DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[Par]

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.

I see. Could you provide the source for the statements to which you are referring? I would like to check that when FEMA and NIST refer to “severe high temperatures” they are using the term in the same sense you are. However, given that you seem to mean “temperatures in excess of 1,500°C” – i.e. the approximate melting point of steel – I suspect not.

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!!!

This is another weirdly premised argument.

• The Open Civil Engineering Journal raised the question of P.
• Therefore P.

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.

The period in which the building stood burning was indeed a building fire. The point I am making, however, is that the period immediately following the collapses – the debris pile fire – was not.

I was not adducing a banality as you put it, i was stating a fact.

False dichotomy: Banality and fact are scarcely mutually exclusive characteristics. This very sentence circularly serves as conclusive evidence of the same.

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...

Petitio principii: The question of whether or not the reactions took place during the building fires – as opposed to during the debris pile fires, etc. – is precisely the point at issue.

...[the] New York Times described [it] as the “greatest mystery” of the investigation.

This is peripherally interesting, but not relevant.

[P]erhaps 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!

The eutectic reactions did not require such temperatures.

i dont give a bleep about the sandwich analogy

Argumentum ad tantrum: The question of whether or not a given argument appeals to your personal whims is, of course, of unlimited interest to all. When it comes to the events at the World Trade Center, however, it is sadly irrelevant.

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

Rationalism and extreme sports are worlds apart.

Because eutectic reactions have never been observed before in a building fire is intended to raise ones suspicions.

Petitio principii: The question of whether or not the reactions took place during the building fires – as opposed to within the debris pile fires, etc. – is precisely the point at issue.

Besides if your claiming that eutectic reactions were more likely to have occured under the debris pile because of “unusual conditions”...

I am not.

...i would kindly remind you that three steel framed skyscrapers totally collapsing on the same day from fire is perhaps even more “unusual”.

The above is a characteristically weird argument:

• Conditions within the debris pile were relatively unusual.
• But then so were collapses [and the factors which led to them].
• Therefore, the eutectic reactions took place while the buildings stood.

It’s a non sequitur.

So what we have is the first ever eutectic reactions in a building fire...

Petitio principii: The question of whether or not the reactions took place during the building fires – as opposed to within the debris pile fires, etc. – is precisely the point at issue.

...[the] first ever collapse of a skyscraper from fire...

The above is similarly weird:

• This is the first time that these kinds of buildings have (1) either suffered high-speed impacts from commercial airliners or severe debris damage from a collapsing skyscraper and (2) undergone subsequent massive fires.
• Therefore, the eutectic reactions took place while the buildings stood.

It’s a non sequitur, again.

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.

I cannot.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam: The mere fact that a theory has not been proven false does not provide us with any reason to think it true.

Incidentally, until now I had been under the impression you were claiming the reactions took place while the buildings stood. However, going by the above (and some of your subsequent points) it seems you’re espousing a “during the physical collapse itself” theory. Strictly speaking, the reactions could have taken place during any number of the following rough and somewhat arbitrary periods:

1. During the building fires: Between the time the aircraft (or debris) stuck the building, igniting the fire and moment just prior to the initiation of collapse.
2. During the physical collapse itself: The relatively brief period between the initiation of collapse and the moment the roof of the building approximately reached the ground.
3. During the debris pile fires: The period of a number of weeks that the debris burned underground.

Now, as DGM has pointed out, there exist innocuous explanations for the reactions even if it turns out that they took place while the buildings stood. Thus, our current discussion, as I acknowledged earlier, has been somewhat academic. However, it seems you are currently claiming that the reactions took place solely during the physical collapse itself (2). If so, then the issue becomes marginally more interesting. It would be helpful if you could clarify this for me.

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.

You seem to be relying on a very strange principle: “Dust samples taken from the site can only contain particles which formed specifically during – not before and not after – the building collapses.” Said principle, however, is straightforwardly false.

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.

I wasn’t all that clear, admittedly, and so I’ll clarify: “This is something of a petitio principii. Whether or not the observation of the spheres serves as evidence of extreme temperatures [within the building fires, during the collapses or within the debris pile] is a crux point at issue.”

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.

You seem to have replaced your lone conditional premise with bare assertion. This much is less weird, but equally unsound.

 

[Par]

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?

Please refrain from trying to change the subject. You had asked for a precedent for a comparable building collapsing due to fire. However, 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.

 

[phunk]

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?

So if it's not on youtube it's not true?

It's pretty simple, the batteries appear like molten metal because they contain large amounts of lead, which melts at 621F, well below the temperatures of the fire that can be clearly seen in the video. No journal is needed to explain that lead melts at 621F or that UPS batteries contain large amounts of lead.

 

[thewholesoul]

That isn't an account of how high temperatures in the rubble pile weeks after the collapses were caused by thermite

True: it is not an account of how high temperatures in the rubble pile weeks after the collapses were caused by thermite; it is an account of various anomolies found within the WTC dust samples that indicate extreme high temperatures during the collapse.

it's a piece of speculation on the possible origins of microspheres.

False: the microspheres originated from the WTC dust sample during the collapse of the towers. The origin of the extreme high temperatures needed to produce these microsphericules is the question. It is not speculative to conclude that such high temperatures (e.g. to produce molybdenum sphericules) could not be produced from a hydrocarbon fire. It is a fact that temperatures within the WTC could not have exceeded 1000c. It is also a fact that molybdenum sphericules require a temperature greater than 1000c to form. The actual source of the extreme temperatures is still in the realm of speculation because we do not know exactly what kind of chemical explosive was used. However professor steven jones has discovered red chips which he claims have the same chemical fingerprint as commercial thermite, that it behaves like thermite, and when his samples are independently investigated and verified it will nolonger be a matter of speculation as we will have confirmed the actual chemical explosive used.

