while the subway tunnels are located below the surface. You ignore the fact that smoke was rising from the debris pile indicating that gasses were able to get out via routes through the debris while adhereing to the notion that no gasses could enter the debris because of this meters thick layer of dust

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So I should be impressed by an anonymous person claiming superior understanding after studying a photograph?

What a joke that.

MM

Why should the name being known of a person likely ill equipped to make an accurate analysis be any more impressive?
How about you take your evidence of the architects quote to the police and see what they say


In any case you are off topic. The thread already pre-supposes there was molten steel. We are still waiting for a plausible way that could be connected to a CD. Your silly heavily insulated yet sealed from oxygen but not sealed from fire retardant dust being fed to it by some magic process falls way short of being even remotely credible.

 

[Gaspode]

Please keep the discussion civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[NoahFence]

How do you address the argument when the argument is a lie?

 

[Miragememories]

You appear more concerned with the fact that I use an alias than whether or not my arguments are ground in fact, no wonder there's no progress here.

Nope.

Merely pointing out that you have the advantage of being able to say whatever you like without putting your reputation at any kind of real risk.

You can pretend to be God if you like.

Bart Voorsanger, on the other hand, is giving his professional opinion to the whole world. Big fracking difference even if you fail to acknowledge it.

Well, remember MM, you also admitted:

Well I possibly see some of those elements but it takes quite a stretch of the imagination to see the "meteorite" (for lack of a better word) as 'just' a crushed version of the WTC floor slab."

So you agreed that there's relevant information in it. And well,

I never said, and Bart Voorsanger certainly never said, that it was all molten steel.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

SO, MM, do you plan on ever answering my yes or no question?

 

[Miragememories]

"Care to speculate on what mechanism halts the diffusion of oxygen in air?

There are certain creatures on this planet that don't do very well in "oxygen deprive dust" (or air). Things like people & rescue dogs. Both of which were very common on, around & under the debris pile, continuously, from the day of the event thereafter.

See any problems for your theory?"

"Are you suggesting that fires cannot be smothered?"

"Never said, never suggested, anything of the sort.

Where do you get such silliness?"

Oh really?

So you believe the debris pile received a steady supply of consumable oxygen?

Your dogs were always working in locations with a steady supply of fresh air. Unquestionably those locations are not representative of the hotspot pockets to which I referred.

"I said that I'd like to hear your theory about how & why the fires lasted as long as they did. And what thermite had to do with it."

Would you now?

Well you have been gone for 5 days, I suggest you read through the thread if you are so interested.

"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've said before, and now you reiterate, that you "have a theory".

You have not yet, as far as I have seen, explained your theory in the slightest. Perhaps you could point me to your post in which you detail the sequence of events. And provide your evidence, of course.

Simply saying the word "nanothermite" is amusing as all get out, but it is not explaining your theory."

Well, since others, who have been more active in this thread than yourself have taken issue with my use of the word "theory", I am now content to refer to it as a hypothesis.

And if you haven't "seen", it is because you haven't "looked". Like I said, I suggest you read through the thread if you are so interested.

"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."

"Well, now you're actually onto something. With a bunch of mistakes mixed in.

Choking BACK the oxygen supply is the most common way to make a fire long-lasting.

Ground Zero had the perfect mixture to match the choke back condition: a huge amount of unburnt fuel from about 230 acres of office contents, highly compacted into about a 20 acre site.

GZ was an absolutely ideal structure for those long lasting fires. No pixie dust, no voodoo & no thermXte required.


Now, the mistakes:

Choking OFF the oxygen does not make a fire long-lasting. It puts the fire out.

"Extinguished fires" do NOT retain "combustion level temperatures". The fires are what generate the high temperatures. Once they have been extinguished, the whole mass cools down."

Not choking. Smothering actually.

Not 230 acres of office contents. More actually. The WTC Twin Towers alone represented 220 one acre floors. Add in the 47-story WTC7 and we really haven't touched on the subject of WTC 5 & WTC6 yet...

And if you had bothered to follow this thread, the pulverization of much of the office contents has already been addressed.

Edited by Locknar: 

<SNIP>; breach of rule 12 removed.

Loose, easily identifiable debris might certainly constrain a fire, choke it if you will, but fine dust will most certainly smother and suffocate it.

