DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[bio]

Tell you what, I will if you explain to us what a eutectic reaction is and why you think it requires high temperatures. Deal?

You have as much insight in eutectic reactions as I have.

I see the substance of your contribution here.

 

[DGM]

You have as much insight in eutectic reactions as I have.

I see the substance of your contribution here.

Showing your ignorance? Where have my "contributions" been wrong. And yes I know a lot more about the subject than you do. I think lurkers can figure that out.

ETA Are you going to take the deal?

 

[applecorped]

I guess that's a no.

 

[thewholesoul]

Any number of the spheres were there. (Jones won't release the tech data to narrow down the search). Iron rich spheres are common in the world. Did you read the thread by Crazychain saw and Dr. Greening? Here's the link, learn about iron micro spheres.

Yes i read the entire thread. I send a post to dr greening and am awaiting a reply. My point is basically the following: both Dr. Greening and Chain saw claim that iron sphericules can be made in incinerators (below 1000c) or at room temperature. Assuming this is true. Then my question was well what about the other sphericules? http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Molybdenum sphericules require an even higher temperature than iron sphericules (2623c). Can they be formed below 1000c or at room temperature?

If not, then the presence of molybdenum sphericules is evidence of extreme temperatures prior to collapse.

Wrong! We can make "swiss cheese" and "evaporate metal at room temp. It's call oxidation. You may have heard of it, rusting. All you have to do to speed it up is add a little heat, water and a weak sulfuric acid (from decomposing gypsum or the burning of organic compounds) and you end up with "evaporated" iron. All at temps under ~1000 c. Read Dr Barnett's work.

DGM the example you are reffering to is “sample 2” in the FEMA metalurgical examination http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf and “K-16” in the NIST follow up examination http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf . In the former it was concluded that “the temperatures in the corroded region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700 c to 800c”; and it latter is was concluded that “the present analysis found, through a microstructural evaluation, that temperature excursion was much higher than the range stated (by FEMA)”. In either case it is safe to say that the swiss cheese appearance on the example in question was not formed at room temperature.

And by the way “rusting” is more commonly known as “corrosion”, which in respect to the swiss cheese samples resulted from a combination of oxidation and sulfidation. And “evaporation” unlike “corrosion” requires an increase in temperature.

I am not denying that corrosion can occur below 1000c; but you would be in error if you believed that it could not occur above 1000c.

You keep telling me to read Dr.Barnett’s work. I would really appreciate if you could direct to the part where he concludes that the evaporation occured post collapse. Or maybe you could direct me to the section where he claims that a slow burning, low temperature and oxygen starved smoldering office content fire can reach temperatures above 800c. Can you do that for me DGM?

Par:
A eutectic reaction take place on steel (other metals too) whenever a sulfur (other elements also) containing fuel is burned in their presence. The fact that it occurred at the WTC was interesting and nothing more. Thewholesoul's argument using this "fact" is nothing more than a "red herring".

You remind of a movie called the Naked Gun when a police man standing infront of an exploding fireworks factory is saying to the pasers-bye “theres nothing to see here”. If what you are saying actually had any merit then why is the question of the “severe high temperature corrosion attack” involving sulfur in relation to the swiss cheese appearance of metal samples at wtc being raised in the peer reviewed Open Civil Engineering Journal? http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

I see thewholesoul is posting articles with the "angle cut" picture as proof. It can't get more pathetic than that.

As i said before i do not stand behind everything in those links i send you. The links i send you were in relation to the presence of molten steel. throwing in your cheap digs to things i have not myself defended is uncalled for. To be honest i havent researched the arguments for and against the “angle cuts” so i would appreciate if you could refrain from calling me pathetic.

Tell you what, I will if you explain to us what a eutectic reaction is and why you think it requires high temperatures. Deal?

DGM both FEMA and NIST agree that the swiss cheese appearance of the steel samples involved high temperatures. The question of “severe high temperatures” as indicated by the evaporated steel samples is being raised in the peer reviewed Open Civil Engineering Journal. Eutectic reactions do not necessarily require high temperatures. That is not the issue. The issue is whether these “severe temperatures” occured during the collapse of the buildings. And even if they occured within the debris pile – how did a slow burning, low temperature and oxygen starved smoldering fire generate these high temperatures?

 

[thewholesoul]

I am still crashed as to how the thermite remained functional if it was amongst the original set that was used, in your interpretation of the collapse, to bring down the WTC 7 facility... Steven Jones and many others seem to ignore this detail... As far as I am able to see, without any precedence available prior to 9/11 to validate that claim, it becomes speculative as to how that thermite survived all three collapses.

Eventhough i conceded to your point you continue repeating the same thing.

if the red chips are what jones claims they are, then we know that ultra fine particles of unignited nanothermite survived the collapse. in his speech at Boston he claims that these red chips behave like thermite and exhibit a bright flash when heated. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4. thermite has its own oxygen supply so it can continue to react in an oxygen starved environment. thermite reactions are exothermic and produce a tremendous amount of heat even when saturated by water. molten iron is an end product of thermite reactions.

melting point of iron - 1538c
melting point of structural steel - 1510c
max temperature of a hydrocarbon fire - 825c

so explain to me how a slow burning, low temperature, oxygen starved, water saturated, smoldering fire of concrete and office material can generate temperatures in excess of 1500c?

and i will continue asking you this question until i get an answer.

