767 as Thermite in WTC?

[JoeyDonuts]

I've read some of the reports of thermite residue in the wreckage. Seems a lot of the folks espousing controlled demolition say this.

I don't claim to be an expert on either demolition or chemical combustion agents, but here's what I do know:

Back in my Navy days, they taught us all about the four different classes of fire. Alpha being combustible organic matter (anything that leaves ash), Bravo is a fuel fire leaving thick black smoke, Charlie is an electrical fire, and Delta is a metal/ordnance fire.

Of these, the Delta is the absolute worst since it can involve aircraft materials which contain magnesium/aluminum etc.

A 767 with plenty of aluminum impacts the towers, and you have a large fuel fire in an environment with a lot of dissimilar metals - one of them being magnesium which has an autoignition temperature of about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Could the magnesium ignition have produced a reaction with the aluminum in the aircraft frame and the steel alloys in the building?

It seems to me if you had a thermite-type reaction brought about by the plane impact and the high temperatures associated with it, that would negate the "jet fuel can't melt steel" argument completely, because a thermite reaction certainly can. It would also seem to explain the gutting of the supports in the top ten floors as well as the "presence of thermite" in the wreckage.

I'm hoping someone who is more well read on this particular aspect of it can help me out here.

 

[Zipster]

Not only the aluminum and magnesium, the titanium parts in the 767s can also cause a "thermite-like" reaction if a piece of them were turned into a shavings form. The thermal reaction of a high-speed impact can also cause titanium to ignite if its oxidized surface comes into contact with liquid oxygen (most likely from the oxygen mask system).

Titanium fires are one of the biggest hazards we have in our blade spar sanding zones. All the workers are briefed on it and there are special Class D fire extinguishers all over the place. Water and regular foam fire extinguishers will do nothing to put out a titanium fire.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Devil's Advocate: " Could the impact have made them into shavings? Seems like they'd be more voliatile that way."

 

[Travis]

Even if it did happen the most it would have done is bake the floor slab and cut through some of the floor trusses. It still wouldn't account for the massive deformation of floor trusses on multiple floors and the bowing of the exterior columns.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Even if it did happen the most it would have done is bake the floor slab and cut through some of the floor trusses. It still wouldn't account for the massive deformation of floor trusses on multiple floors and the bowing of the exterior columns.

So what explains that? KE/air displacement from the impact? It was angled downward slightly when it hit.

It seems to me that a combustible metal fire as large as a fragged 767 might do a lot more than that. Not being a structural or fire engineer I'm mostly talking out of my nalgas, homes.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, before anyone goes too far down this path here, let's understand the original myth: Truthers say that evidence of thermite was found. To be kind, this is a stretch. The only person that's tried any sort of actual analysis on recovered material - dust taken from a nearby apartment - is Steven Jones, and to say that his microspheres work points to thermite use is to ignore all the alternate sources that could have produced such iron-rich particles. That has been discussed at length in this forum already, and to be blunt, it still doesn't explain the lack of gross physical characteristics on the recovered steel.

As far as any other claims: None of them are chemically or physically based. The only people who've brought up thermite have insisted that evidence of molten steel exists, and they make the leap from that to the fact that thermite - being an incendiary capable of melting steel - was used. Note the inductive conclusion: They leap from molten steel to thermite. They do not actually produce positive evidence of its existence. Now while that's not necessarily fallacious in and of itself, it is a leap that demands support, and the problem is that only one such supporting argument exists, and that it's Steven Jones's work. And as said above, and before in previous forums posts, that work itself only really demonstrates the presence of iron microspheres; the conclusion that thermite produced them is unsupported, and frankly, is itself a leap (not to mention that I don't recall the paper actually mentioning thermite; that leap is made by readers predisposed to a conclusion. It's certainly not directly mentioned by the paper).

Considering the fact that there was tons of aluminum facade, as well as much aircraft grade aluminum present, the lack of anyone saying they found thermite itself is rather amazing. But, as NIST pointed out, such a chemical analysis on the rubble would be useless precisely because it would be inconclusive. Remember: Thermite at heart is merely aluminum and a metal oxide. "Finding" the constituent components of thermite would be like finding moisture in the ocean. The key to determining if thermite was used would be to take Steven Jones's tack of discovering by-products of high-temperature reactions (that's his whole argument: The microspheres could only be produced at higher temperatures than what existed in the fires), or look for really obvious signs of it's use, such as steel beams being molten at the points the separated at. The first ignores alternate origins for the presence of the supposedly definitive particle, and the second is just plain lacking.

In short, there is no affirmative finding of thermite; evidence of its use is an interpretation of existing facts which have other more plausible explanations. On top of that, claims of it being used are contradicted by many other observations.