My hypothesis, if you had been following the thread, does not require a supply of fire consuming ambient oxygen. It requires a well-insulated location and a steady supply of falling red chip laden dust.

"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."

"Ahhhh, here seems to be (a portion of? all of?) your "theory". Even tho you don't state it as such.

Is your theory that "the termitic material sustained the fires thru 3 months of oxygen deprivation, and maintained the extreme temperatures 'seen' in the debris pile"?

Rather than my wasting my time guessing, please confirm whether or not this is so.

If it is not your theory, please state clearly what IS your theory.

tk

PS."

If there is a lake near where you live, I suggest you go jump into it.

I have covered all that you are asking in this thread and I have no intention of giving you the royal treatment by repeating myself.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

"Wow. Let's see. 40 pages, >1500 comments.

And you can't post "I explained in these X posts"...

Not real interested in making your case, are ya?"

I couldn't care less about making any case with the likes of you.

Don't forget to towel off when you return from the lake.

MM

 

[Edx]

Oh really?

So you believe the debris pile received a steady supply of consumable oxygen?

Landfill fires are so difficult to put out precisely because its so hard to stop oxygen getting to it.

Landfill fires have burned for months and even years, one has burned for over a decade.

Landfills try to heavily pack the material close together to save money, yet still manages to be such a big problem. The WTC debris pile had a huge supply of oxygen compared with a landfill.

 

[grandmastershek]

Loose, easily identifiable debris might certainly constrain a fire, choke it if you will, but fine dust will most certainly smother and suffocate it.


MM

Yeah?

 

[Miragememories]

Landfill fires are so difficult to put out precisely because its so hard to stop oxygen getting to it.

Landfill fires have burned for months and even years, one has burned for over a decade.

Landfills try to heavily pack the material close together to save money, yet still manages to be such a big problem. The WTC debris pile had a huge supply of oxygen compared with a landfill.

And what are landfills usually made up of?

No cigar Edx.

MM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Merely pointing out that you have the advantage of being able to say whatever you like without putting your reputation at any kind of real risk.

This isn't about risk, or professional title; it's about whether the research or the third party interpretations of them are factual. And pretending to be God doesn't protect me or anyone else from being wrong. Nor should his professional title, or the appeals that a third party tries to make of him.

Bart Voorsanger, on the other hand, is giving his professional opinion to the whole world. Big fracking difference even if you fail to acknowledge it.

The big difference is your once again not giving me his opinion. You're not giving me his research. You are expressing your opinion about one of his brief statements. This isn't his lie, this is your misrepresentation. His statement was not an official conclusion on his part, and as long as he's not being intentionally inaccurate, or incompetent he faces little if any issues with the AIA code of ethics and conduct on this stuff.

I never said, and Bart Voorsanger certainly never said, that it was all molten steel. MM

Apparently you're referring to actually having said something like this:
"a combination of steel and concrete fused by the heat into one" as if the heat was so intense it literally melted whatever steel was in the mass enough to liquefy it... well... I see nothing that was "melted" and the pieces are clearly identifiable with the visual information provided. Until you explain what it means by "it takes a stretch of the imagination" to see them as formerly floor slabs, we're left at the moment with no substance from you.

 

[carlitos]

My hypothesis, if you had been following the thread, does not require a supply of fire consuming ambient oxygen. It requires a well-insulated location and a steady supply of falling red chip laden dust.

God with a flour sifter. Cool theory.

 

[triforcharity]

And what are landfills usually made up of?

No cigar Edx.

MM

There might be cigars in there.

But, I would say the exact same things that you would find in an office building. Paper, carpet, plastics, wood, etc. etc. etc.....

Ignorant of landfills, ignorant of fire.

 

[Edx]

And what are landfills usually made up of?

No cigar Edx.

MM

UH, not sure what you are trying to say? Rubbish - thats what a landfill is usually made up of. Burns great.

Are you suggesting there wasn't enough combustible materials in the WTC? Office fires are considered one of the worst kinds of fires because there's so much fuel.

Still waiting for a response to my other post. I showed you the examples of people saying fire melted steel and steel beams and girders.

 

[Robrob]

And what are landfills usually made up of?

No cigar Edx.

MM

The same stuff as in the rubble of a sky scraper. Your point?

 

[DGM]

The same stuff as in the rubble of a sky scraper. Your point?

Exactly the same stuff if you look at Fresh Kills landfill.