The molten metal does not explain how your thermite charges survived the collapses, particularly considering that nothing remained of the buildings interior contents that was recognizable... I fail to see see where thermite would have the strength to survive all three kinds of collapses....

tiny nano particles smaller than dust cannot get crushed by the collapse. they are dispersed along with the dust and remain unignited in the debirs pile.

explain to me how a slow burning, low temperature, oxygen starved, water saturated, smoldering fire of concrete and office material can generate temperatures in excess of 1500c?

I don't get why the molten metal found weeks later is still being used as your evidence...

it wasnt. i conceded but i got sick and tired of you repeating the same line over and over again.

so why is the molten steel evidence? because a slow burning, low temperature, oxygen starved, water saturated, smoldering fire of concrete and office material cannot generate temperatures in excess of 1500c?

but an undrground fire in addition to unignited nanothermite red chips can.

Not outright dismissing your claims for debate purposes (although I am highly skeptical of your evidence)... but it doesn't appear to me that the molten metal weeks after the fact is strong evidence in your support...

is this the only point you can make?

tell me how does molten metal weeks after the event support the official position. can you do that?

and while your at it explain to me how a slow burning, low temperature, oxygen starved, water saturated, smoldering fire of concrete and office material can generate temperatures in excess of 1500c?

 

[thewholesoul]

These two characteristics are the same. In any event, “both” of them represent an attempt to shift the burden of proof: If you wish to claim that these extreme temperatures were present at the World Trade Center site, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence for the same. It is not our responsibility to prove their non-existence.

Your not paying attention. FEMA and NIST, not just me, claim that “severe high temperatures” were involved in the eutectic reactions (the evaporation of steel samples) at the WTC 1, 2 and 7. the question of the “severe high temperatures” was raised in the Open Civil Engineering Journal. so what are you taking about? The evidence is already there – what is lacking is a descent explanation!!!

Well, it’s not so much what we call it that’s important, but rather how we consider it. To point out, for instance, that a given observation is anomalous in the context of a building fire is merely to adduce a banality:

Listen i called the wtc fire a “building fire” because that is what it was; and because it was a building fire i also “consider” it to be a building fire. I was not adducing a banality as you put it, i was stating a fact. I also stated other facts such as it being the longest ever structural fire in history, the first ever eutectic reacton observed in a building fire, which the New York Times described as the “greatest mystery” of the investigation.

I do not claim that the content of the building was altered by the collapse, but the way in which that content burned certainly was.

True there would have been a lot less oxygen for combustion.

But i do agree, the way the content burned was different post collapse. However perhaps you can explain how a slow burning, low temperature, oxygen starved, water saturated smoldering fire of concrete, dust and office material can burn for several months and reach temperatures exceeding 1500c?

heres another first; the first ever smoldering fire exhibiting all the above conditions to have ever reached temepratures above 1500c!

Incidentally, the sandwich analogy referred to the event as a whole (the fillings being factors at play), rather than simply the building itself.

Incidently i dont give a bleep about the sandwich analogy

It’s important to bear in mind that World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 did not collapse due to fire alone. They also suffered high-speed impacts from commercial airliners; World Trade Center 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of World Trade Center 1.

In cant believe you forgot to mention the explosives!! How else are you going to remove the vertical resistance from the steel core columns? Wishful thinking?

 

[thewholesoul]

I am not making claims as to when the reactions took place. Thus, it is not my responsibility to adduce evidence for the same.

Whats the fun in that? Playing safe is boring. Why dont you stick your neck out and make a claim?

1. This is odd.
• Eutectic reactions were never before observed in a building fire.
• Therefore, the eutectic reactions probably occurred during the building fire.
It amounts to a complete inversion of the precedent-based argument you have been relying upon so far. Going by your own measure, this serves as evidence that the reactions did not take place during the building fires, but more likely under the relatively unusual conditions within the debris piles.

The fact that eutectic reactions were not observed before in a building fire does not in any way shape or form prove that the reactions occured during the collapse. I only included this point in an effort for some sort of cumulative effect.

However, i feel you missed my point. Because eutectic reactions have never been observed before in a building fire is intended to raise ones suspicions. Besides if your claiming that eutectic reactions were more likely to have occured under the debris pile because of “unusual conditions” then i would kindly remind you that three steel framed skyscrapers totally collapsing on the same day from fire is perhaps even more “unusual”. So what we have is the first ever eutectic reactions in a building fire + first ever collapse of a skyscraper from fire...hmmm...maybe there were explosives that demolished the building and caused the eutectc reactions?