 

[Reality Believer]

...... liquid oxygen (most likely from the oxygen mask system).
..

A technical correction on aircraft oxygen. The crew breathes gaseous bottled oxygen, and the passengers get it from oxygen generators called chlorate candles in the overhead PSU. When you pull the mask, it fires an ignitor that causes the chlorate candle to burn to produce oxygen.

 

[CurtC]

It seems to me if you had a thermite-type reaction brought about by the plane impact and the high temperatures associated with it

But a thermite reaction needs lots of iron oxide, not metal alloys. It releases lots of energy because the oxygen atoms are much happier paired with aluminum that with iron.

And by the way, there was more aluminum in the building itself than there was in the plane.

 

[Zipster]

A technical correction on aircraft oxygen. The crew breathes gaseous bottled oxygen, and the passengers get it from oxygen generators called chlorate candles in the overhead PSU. When you pull the mask, it fires an ignitor that causes the chlorate candle to burn to produce oxygen.

Yep, I thought there was something odd about using LOX tanks. I'll stand corrected by your explanation.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Not only the aluminum and magnesium, the titanium parts in the 767s can also cause a "thermite-like" reaction if a piece of them were turned into a shavings form. .

Gee i brought this up in the ATS forum and was insulted for suggesting that the planes could have casued a thermite like reaction.

Since the fires were hot enough in the building to make molten aluminum (which becomes a very high HAZMAT) it could have set off the other HAZMATs from the aircraft.


http://www.firehouse.com/training/hazmat/studies/1996/05_molten.htm
Molten aluminum has a 4-digit UN identification number of 9260. When referenced in the ERG it refers to guide 77 for hazards of the material. Guide 77 was an addition to the 1993 version of the ERG. Molten aluminum is the only material that refers to this guide. The guide indicates that the material is above 1300� F, and will react violently with water, which may cause an explosion, and release a flammable gas. The molten material in contact with combustible materials may cause ignition, if the molten material is above the ignition temperature of the combustible material. For example, gasoline has an average ignition temperature of around 800� F. Diesel fuel has an average ignition temperature of around 400� F, depending on the blend, and additives. In an accident gasoline or diesel fuel could be spilled. The molten material could be an ignition source for the gasoline or diesel fuel if it came in contact. When contacting concrete on a roadway, or at a fixed facility, molten materials could cause spalling and small pops. This could cause pieces of concrete to become projectiles. Contact with the skin would cause severe thermal burns. There is no personnel protective clothing that would adequately protect responders from contact with molten materials.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Yep, I thought there was something odd about using LOX tanks. I'll stand corrected by your explanation.

LOX is used in military aircraft like fighters and small aircraft that do not have the room for oxygen tanks.

 

[Zipster]

Gee i brought this up in the ATS forum and was insulted for suggesting that the planes could have casued a thermite like reaction.

Since the fires were hot enough in the building to make molten aluminum (which becomes a very high HAZMAT) it could have set off the other HAZMATs from the aircraft.


http://www.firehouse.com/training/hazmat/studies/1996/05_molten.htm
Molten aluminum has a 4-digit UN identification number of 9260. When referenced in the ERG it refers to guide 77 for hazards of the material. Guide 77 was an addition to the 1993 version of the ERG. Molten aluminum is the only material that refers to this guide. The guide indicates that the material is above 1300� F, and will react violently with water, which may cause an explosion, and release a flammable gas. The molten material in contact with combustible materials may cause ignition, if the molten material is above the ignition temperature of the combustible material. For example, gasoline has an average ignition temperature of around 800� F. Diesel fuel has an average ignition temperature of around 400� F, depending on the blend, and additives. In an accident gasoline or diesel fuel could be spilled. The molten material could be an ignition source for the gasoline or diesel fuel if it came in contact. When contacting concrete on a roadway, or at a fixed facility, molten materials could cause spalling and small pops. This could cause pieces of concrete to become projectiles. Contact with the skin would cause severe thermal burns. There is no personnel protective clothing that would adequately protect responders from contact with molten materials.

I don't know who over there laughed at you and am not responsible, so please don't be condecending towards me. As stated by ElMondoHummus, a "thermite-like" reaction is nothing more than aluminum - metal oxide reaction and there was plenty of aluminum and other metals present.

I like his analogy of saying that testing for a thermite reaction from the rubble is like testing for moisture in the ocean. There are much better explanations than thermite bombs.

I would expect all molten metals to be catagorized as a HazMat. I'm pretty sure there isn't a single molten metal that's good for humans to be near (high heat, toxic fumes, what's not to love?).

 

[JoeyDonuts]

@ElMondoHummus and CurtC:

Well. That settles that. That's just about as conclusive as it gets. Thanks!

Kinda refreshing. I asked for light-shedding and I got it. And only 1 woo merchant
posted! All in all, not too shabby.

