A question about Therm?te

[Firestone]

A while ago I had a discussion about the infamous “pools of molten steel”.
I know there is no real evidence for the existence of these “pools of molten steel”, but lets assume, for the sake of argument, that they actually existed.

These pools were presented as evidence for the use of therm?te with the following reasoning:
The fire keeping the steel molten for weeks couldn’t be a normal fire (say of the office material), because there was not enough supply of air in the underground. Therm?te however doesn’t need air, as it has its own oxygen, and a therm?te fire is self-sustaining and can go on for weeks.

My simple question: Has the reasoning given above any merit?

My knowledge in these matters is similar to Griffin’s understanding of the concept “fact”, or KT's grasping of the concept “integrity”.
So googling isn’t an option for me in this case, since I don’t know how to differentiate between good info and nonsense.

Any help or a good link would be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[Coritani]

I suggest you check out this page, which debunks the argument.

Someone more qualified can tell you more, but considering how fast thermite burns, we'd be talking about tons of the stuff in order to keep the steel molten for 'weeks'.

If anyone makes any argument to you that thermite was involved, quickly tell them that no trace of thermite was found at Ground Zero. Bang, thermite debunked.

 

[Firestone]

Thanks for the link, Coritani!
It certainly reminded me of why I hated chemistry so much in High school.

I'll quote what looks like the answer to my question:

Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.

Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.

The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.

The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!

It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.

Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.

ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:

METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN

Seems convincing to me.

By the way, I'd never heard about "nano-thermite".
I will have to replace my standard "therm?te" by "*therm?te" now ...

 

[R.Mackey]

We need only discuss "thermite." "Nano-thermite" supposes an ultra-fine grain, designed to burn with extreme speed, and is the opposite of what you'd need to heat the pile in the months after the collapse. Thermate includes barium oxide as a major component, and there is no evidence whatsoever for a barium signal. I have looked at Steven Jones' papers claiming all kinds of wild things, and he doesn't see this either, and immediately launches into wild speculation, postulating some custom blend using zinc or some other metal... But zinc, indeed every single elemental species he claims to find, are well within expectations. Iron and aluminum and their oxides, on the other hand, are such ubiquitous compounds that we cannot immediately discard the thermite hypothesis. So, let's take a look at that.

As others have noted, smoke did indeed escape the pile for weeks after the collapses.

If smoke was getting out, air was getting in. Smoke is particles borne by the air. The premise that only anaerobic chemical reactions are valid mechanisms is, therefore, wrong.

This doesn't rule out thermite, but it does open the field to more mundane explanations, like the fuel pipelines that flowed unchecked into the collapsed basement for weeks afterwards. All that fuel either burned as we suggest, or it would have been superheated -- but oxygen starved -- and would have immediately burst into flames once it was exposed to open air, as the thermite proponent suggests. Clearly this did not happen, so at best the thermite reaction heated the steel in addition to the ConEd fuel, not instead of it.

Now for the coup de grace. There is very little (possibly none) evidence of molten steel from Ground Zero. What few unconfirmed observations we have are all focused on the structural steel. But this is a secondary effect. Molten iron is a required product of the thermite reaction itself. Since the amount of thermite required to do this is extremely large, measured in the hundreds of tons or more, we must find upwards of fifty tons of puddled iron, in addition to any structural steel melted as a consequence.

We do not.

While Dr. Greening and others have argued that some localized, purely accidental thermite reactions are possible, and I agree it is possible, there is absolutely no evidence for any large thermite reactions. Certainly none large enough to have actually caused the collapse, and most definitely none supporting the post-collapse fire hypothesis.

 

[njslim]

R McKay:

We need only discuss "thermite." "Nano-thermite" supposes an ultra-fine grain, designed to burn with extreme speed, and is the opposite of what you'd need to heat the pile in the months after the collapse. Thermate includes barium oxide as a major component, and there is no evidence whatsoever for a barium signal. I have looked at Steven Jones' papers claiming all kinds of wild things, and he doesn't see this either, and immediately launches into wild speculation, postulating some custom blend using zinc or some other metal... But zinc, indeed every single elemental species he claims to find, are well within expectations. Iron and aluminum and their oxides, on the other hand, are such ubiquitous compounds that we cannot immediately discard the thermite hypothesis. So, let's take a look at that.