2. This argument is only marginally less weird:
• FEMA don’t know when the eutectic reactions took place.
• Therefore, the reactions took place while the buildings stood.
It’s a patent non sequitur, as I’m sure you can appreciate.

I agree. But i was merely establishing the fact that those who investigated the incident did not rule out the possibility of eutectic reactions happening during the collapse. This is a reason that supports the claim that eutectic reactions occured during collapse. I am sure you can appreciate that.

3. This is something of a petitio principii. Whether or not the observation of the spheres serves as evidence of extreme temperatures is a crux point at issue.

Molybdenum has an extremely high melting point. Now speheres of that were discovered in the dust samples not the debris pile which suggests that they were formed during the collapse. If so, then the molybdenum spheres are exidence of extreme temperatures. This by no means is a petitio principii and if dr greening and chainsaw concur that these spheres cannot be made below 1500c then its pretty much case closed, in my opinion, that temperatures for eutectic reactions existed during the collapse.

4. Grizzly Bear has already addressed this point, but I shall quote him/her for the sake of completeness: “teel doesn't need to be heated excessively to cause creeping (sagging of the beams). It even happens without heat, although under typical circumstances it is expected to progress over a number of years. Heating up the steel to the point of losing 50% of its integrity while carrying a load speeds it up greatly.”

Lets look at grizzly’s answer:

steel doesn't need to be heated excessively to cause creeping (sagging of the beams). It even happens without heat

I bet that grizzly didnt even bother looking at the link i sent him. And if you agree with grizzly than i doubt that you have either. But here is the link in case you change your mind: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

The expert in the link confirms that the 8 ton 6 inch steel beam was bent into a horseshoe shape “during the collapse” and further that this takes “thousands of degrees”. Presumably he is speaking in farenheit so lets say 2000 F = 1093c, which far exceeds the maximum temperature of a hydrocarbon fire which is 825c

Grizzly’s expalantion is seriously inadequate because we know from NIST tests on floor assemblies that hotter and longer fires than those actually in the wtc could only manage to produce 16inch sagging. The example of the 8 ton steal beam shows a friggin horseshoe!! This is evidence of extreme temperatures during the collapse.

5. Oddly, your argument contains a single premise, and that premise is a conditional.
• If P, then Q.
• Therefore Q.
Nothing follows from a lone conditional.

I agree. So i shall qualify my statement to something more affirmative i.e. the molten metal spewing from 82nd floor of south tower was in fact molten iron and that is evidence of a eutectic reaction occuring prior to collapse.

Regarding point 5, there was a UPS room in the location where the metal was seen flowing from the building. It was most likely lead from the batteries.

In response to phunk. I would like if he can provide a video of batteries producing the same substance we saw flowing out of the building. Here is a video of a thermite reaction that looks exactly, exactly, like the substance we see flowing out of the south tower. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

So in conclusion you said

If you wish to claim that there is, in fact, good reason to think that the eutectic reaction took place while the buildings were standing, then the burden of proof is on you.

And what we have are molybdenum sphericules, horseshoe steel beams, and molten iron falling from south tower. All these are evidence that eutectic reactions occured before and during the collapse.

awaiting your response
peace

 

[DGM]

And what we have are molybdenum sphericules, horseshoe steel beams, and molten iron falling from south tower. All these are evidence that eutectic reactions occured before and during the collapse.

Before I respond to your earlier post would you please stop beating the crap out of the definition of the term "eutectic".

For your convenience:

–adjective 1. of greatest fusibility: said of an alloy or mixture whose melting point is lower than that of any other alloy or mixture of the same ingredients.
2. noting or pertaining to such a mixture or its properties: a eutectic melting point.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=eutectic

I will be back later this afternoon to deal with the rest of your posts.

till then

 

[thewholesoul]

It is to be noted that NIST did their own analysis on the column of sample #2 in the report linked by thewholesoul above in:

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C: Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components

See chapter "Single Column K-16" on page 229 to page 233) (PDF page 279 -
283)

NIST concluded:
Quote:
Finally, as this piece was clearly in a prone position during the corrosive attack and was located no higher than the 53rd floor of the building, this degradation phenomenon had no bearing on the weakening of the steel structure or the collapse of the building (Finding #7).

My bolding.

Good research Norseman i am always eager to learn more information. NIST also concluded that FEMA were wrong concerning the temperatures in the corroded region of the steel sample. According to NIST the temperatures must have been “much higher” than 800c.

The reason NIST concluded that the high temperature corrosion occured post collapse is because the steel beam in question was not higher than the 53rd floor! Do you see the circular reasoning here? There assuming that the impact zone was the only area within the towers that had high temperatures therefore because the steel beam was not located near the impact zone and exposed to the hydrocarbon fire it couldnt have been exposed to high temepratures corrosion until after the collapse.