 

[ULTIMA1]

a "thermite-like" reaction is nothing more than aluminum - metal oxide reaction and there was plenty of aluminum and other metals present.

Well not just metals but flammable or combustable metals like tungsten, magnesium.

Also materials that will give off small particles when burned that can be ingested like the graphite composites.

Let me get your thoughts, do you think that the following video shows some thermite reactions casued by the molten aluminum and other materials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptvqqgN4gYw&feature=PlayList&p=5FE2765B36026A11&index=4

 

[beachnut]

Gee i brought this up in the ATS forum and was insulted for suggesting that the planes could have casued a thermite like reaction.

Since the fires were hot enough in the building to make molten aluminum (which becomes a very high HAZMAT) it could have set off the other HAZMATs from the aircraft.


http://www.firehouse.com/training/hazmat/studies/1996/05_molten.htm
Molten aluminum has a 4-digit UN identification number of 9260. When referenced in the ERG it refers to guide 77 for hazards of the material. Guide 77 was an addition to the 1993 version of the ERG. Molten aluminum is the only material that refers to this guide. The guide indicates that the material is above 1300� F, and will react violently with water, which may cause an explosion, and release a flammable gas. The molten material in contact with combustible materials may cause ignition, if the molten material is above the ignition temperature of the combustible material. For example, gasoline has an average ignition temperature of around 800� F. Diesel fuel has an average ignition temperature of around 400� F, depending on the blend, and additives. In an accident gasoline or diesel fuel could be spilled. The molten material could be an ignition source for the gasoline or diesel fuel if it came in contact. When contacting concrete on a roadway, or at a fixed facility, molten materials could cause spalling and small pops. This could cause pieces of concrete to become projectiles. Contact with the skin would cause severe thermal burns. There is no personnel protective clothing that would adequately protect responders from contact with molten materials.

So this confirms there were big fires in the WTC. Good job debunking the 9/11 truth movement. You do it with ease.

 

[ULTIMA1]

So this confirms there were big fires in the WTC. Good job debunking the 9/11 truth movement. You do it with ease.

Are you really serious. You have just proven that the beleivers are the biggest joke on the forum.

There does not need to be that big of a fire to cause molten aluminum.

Also as the photos and videos show the fire was buring out well before the collaspe and the thick black smoke means fire is burning at low temps.

 

[TJM]

Also as the photos and videos show the fire was buring out well before the collaspe and the thick black smoke means fire is burning at low temps.

That is not true.

 

[ULTIMA1]

That is not true.

Gee, it is so fun and easy to prove poeple wrong when they only listen to the media and do not do any research.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.


http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
The smoke emitted by the fire at times seriously interferes with the transfer of heat by radiant energy within the fire building. Test fires use smokeless natural gas, so radiant heat transfer is important in tests.(Brannigan p206). A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)

 

[TJM]

Gee, it is so fun and easy to prove poeple wrong when they only listen to the media and do not do any research.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

Actually, the color of the smoke depends on what's being combusted, not if there's abundant oxygen or not.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Gee, it is so fun and easy to prove poeple wrong when they only listen to the media and do not do any research.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.


http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
The smoke emitted by the fire at times seriously interferes with the transfer of heat by radiant energy within the fire building. Test fires use smokeless natural gas, so radiant heat transfer is important in tests.(Brannigan p206). A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)

Oh, good Lord, not the "oxygen starved low temperatures" myth again...

A high ratio of fuel to oxygen - i.e. supposedly being oxygen "starved" - does not mean that the fire is burning at a low temperature or near the end of its combustion cycle. It is true that the coloration may - may - be due to excess soot in the smoke, it is also true that soot has the ability to carry heat away. Which one of these actually refers to the temperature of the combustion itself? Or the fact that the fire is about to go out? Your post merely discusses one possible way for combustion to occur; as firefighters and chemists on this board have pointed out to countless conspiracy peddlers, the coloration is not indicative of temperature, and in fact is not always even indicative of relative oxygen to fuel ratios.

Tell us which ones of the following fires are oxygen starved. While you're at it, tell us which ones are low temperatures:

Pic
Pic
Pic
Pic
Pic

This myth was dealt with on this forum years ago:

While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~tflan/documents/FPM712/Basic_Fire_Science-NFPA_Std-921-2004.pdf

Furthermore, your first link is just plain wrong on this topic, and your second link is an article citing why the fires were indeed the cause of the collapse. Which is an odd choice for someone trying to argue the points of the conspiracy fantasy. And last, but not least, the proposition that the tower fires were about to go out is directly contradicted by the fact that those same fires actually continued for several months, well after the collapse of the towers. They continued to burn in the rubble piles, and were not extinguished until December 2001.