Chemistry, Fire, and Collapse

[gumboot]

I know all that but the data shows that can not explain the continued release of heat at ground Zero, over the intervening months when you release heat it takes a constant fuel supply.

You're forgetting two entire office buildings and a large underground mall complex, all crammed with delicious fuel for a hungry fire.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

I know all that, but the bolts in the world trade center seemed to fail rather rapidly.

No they didn't. In fact, that's the entire point. Because they didn't fail, the building collapsed.

-Gumboot

 

[rwguinn]

I know all that, but the bolts in the world trade center seemed to fail rather rapidly. NO Embrittlement tests were preformed on them that I can find in the NIST DATA.

None Nada ZIP.

You are forgetting that these fasteners were grossly overloaded. Go shoot a bullet at an empty steel can. How long does it take the steel to fail?

 

[FactCheck]

I thought about the spheres being created during construction to, but no zinc metal was welded or Cut with torches in the buildings so that rule out the particles associated with Zinc being from construction.

This is the largest city in America. There is construction going on almost 24/7, never mind manufacturing. What is the likelihood that these particles came from something totally unrelated to towers? Why was there so much found upwind of GZ? The wind traveled south west yet there is zinc found north east of the site in almost the same quantities.

Also, how many iron workers were working at one time during the early cleanup? They sure worked fast to clear the debris.

Am I way off?

 

[rwguinn]

No they didn't. In fact, that's the entire point. Because they didn't fail, the building collapsed.

-Gumboot

??

 

[gumboot]

??

The connecting bolts didn't fail. Had they failed, the sagging trusses wouldn't have pulled the exterior columns inwards, and the building wouldn't have collapsed.

The continuing strength of the connecting bolts was a fundamental element of the collapse initiation.

-Gumboot

 

[rwguinn]

The connecting bolts didn't fail. Had they failed, the sagging trusses wouldn't have pulled the exterior columns inwards, and the building wouldn't have collapsed.

The continuing strength of the connecting bolts was a fundamental element of the collapse initiation.

-Gumboot

I believe the reference was to the rapid failue during collapse. But I don't know, now that you mention it.
If those two would only say what they mean, instead of beating around the bush, and posting cryptic one-liners...

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The connecting bolts didn't fail. Had they failed, the sagging trusses wouldn't have pulled the exterior columns inwards, and the building wouldn't have collapsed.

The continuing strength of the connecting bolts was a fundamental element of the collapse initiation.

-Gumboot

YOU might want to check your facts on this, the A 325 bolts failed before the trusses in most of the collapse.
Most truss ends to column connections show very little bending.

Page 31 here.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:hZTSL7Tbtu0J:www.nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf+Dr.+Greening+A325+bolts&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You're forgetting two entire office buildings and a large underground mall complex, all crammed with delicious fuel for a hungry fire.

-Gumboot

YOUR forgetting that a lot of that was under water as well as from the broken water pipes and mains.
I have even thought of the hydrogen sulfide from sewer gas, can not leave anything out.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This is the largest city in America. There is construction going on almost 24/7, never mind manufacturing. What is the likelihood that these particles came from something totally unrelated to towers? Why was there so much found upwind of GZ? The wind traveled south west yet there is zinc found north east of the site in almost the same quantities.

Also, how many iron workers were working at one time during the early cleanup? They sure worked fast to clear the debris.

Am I way off?

Galvanized metal in not routinely welded except in certain Circumstances. And Iron workers tend to avoid cutting zinc when they can.
Most Zinc materials are formed then hot dip galvanized, then bolted in place. The one exception is in auto body shops. And some manufacturing However I must point out it is an EPA violation to release it into the air.

http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d000801-d000900/d000873/d000873.html

2). When welding or cutting metals with hazardous coatings such as galvanized metal the operator should use a supplied-air type respirator or a respirator specially designed to filter the specific metal fume. Materials included in the very hazardous category are welding rod fluxes, coverings, or other materials containing fluorine compounds, zinc, lead, beryllium, admium, and mercury. Some cleaning and degreasing compounds as well as the metals they were cleaned with are also hazardous. Always follow the manufacturers precautions before welding or cutting in the presence of these materials.

 

[gumboot]

I believe the reference was to the rapid failue during collapse. But I don't know, now that you mention it.
If those two would only say what they mean, instead of beating around the bush, and posting cryptic one-liners...

Oh... right. I assumed we were talking about collapse initiation. I would have thought it was obvious why connections failed rapidly during the collapse.

-Gumboot

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Oh... right. I assumed we were talking about collapse initiation. I would have thought it was obvious why connections failed rapidly during the collapse.

-Gumboot

The problem is the bolts were strong enough to Pull in the perimeter column in collapse initiation, but not strong enough to actually damage the bolt seats or truss connections in the collapse itself.

 

[rwguinn]

YOU might want to check your facts on this, the A 325 bolts failed before the trusses in most of the collapse.
Most truss ends to column connections show very little bending.