As for bolding corrosive attack. A thermite reaction is a high temperature corrosive attack. Clearly you didnt read much into the NIST report you sent me because if you did it explains to you that the

Development of external corrosion scale...typically occurs as a result of (1) high temperature exposure (2) atmospheric degradation (3) or combination of the two corrosion processes. Developmental of internal corrosion phases...usually occurs when the metal has some solubility

the main problem posed by this paper http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf asks where did the high temperatures come from because a hydrocarbon fire has a maximum temperature of 825c and the corrosion on K-16 indicates that these temperatures were reached below the 52nd floor. The origin of the “severe high temperatures” is also raised in the Open Civil Engineering Journal. this question reamins unanswered and is unanswerable in respect to the official position.

What you have to understand Norseman is that corrosion can be slow and occur at relatively low temperatures (e.g. rusting). However it can also be rapid and occur at high temperatures (e.g. explosive chemical reaction). Neither NIST or FEMA have resolved the question as to the “rate of corrosion.”

Regarding sample #1 we will have to wait for the WTC 7 report

I guess so. Lets just hope that their conclusion for sample #1 does not contain another example of circular reasoning.

I note that thewholesoul is attempting to erect a straw man here and trick his opponents into explaining how this could have occurred in the debris pile after the collapse. While the correct answers are found in what occurred before and during the collapse of one of the towers.

I am not trying to trick anyone. The beam horseshoed during the collapse. This requires temperatures exceeding that of hydrocarbon fire. Q: where did these extremely high temperatures come from during the collapse?

I note that he in his last post are using it to prove extreme temperatures before collapse.

There is evidence of extreme temperatures before the collapse (1) molybdenum sphericules (2) the horseshoe beam (3) the molten iron spewing from south tower

But the fires in the towers were more than hot enough.

You must have read DGM’s explanation for the extreme temperatures

REGULAR FIRES CAN DO THE SAME THING.

The bottom line is Nosrman, the fires in the tower were not hot enough to corrode sample K-16 which was below 52nd floor, they were not hot enough to produce molybdenum spheres, they were not hot enough to create molten iron spewing from 82nd floor, they were not hot enough to horseshoe a 8 ton steel beam. Of course if you think it was then please provide your reasons because merely claiming that these hydrocarbon fires were “more than hot enough” – just doesnt cut it

peace

 

[phunk]

In response to phunk. I would like if he can provide a video of batteries producing the same substance we saw flowing out of the building. Here is a video of a thermite reaction that looks exactly, exactly, like the substance we see flowing out of the south tower. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

If you're willing to pay for a couple tons of lead-acid batteries, I'll gladly set them on fire for you.

 

[phunk]

Molybdenum sphericules require an even higher temperature than iron sphericules (2623c). Can they be formed below 1000c or at room temperature?

If not, then the presence of molybdenum sphericules is evidence of extreme temperatures prior to collapse.

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that they were formed prior to collapse.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I bet that grizzly didnt even bother looking at the link i sent him. And if you agree with grizzly than i doubt that you have either. But here is the link in case you change your mind: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

The expert in the link confirms that the 8 ton 6 inch steel beam was bent into a horseshoe shape “during the collapse” and further that this takes “thousands of degrees”.

During the collapse? Dear god, you do realize steel has something called a plastic range... you'd think a few hundred thousand pounds might deform it... if not tear it apart... Once steel is deforms past its elastic range (in other words once it enters plastic behavior) it can never return to its original shape on its own...

The beam is certainly bent.... but I'm curious as to why they say it happened DURING the collapse and that it would take thousands of degrees to bend it DURING a collapse... Did they know what floor it came from or which tower... I don't recall hearing that mentioned in the video...

The way they worded their statement is weird... unless they are saying that both the collapse AND high temperatures cause this...... if they're saying that high temperatures did that then what the heck does the collapse have anything to do with the bending if the collapse isn't what did it...??

Presumably he is speaking in farenheit so lets say 2000 F = 1093c, which far exceeds the maximum temperature of a hydrocarbon fire which is 825c

825 celsius is 1,485 degrees (F)... that's more than enough to not only weaken steel beams, but to accelerate creeping (sagging) of the floors especially if they are under loads.

Grizzly’s expalantion is seriously inadequate because we know from NIST tests on floor assemblies that hotter and longer fires than those actually in the wtc could only manage to produce 16inch sagging.

Before I respond to this could you clarify...
Is this the section of the NIST report you are referring to for the deflections?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf

The example of the 8 ton steal beam shows a friggin horseshoe!! This is evidence of extreme temperatures during the collapse.

Again, what floor is this thing from? I listened to that video 5 times and haven't heard a single mention of the estimated location...

enough to create molten iron spewing from 82nd floor

Somehow I recall a plane having crashed in that area, and some of the debris from it made it to the opposite side of the building... Aluminum has a melting point of 1220.58 °F or 678°C.....

Something like this kinda happens to planes that catch fire:

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Eventhough i conceded to your point you continue repeating the same thing.

Did you not answer the question after I posted that? If you answered to it already then I'm not sure why you felt abridged to answer it again... I repeated it yes, but you answered to it after the fact....

if the red chips are what jones claims they are, then we know that ultra fine particles of unignited nanothermite survived the collapse.