The military uses a modified version of thermite called "thermate" as an
incendiary and destruction device (for artillery and heavy machinery to avoid
capture). Thermate is thermite (3 parts powdered Aluminium, 1 part iron
oxide) with about 30% barium nitrate and 2% sulfur with small amounts of
binding agents (formula can be found in many chemical reference books in
major libraries). The barium and sulfur are there to help bind the material
and to assist in burning - if not the aluminium and iron oxides would over time separate out do to difference in specific gravities. Jones claimed to find sulfurated iron, aluminium oxides, zinc and barium traces which he claimed resulted from thermite. The iron came from the structural beams and such,
aluminium oxides were from the shattered jet liner which was consumed by
the fires (also WTC had window frames of aluminium), sulfur from sheet rock
(gypsum board) where sulfur was liberated from heating the gypsum . Zinc
probably came from protective coatings and paints (zinc chromate) to protect steel from corrosion, Barium - one of barium major uses is to coat
electrodes of flourescent lights to release electrons to excite luminescent
coatings. Now at 220 floors (not counting other buildings in complex)
with how many light banks per floor - figure how much barium must have
been around from this source. Jones, as we know, is a world class moron
who violated all norms of scientific procedures - one wonders how he got so
far.

 

[R.Mackey]

R McKay:

Jones claimed to find sulfurated iron, aluminium oxides, zinc and barium traces which he claimed resulted from thermite. The iron came from the structural beams and such,
aluminium oxides were from the shattered jet liner which was consumed by
the fires (also WTC had window frames of aluminium), sulfur from sheet rock
(gypsum board) where sulfur was liberated from heating the gypsum . Zinc
probably came from protective coatings and paints (zinc chromate) to protect steel from corrosion, Barium - one of barium major uses is to coat
electrodes of flourescent lights to release electrons to excite luminescent
coatings. Now at 220 floors (not counting other buildings in complex)
with how many light banks per floor - figure how much barium must have
been around from this source. Jones, as we know, is a world class moron
who violated all norms of scientific procedures - one wonders how he got so
far.

Thank you njslim, I'm aware. I previously brought up precisely these points here. Also in that post, you can see Steven Jones's presentation for yourself, if you desire a good laugh.

 

[~enigma~]

I will have to replace my standard "therm?te" by "*therm?te" now ...

Considering that this entire thermite/mate stupidity was started by Dr. Steven E. Jones, someone should email him and let him know that the wildcard in therm?te™ is not scientific

 

[Horatius]

Someone more qualified can tell you more, but considering how fast thermite burns, we'd be talking about tons of the stuff in order to keep the steel molten for 'weeks'.

I find myself wondering if even "tons" of thermite would burn for days or weeks. You'd expect the reaction to spread throughout the available quantity of thermite, leading to it all burning fairly rapidly. The only reason I could think of for this not happening is, if the thermite was in one large mass, and the reaction only took place on the surface.

But, since the thermite doesn't need atmospheric oxygen to burn, I don't see why the reation would be so limited. Does anyone know how the burning propagates through a mass of thermite? Does anyone know what the largest amount of thermite ever burned in one setting is?

As well, this assumes the thermite was only one large mass, which, since it was presumably spread thorughout the towers, so as to affect all the columns, and subsequently plummetted quite a distance, it seems highly unlikely that'd you get such a single mass.

And while I'm at it: if the thermite was intended to bring down the towers, why was there so much left over after doing that job, that the remainder could burn for weeks? Overcapacity much?

 

[Dog Town]

I find myself wondering if even "tons" of thermite would burn for days or weeks.

It would look something like, a miniature Sun, going nova. I think, it might have been noticed!

 

[Horatius]

This site determines the density of thermite to be:

Thus the physical density of our densely-packed Fe2O3/Al thermite mixture is

213.66 g/61.5 cm3 = 3.474 g/cm3 = 3.474 x 10+6 g/m3 = 3.474 x 10+3 kg/m3,

So, about 3.5 metric tonnes per cubic meter. I find it hard to believe that a cubic meter of anything can burn (uncontroled*) for weeks, particularly when you consider how energetic a typical thermite reaction is.

Anybody got a cubic meter of thermite they want to get rid of?



*I'm sure if you doled it out at the right rate, you could make lots of fuels last that long, but of course, there's no way you could do that in the middle of the tower debris pile.

 

[gopi]

Do any of the (implausible, it seems) theories including therm*te explain why it would _accidentally_ end up burning for this long? Or any reason it would be designed to _intentionally_ burn this long?