Page 31 here.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...+Greening+A325+bolts&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

Show me the part where anything says the truss-to-column connecting pins/bolts failed prior to collapse anywhere except in the area of aircraft impact.
Also point out exactly which pins/bolts and trusses subsequent to the collapse were identified as having originally been in the area of collapse initiation.

 

[rwguinn]

The problem is the bolts were strong enough to Pull in the perimeter column in collapse initiation, but not strong enough to actually damage the bolt seats or truss connections in the collapse itself.

I'm watching a lot of squirming, here, and I don't know why. If you have data for us to look at, we'd all be glad to.
But you keep evading that issue, and throwing other red herrings out in defense of your position. Why? Is it to much to ask? A review of the methodology and procedure is usually welcomed.

 

[gumboot]

The problem is the bolts were strong enough to Pull in the perimeter column in collapse initiation, but not strong enough to actually damage the bolt seats or truss connections in the collapse itself.

I have no idea what you mean.

-gumboot

 

[Darth Rotor]

To all concerned, on both sides of the aisle, I think we're going about this the wrong way.

To Dr. Greening and CrazyChainsaw, we should look at the question this way: How can your hypothesis be falsified?

It's going to be difficult to show one way or the other what actually happened in the WTC towers. The best indicator we appear to have is the presence of these tiny iron droplets, but we aren't 100% sure they weren't caused by something else entirely -- heck, they could even be left over from the Towers' construction! -- and we don't have any idea how many there were. This isn't enough to confirm or deny.

The best thing I can think of is a more realistic scale model. Say we build a representative section of the WTC towers with period-accurate methods and materials, stock it with office furniture and desktop computers, etc., douse with JP-5 and set it alight. If that experiment produces the kinds of chemical reactions you propose, then I'll be pretty convinced. If not, then we'll put it to bed.
.

Extremely minor quibble:

I'd not use JP-5, I'd suggest Jet A, Jet A +, or JP-8.

JP-5 is slightly different (and has a slightly higher heat content) due to its "marinization" chemical requirement.

You won't tend to find it at civil aviation fuel depots.

Yes, the differences are probably negligible for most purposes.

DR

 

[R.Mackey]

I'd not use JP-5, I'd suggest Jet A, Jet A +, or JP-8.

JP-5 is slightly different (and has a slightly higher heat content) due to its "marinization" chemical requirement.

You won't tend to find it at civil aviation fuel depots.

Yes, the differences are probably negligible for most purposes.

Ah, you are of course correct. I've been working on F/A-18's too long.

Still, you get my point. I'm betting a credible full-scale test could be performed and instrumented for about a quarter million bucks, produce two to five journal papers, and settle this issue once and for all. This just cries out to be somebody's Ph.D. topic.

 

[Apollo20]

TAM:

You give this quote from NIST 1-5:

"Since the aircraft impact forces were estimated to have been about 100g, NIST assumed there was not enough of the ceiling system in place to provide significant thermal protection."

This is interesting indeed! First of all your quote does say "aircraft impact forces"... But 100g's is NOT a force! It is an acceleration. The force involved depends on the mass....

In NIST NCSTAR 1-5D, pages 43 to 44, NIST calculate the peak force ON THE TOWER from the aircraft impact as 76 x 10^3 kN. This is consistent with an acceleration of 0.25g. (Using F =Ma, we have F = 31 x 10^6 x 0.25 x 9.8 Newtons)

Now an equal and opposite reaction force acts on the aircraft, so again using F = Ma we have 76 x 10^3 kN = 124 x 10^3 x a, from which we calculate that the acceleration OF THE AIRCRAFT was 613 m/s/s or approximately 63 g's.

This appears to be an example of poor editing by NIST!

 

[rwguinn]

TAM:

You give this quote from NIST 1-5:

"Since the aircraft impact forces were estimated to have been about 100g, NIST assumed there was not enough of the ceiling system in place to provide significant thermal protection."

This is interesting indeed! First of all your quote does say "aircraft impact forces"... But 100g's is NOT a force! It is an acceleration. The force involved depends on the mass....

In NIST NCSTAR 1-5D, pages 43 to 44, NIST calculate the peak force ON THE TOWER from the aircraft impact as 76 x 10^3 kN. This is consistent with an acceleration of 0.25g. (Using F =Ma, we have F = 31 x 10^6 x 0.25 x 9.8 Newtons)

Now an equal and opposite reaction force acts on the aircraft, so again using F = Ma we have 76 x 10^3 kN = 124 x 10^3 x a, from which we calculate that the acceleration OF THE AIRCRAFT was 613 m/s/s or approximately 63 g's.

This appears to be an example of poor editing by NIST!

You cannot take a localized force and apply it as a general acceleration by dividing by the mass of the entire building. That, good sir, is cheating, among other things.

 

[Apollo20]

I am simply quoting from the NIST report (I give the reference) good sir!