The problem of fuel... is still rather important if we even began to think of 'nano thermite'. Little chips can survive and combust all they want, but if there's no aggregation of them to sustain a reaction then it would run out of fuel long before it has any chance at cutting anything...

Sorry... but I am struggling exactly how nano termite would do any better...

thermite reactions are exothermic and produce a tremendous amount of heat even when saturated by water. molten iron is an end product of thermite reactions.

So are corrosion reactions... what's your point? You haven't eliminated other mundane explanations.. and so far the root of the argument stating that thermite caused the molten metal to be found weeks later has been taken apart...

so explain to me how a slow burning, low temperature, oxygen starved, water saturated, smoldering fire of concrete and office material can generate temperatures in excess of 1500c?

I'll answer this with another question... Does heat always require fire?

 

[thewholesoul]

... I'd be speculating if I told you I was familiar with this part of the argument

Some dust samples were collected indoors...they couldnt have been from the debris pile. Its time you became familiar with more elements of the discussion amigo.

If it overwhelms the evidence with other factors that make the collapse due to debris damage and fire neglectible... Alone however, 'extreme' temperatures don't establish it...

The question was not whether the presence of extreme temperatures “overwhelms” the official hypothesis the question was merely whether it would “support” the CD hypothesis. The obvious answer is yes because the former is unable to provide an explanation for the extreme temperatures whereas the latter can.

This is the part of the argument I have been trying to address the last few days... so the next part to tackle will be pre-collapse.

Some unignited nanothermite being so small could have and most likely did survive the collapse.

Can you explain how a slow burning, low temperature, oxygen starved, water saturated, smoldering fire of concrete, office material, and hydrocarbons can generate temperatures in excess of 1500c?

I based my claims because the original context we have debated up to now. The idea of whether or not the molten metal found weeks later established thermite, and the main condition of this at the root of things would have involved the thermite surviving the collapse assuming it were present inside the towers. At this time we have agreed that the molten metal doesn't prove it since we can't establish that the thermite survived, or that the molten metal was present at the time of the collapse.

Assuming that steven jones’s red chips found in the dust are unignited nanothermite we have good reason to believe that some may have well survived the collapse.

So i guess i will ask again: how can you admit that thermite reactions produce molten iron yet you cannot admit that a CD with thermite and linear charges will produce molten iron?

We do know what fire can do structural steel though.

When someone asserts that wtc were the first skyscrapers in history to totally collapse from fire, posting images of steel structures exposed to fire and not totally collapsing is not the wisest form of reproach.

No there is no precedent really,

No really there is because no steel frame skyscraper prior to or since 911 has exhibited total collapse from fire.

But at the same token many examples I've been shown of much worse fires in other steel frame structures lack the following:
• The main one is that none of the examples I've seen suffered impact damage from either airliners OR debris damage from a near by collapse. It is the single most important factor in the equation.
• None of the fires in the WTC complex were fought, in WTC 1 & 2 they were literally 80 stories up... and WTC 7 there was simply no efforts made at all.
• Few if any of the examples I've seen had a similar construction to the world trade centers. The twin towers had tube on tube design. WTC 7 had a core structure and from floor 7 and lower it was supported by three main vertical trusses, with the supports above it being cantilevered.

Those are just a few of the problems, out of many.... we never had any real scenario like this before... Using examples that never had the same circumstance as the WTC centers seems to be the more speculative argument.

The truth is, instead of calling a spade a spade, anti-truthers still refuse to accept a perfectly sound and valid point, that being, historically there are no examples of skyscrapers totally collapsing from fire. There are two responses (i) try to find other examples of skyscrapers collapsing to prove that the WTC event was not a unique event then (ii) when the former fails they then argue that nothing unusual occured on 911 because the WTC buildings are sooo unique.

we never had any real scenario like this before

1)Never hit by jet: empire state building was; and wtc were designed to withstand jet impact; bottom line is without fire (and explosives) towers would not collapse from jet impact. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#engineers

2)Building 7 debris damage: there is no conclusive evidence as to the extent of the damage from debris; wtc 3,4,5 and 6 all received wrose debris damage and did not collapse; http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/ronald-wiecks-911-skeptic-showstarring-arthur-scheuerman/ you will hear an interview with mark roberts and arthur scheuerman about building 7. according to NIST damage from debris was not considered as main cause of collapse i.e. the building would still be standing if there was no fire (and explosives)

3)No fires were fought: so what, other skyscrapers burned for longer with fires far more intense and they still stood; the fire in wtc 1 2 and 7 appeared relatively minor compared to other skyscrapers http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

4)Unique design: “In fact, most buildings in excess of 40 stories constructed in the United States from the period after World War II to the 1990’s were of this (tube in tube) structural type.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_(structure) oh o.

5)Building 7: yes it had a unique design but at the end of the day it was a steel skyscraper with a steel core designed to city code standards. It had minor damage to one side of the building, and it had an office fire. it should not have collapsed as it did.

It's not really an opinion at all.... because I have to know this material getting into the architecture field. Steel can give way if the fire proofing is removed or the structural system is already weakened.