It seems like a long-burning explosive would be a very dangerous thing to leave around the scene of your crime.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

It should be mentioned that the temperature in the vicinity of a burning substance is not limited to the ignition temperature of that substance. As long as the substance is burning, it will give off heat and if that heat cannot escape it will continue to raise the temperature in the area where it is trapped.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

One other reaction that Iron or steel will have that is thermite like, and perfectly natural.

http://www.topforge.co.uk/Processes.htm

Carbon when hot reacts with Iron oxide, and Iron will in certain conditions react with atmospheric oxygen, the carbon reaction with Iron oxide actually produces steel.
Plus you people forgot that Jones found Fluoride and did not find any Chromium in the steel.
I have to conclude that your doing sloppy debunking because the truther theories are now so stupid that they are making Jerfers laugh so hard that we are receiving brain damage from Cerebral trauma from out brains bouncing in our sculls to the rhythmic laughter at Cters posts.
That is how the Cters will win we will laugh so hard at them our brains will become mush and we will be absolutely converted into Cters, so be careful do not laugh so hard at Cters and there Fallacy or they will concur all.

 

[R.Mackey]

Plus you people forgot that Jones found Fluoride and did not find any Chromium in the steel.

Strictly speaking, it isn't clear that Jones even analyzed WTC steel to begin with. He certainly didn't analyze it in its "as found" state, and could have grabbed an entirely different piece of metal altogether. From his silly presentation, archived here, on Page 30:

“The provenience of the WTC dust sample is an apartment at 113 Cedar Street in New York City, NY.

“A monument constructed primarily from structural steel from the WTC Towers located at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York, is the source of previously-molten metal samples.

That's right, his "molten metal sample" came from a piece of art. And who knows how it was processed? The only thing that proves is that Jones is a vandal...

As for the dust, according to a real paper, its concentrations are hardly unusual:

The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium. The very high levels of titanium (> 0.1%) were due to their presence in paint, especially white paint. The lead levels are elevated due to the use of lead-based paint on metallic surfaces during construction of the building.

The authors also discuss, in blistering detail, the organic compounds and their origins as flammable plastics and such, accounting for the fluorine.

Quite a contrast from Jones' papers, huh?

I have to conclude that your doing sloppy debunking because the truther theories are now so stupid that they are making Jerfers laugh so hard that we are receiving brain damage from Cerebral trauma from out brains bouncing in our sculls to the rhythmic laughter at Cters posts.

Well, now, we can't have that. Is this more up to your standards, CC?

 

[Firestone]

Damn the Truthers and their *therm?te!

Some years ago, when I left the examination room of my university chemistry class, I did this

and shouted very loudly "Nooit meer scheikunde !!!!" (and then hoped that the prof didn't hear it )

And now this.

But in earnest, many thanks to all of you for giving these very clear answers.

As I understand it now, the thermite/thermate case is even weaker than I actually thought.

No positive evidence for thermate, "thermite" residues can be explained anyway, no reason to exclude non-anaerobic fires, ...

The usual story: there is no coherent scenario fitting the known facts and involving thermite that makes any sense.

And while I'm at it: if the thermite was intended to bring down the towers, why was there so much left over after doing that job, that the remainder could burn for weeks? Overcapacity much?

That's something i've also been thinking. When you add up all the "explosive"-arguments (explosions before the planes hit, between the hit and the collapse, "squibs" during the collapse, and here thermite that operates for weeks after the collapse): boy, they REALLY wanted those buildings to come down! It makes absolutely no sense, but that's no news.

Once again, thanks a lot for the replies.

 

[MikeW]

Plus you people forgot that Jones found Fluoride and did not find any Chromium in the steel.

Why should he have found chromium? Most of the WTC steel didn't include it anyway (see http://www.911myths.com/html/low_chromium__abundant_mangane.html).

 

[CurtC]

It should be mentioned that the temperature in the vicinity of a burning substance is not limited to the ignition temperature of that substance. As long as the substance is burning, it will give off heat and if that heat cannot escape it will continue to raise the temperature in the area where it is trapped.

All true, and I think we need to explicitly point out for any Troother lurkers that this fact does not support the thermite scenario, but does support the underground fires scenario.

A thermite reaction would burn rapidly even underground, since it doesn't require oxygen (or anything else) from the atmosphere. It would be a lot of heat, but would be all dissipated within a couple of days even insulated by the rubble pile.

But underground fires can get very hot, as you say beyond the ignition temp of the substance. Normally, with access to plenty of air, the ignition temp is important because it's the limiting factor. But underground fires are limited by how much oxygen they can get, so can burn slowly, and if the heat isn't dissipated quickly, can get very hot.

The whole idea that hot material in the rubble pile weeks later would support a thermite scenario is just nuts.