-It is opinion and the worst kind too because it is not backed by experience, experimentation, computer simulations, or calculations.

-my point was NIST never explained why the intact building structure below the impact zone gave minimal resistance. They provided no calculations, no simulations, and certainly no experiments as to why it gave minimal resistance.

-Yes steel can sag from heating, but steel can also be cut by shape charges. The steel below the imapct zone did not sag because they were not exposed to heat. (although we have beams below impact zone that do exhibit high temperatures)

We saw many many hints of this happening in the twin towers with the perimeter columns sagging inward well before the collapse, here's a picture of one of the towers immediately prior to the collapse

And it's not exactly like it was relegated to the columns... NIST refers to several incidents showing the floor slabs sagging

NIST tested the to scale floor assemblies with hotter and longer fires and they could not recreate anywhere near the degree of sagging required to cause collapse initiation. Hint, hint...

I was referring to your "I don't know and I don't care" comment. That kills credibility in a debate. You should know it as well as anybody...

i do regret saying that. But i was irritated with stateofgrace who kept asking the same question which i answered everytime dispite his refusal to answer ANY of mine. So i got fed up and it showed.

Again I am not debating what thermite leaves behind, I am debating as to whether or not, given the conditions if it is responsible for the molten metal that was found.

Assuming jones found unignited nanothermite I think it certainly had something to do with molten metal that was found weeks later.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

1050 kelvin... subtract 273.15 to convert to celsius, then multiply by 1.8 (9/5), and it converts to 1,398.33 (F)
Steel loses 50%% of its strength at around 1100 degrees (F)

For the record,
1,398.33 degrees (F), IS more than enough to cause steel to soften, not melt, but it could deform if it were bearing a load, even under its own weight. The phenomenon is associated with creep...

Which way was it bent anyway? On the weak axis or the strong axis?

it was horseshoed, go watch the link buddy.

1) http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html
the 8 ton beam in the above link was deformed during the collapse. it did not exhibit mere sagging - it was horseshoed. this takes thousands of degrees (F)where was the origin of this temperature?

2) steel melts at 1538c. molten steel was discovered in the debris pile. how can a slow burning, low temperature, water saturated, oxygen starved smoldering fire of concrete, office material, and hydrocarbons generate temperatures above 1500c?

 

[thewholesoul]

If you're willing to pay for a couple tons of lead-acid batteries, I'll gladly set them on fire for you.

so you dont have video evidence to support you position.

perhaps you can cite a science journal or articles that explains why batteries appear like molten metal when exposed to high temperatures?

Please explain how you come to the conclusion that they were formed prior to collapse.

good question.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/sample.location.html

A 2-person USGS crew collected grab samples from 35 localities within a 0.5 - 1 km radius circle centered on the World trade Center site on the evenings of September 17 and 18, 2001”.

There is a sample collection map aswell on the above link which prove that the dust samples were not taken from the debris pile.

peace

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The obvious answer is yes because the former is unable to provide an explanation for the extreme temperatures whereas the latter can.

I see so you have completely ruled out corrosive reactions then? You seem to glide over that as if it's negligible.

Some unignited nanothermite being so small could have and most likely did survive the collapse.

Already answered to this... unless in the randomness of the collapse these 'red chips' were aggregated into significant concentrations, fuel to sustain reactions becomes the new condition to clear. You have yet to establish it to be 'super/nano thermite'...

Can you explain how a slow burning, low temperature, oxygen starved, water saturated, smoldering fire of concrete, office material, and hydrocarbons can generate temperatures in excess of 1500c?

Again... who says fire is the only source of heat... I keep talking about corrosion being a slow exothermic reaction, but goish darn you seem to have ignored it, or discredited it...

Assuming that steven jones’s red chips found in the dust are unignited nanothermite we have good reason to believe that some may have well survived the collapse.

When he proves that red paint is actually thermite and is able to rule out all other mundane sources we'll discuss. Assuming with an un-established claim is not acceptable.

So i guess i will ask again: how can you admit that thermite reactions produce molten iron yet you cannot admit that a CD with thermite and linear charges will produce molten iron?

Because molten 'metal' 7 to 10 weeks after a collapse falls beyond the reaction duration of thermite. Answer me this:

Apparently since we've established that 'regular thermite' could not have survived the collapse, therefore it should logically be impossible for it to be able to generate even a 'delayed reaction', how do you propose these 'red paint chip' Jones found would work?

How do you establish that this thermite being the small red chips that hey must be, had enough fuel for a lengthy reaction? You can pump these things up with steroids all you want, if there's not enough reactant fuel to power it, it's not going to be a long reaction.

When someone asserts that wtc were the first skyscrapers in history to totally collapse from fire, posting images of steel structures exposed to fire and not totally collapsing is not the wisest form of reproach.

If you were looking at the obvious you'd realize that none of the images I posted had 15 to 20 stories of tower to support... let alone 40 for the WTC 7 complex... You do realize that those steel beams deformed under their own weight right?

No really there is because no steel frame skyscraper prior to or since 911 has exhibited total collapse from fire.

or been hit with an air plane... or any that have suffered extreme structure damage from an impact... It would help if you stopped separating the two...

There are two responses:
(i) try to find other examples of skyscrapers collapsing to prove that the WTC event was not a unique event then

There isn't a need... the truthers apparently decided that the damage sustained to WTC 1, 2 & 7 were negligible... neither do they seem to look for relevant comparisons. The question isn't whether or not other towers of similar scale have ever collapsed before:

• How many steel sky scraper have been hit head on with a jet liner speeding into it at 400+ mph?
• How many of your examples had fires that were neglected the entire time they burned?
• How many of your examples had fire ignite on SEVERAL floor at the same time?

This sort of ignorance annoys me...

(ii) when the former fails they then argue that nothing unusual occured on 911 because the WTC buildings are sooo unique.

You're denying that their circumstances were?

1)Never hit by jet: empire state building was;

Classic response. Different sized plane, ****COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM****
If you're going to debate this part with me show some common sense... the empire state building was built of reinforced concrete with an 8 inch thick outer wall, most of that structure was monolithic, and concrete is far more rigid than steel construction.

Stop forcing an apples to oranges comparison PLEASE

and wtc were designed to withstand jet impact; bottom line is without fire (and explosives) towers would not collapse from jet impact.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#engineers

Nobody ever said they were NOT. I'm not even denying that that could continue standing with just the impact alone... We saw both towers standing for 50, and 102 minutes respectively... Multiple planes... debatable but single plane... established on that very day...

But once again you slipped in the bombs... heh...

2)Building 7 debris damage: there is no conclusive evidence as to the extent of the damage from debris;

However there is extensive firefighter testimony to support it, and I know for a fact that you have seen it... this isn't the first time, or the only place we have debated...

wtc 3,4,5 and 6 all received wrose debris damage and did not collapse;

Worse huh? WTC 3 was effectively destroyed by the WTC collapse,

It used to be 22 stories in height... any idea where the other 16 went?


WTC 4 was effectively destroyed from debris crushing most of it...

WTC 5 was a partial collapse

WTC 6...

I don't know about you but I could almost see down into the basement in that one... Do you happen to see any remnants of structure that those precarious remaining outer walls had to carry?

Seems to me like whatever was destroyed in these 'uncollapsed' buildings, didn't have theire weight redistributed to whatever was left... WTC 7 had 40 stories of office space precariously hanging over damaged structural supports...

Load versus no redistributed load... tall vs. short buildings... rather important...

according to NIST damage from debris was not considered as main cause of collapse i.e. the building would still be standing if there was no fire (and explosives)

If structural damage had been the main cause then WTC 7 is likely to have collapsed much sooner than it ultimately did... Just like had the plane impacts to the twin towers themselves been the main cause it's likely we'd have seen them collapse much sooner than they did.

3)No fires were fought: so what, other skyscrapers burned for longer with fires far more intense and they still stood

I'll put this all in bold rainbow fajitas just for you:

• 
  [*] How many steel sky scraper have been hit head on with a jet liner speeding into it at 400+ mph?
  [*] How many of your examples had fires that were neglected the entire time they burned?
  [*] How many of your examples had fire ignite on SEVERAL floors at the same time?
  [*] How many had floor that were each an acre in size?
  [*] How many classic example HAD the tube on tube construction? They certainly became common practice more recently but how many of the examples I've ben shown b the truth movement that HAD THE SAME?
  

; the fire in wtc 1 2 and 7 appeared relatively minor compared to other skyscrapers http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

Fom your article:
"As the fire burned into the night, all that was visible of the upper parts of the building was the flaming, gutted remains of steel-reinforced concrete floors."

Read this:
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1205

"...The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors."

"A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.


So apparently this building was made with steel perimeter columns neh? All of the steel components apparently collapsed but the tower remained standing...
Concrete is one of he best insulators for steel by far... About the only thing fire will do to concrete is cause it to explosively spall on the surface....
So the parts bolded might just be an indication as to why it did not collapse

As for WTC 7... Does this look 'minor' to you?

For the WTC 1& 2 towers does this look 'minor'?

I don't know about you... but fires looking like that and realizing that each of those floors is over 200 ft wide, with 6 or 7 floors burning simultaneously, there's nothing 'minor' about them...

4)Unique design: “In fact, most buildings in excess of 40 stories constructed in the United States from the period after World War II to the 1990’s were of this (tube in tube) structural type.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_(structure) oh o.

See my giant red bolded list a coupla quotes above...

5)It had minor damage to one side of the building, and it had an office fire. it should not have collapsed as it did.

That looks like some reasonable damage buddy... That particular section of damage might not have compromised the core columns but it's an indication of the kind of hit the tower took....

-It is opinion and the worst kind too because it is not backed by experience, experimentation, computer simulations, or calculations.

No, it's a stated fact that steel deforms and weakens when exposed to at or over 1100 degrees (F). Study steel behavior before you debate me further on his... There's no 'opinion' about it.

-my point was NIST never explained why the intact building structure below the impact zone gave minimal resistance. They provided no calculations, no simulations, and certainly no experiments as to why it gave minimal resistance.

Why do you think they focused up to the point of collapse initiation? Their job was to assess why the collapse started, not whether the floors could provide resistance to it. Considering that the floors were all but 4 inch slabs of concrete with corrugated metal panels, there's not much resistance for them to provide against a chunk of tower slamming into them with a dynamic load...

They're job was to make recommendations for better building to account for similar events in the building code. Do some reading about Hurricane Andrew and how is devastated Homestead back in 1992. What do you think they had to do after the fact? They had to impart much stricter building codes... Same basic concept...

-Yes steel can sag from heating, but steel can also be cut by shape charges.

Irrelevant since the charges were never needed once the collapse initiated

The steel below the imapct zone did not sag because they were not exposed to heat.

Irrelevant when you have such an immense dynamic load applied to the floors. They were over designed, but the moment that 15 to 20 story section of tower began it's fall all loads became dynamic. You be surprised at how hard something like that hits...

NIST tested the to scale floor assemblies with hotter and longer fires and they could not recreate anywhere near the degree of sagging required to cause collapse initiation. Hint, hint...

I'm still waiting for you to confirm to me if I got the part of the NIST report you used to make that analysis... If it is, then from what I am able to see it simulated only a normal fire...., on top of that, the floors were not loaded with furniture.

Their experiments are valid but they weren't simulating the kind of damage the towers had aside from the heat of fires...

 

[beachnut]

... molten steel was discovered in the debris pile. ...

Where is it? Show me the melted steel piles. Produce one person who took a picture of melted steel, or saw melted steel.

 

[tsig]

Where is it? Show me the melted steel piles. Produce one person who took a picture of melted steel, or saw melted steel.

There was no melted steel. Construction machinery is made of steel. I did not see them melting.

 

[thewholesoul]

During the collapse? Dear god, you do realize steel has something called a plastic range

yes i realize that

you'd think a few hundred thousand pounds might deform it... if not tear it apart

yes i would. but precisely because it wasnt cracked, torn, or split we can safely rule out "force" as the cause of its damage. watch the following link

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6HWJ476z4&feature=related

Once steel is deforms past its elastic range (in other words once it enters plastic behavior) it can never return to its original shape on its own...

i agree

The beam is certainly bent.... but I'm curious as to why they say it happened DURING the collapse and that it would take thousands of degrees to bend it DURING a collapse...

me too. i suspect the I-beam in question was recovered early from the debris pile? but i would like more information on that. if it was recovered early then we can reasonably assume the bending occured during collapse.

As for the temperatures required to cause such an effect i have no reason to disagree with the expert in the video

Did they know what floor it came from or which tower... I don't recall hearing that mentioned in the video...

thats a good question. i want to know aswell. i investigated where this I-beam was located but to no avail. Norseman is your man for quality research. all i know is that it is being stored in an unknown location and no tests have been conducted on it since the event.

i have a feeling it did not come from the impact zone. but even if it did the max temperature of a hydrocarbon fire 825c cannot explain the horseshoe effect.

The way they worded their statement is weird... unless they are saying that both the collapse AND high temperatures cause this...... if they're saying that high temperatures did that then what the heck does the collapse have anything to do with the bending if the collapse isn't what did it...??

i think you overinterpretating the video. it seemed clear to me that extreme high temperatures are needed to create the horseshoe effect thats all i needed to hear.

825 celsius is 1,485 degrees (F)... that's more than enough to not only weaken steel beams, but to accelerate creeping (sagging) of the floors especially if they are under loads.

look, i can read. when NIST tested floor assemblies after 50 minutes only 4 inch sagging occured. a hydrocarbon fire does not generate enough temperature required to bend an eight ton I-beam into a horseshoe.

Before I respond to this could you clarify...
Is this the section of the NIST report you are referring to for the deflections?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf

no, but it contains the relevant information within the graphs
read the following link from the Open Civil Engineering Journal http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM point #6
"As it stands we have no physical evidence supporting the concept of total collapse due to fire from real fire endurance tests. On the contrary, these real-life tests indicate that the buildings should not have completely collapsed"

Again, what floor is this thing from? I listened to that video 5 times and haven't heard a single mention of the estimated location...

either have I. i would also like to know.
here is an extended video of the horseshoe beam http://drjudywood.com/media/horseshoe.mov
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ4.html in fig. 152 there are more examples of horseshoes.

Somehow I recall a plane having crashed in that area, and some of the debris from it made it to the opposite side of the building... Aluminum has a melting point of 1220.58 °F or 678°C.....

can you show me a video of molten aluminium reddish orange in daylight?

Something like this kinda happens to planes that catch fire:[qimg]http://www.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20050803/160_plane_burned_050803.jpg[/qimg]

i fail to see how a photo of a plane crash supports your position

peace