Try again.

Perhaps it is you that needs to try again

Until you've produced your equivalent of what you're demanding from the rest of us - that is to say, a complete narrative of the processes and mechanisms leading to the high temperatures you claim to have existed in the rubble pile many weeks after the collapses, explained in terms of thermite and explosives and backed up by examples from other incidents - then you have no argument to answer.

As explained already (now more than twice) the unusually high temperatures discovered in the rubble pile are not what I am seeking an explanation for. It is the high temperature during the collapse that the following paper seeks to address http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...CHighTemp2.pdf. To be honest I am not even looking for an explanation – because I know you have none – I am merely looking to demonstrate through reasoned debate and dialogue that the hypothesis YOU support has no rational explanation for these high temperatures but that the hypothesis I support DOES.

But in relation to the unusually high temperatures found weeks later in the debris pile the presence of unignited nanothermite is a better and more plausible explanation than the hypothesis YOU support. Or maybe you can explain how a slow buring, low temperature, water saturated, oxygen starved smoldering fire of concrete, dust, office materials and hydrocarbons can gerenate temperatures hot enough to melt steel (+1500c)? Thats right, you cant. I have an argument and YOU have no answer!

The "extreme temperatures before the complete collapse" is a piece of unproven speculation.

False: the molybdenum sphericules, the horseshoe I-beams, the evaporated metal, the production of molten steel etc are evidence of extreme temperatures. The presence of extreme temperatures is not a matter of speculation. The issue of “severe high temperatures” is raised in the Open Civil Engineering Journal http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Unless you have proof of extreme temperatures before the collapse, your "main issue" is nonexistent.

If you pulled your head out from the sand for one minute you would soon realize that the proof of extreme temperatures before collapse exists. The Open Civil Engineering Journal – is not nonexistent Dave.

No, the only relevant question is whether only thermite or demolition explosives can produce the anomalies. In fact, they can all be explained by processes known to have occurred before or during the collapse and subsequent fires.

With respect Dave you’re a model of inconsistency and double speak. Just re-read the your own comments and see can you spot it:
(i)Unless you have proof of extreme temperatures before the collapse, your "main issue" is nonexistent
(ii)In fact, they (proof of extreme temepratures) can all be explained by processes known to have occurred before or during the collapse and subsequent fires

So on the one hand, you’re denying the existence of extreme temperatures but on the other, you’re claiming that evidence of this extreme temepratures can be explained by a hydrocarbon fire before and a smoldering fire after the collapse. So which is it Dave?

I'm happy to be quoted as saying I think they're all wrong. Jones's work is full of internal contradictions, Legge's work is utterly laughable, and Kevin Ryan is a proven liar.

And their paper was published in the Open Civil Engineering Journal. Where are all the “experts” and “peer reviewed papers” supporting the official hypothesis?

peace

 

[Norseman]

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

I think you should read this post and the remainder of he posts in that thread. It is only two pages:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3332769#post3332769

Regarding flowing aluminum:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3093006#post3093006

 

[thewholesoul]

The problem of fuel... is still rather important if we even began to think of 'nano thermite'.

why is fuel a problem for nanothermite, but not a problem for a smoldering fire?

Little chips can survive and combust all they want,

i agree

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...

the cutting occured during the collapse to remove the vertical load resistance of the columns.

the unignited nanothermite would ignite when exposed to smoldering temperatures and subsequently increase the temperatures of the underground fire. if steel was in the presence of such a reaction then the steel would melt.

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

Think of it this way: We have an underground fire post collapse that generated enough heat to melt steel. A water saturated and oxygen starved smoldering fire cannot generate these temperatures. I know this because I read the following academic paper about smoldering fires http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02074.pdf

Think of it this way: which can generate greater temperatures (a) a smoldering fire? or (b) a smoldering fire with unignited nanothermite?
i will press you until i get a straight answer on this question.

Now in response to

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

You said

So are corrosion reactions... what's your point?

I guess my point is that although a slow burning, water saturated, oxygen starved smoldering fire feed on concrete, office material, and hydrocarbons will corrode iron and steel within the rubble pile, the corrosion will not be hot enough to melt the iron and steel. In my opinion the reason it was hot enough to melt iron and steel in the rubble pile was because there was a significant amount of unignited nanothermite remaining in the rubble pile after the collapse.

My point is that low temperature corrosive reactions do not produce molten metal. High temperature corrosive reactions can produce molten metal. A smoldering fire cannot generate sufficient temperatures to produce molten metal but a smoldering fire with unignited nanothermite can generate sufficient temperatures to produce molten metal.

Whats you response?

You haven't eliminated other mundane explanations..

I have, read above.

The question is how were the unusually high temperatures generated? My answer is that unignited nanothermite would in addition to the smoldering fire produce these temperatures.

Your answer is that a smoldering fire on its own can generate the unusually high temperatures. I’m saying it cant: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02074.pdf
(a) a smoldering fire needs a continuous oxygen supply in order to combust
But thermite would provide that oxygen supply in an oxygen starved environment

(b) a smoldering fire would not increase in temperature when saturated by water.
But thermite reactions can occur in a water saturated environment

(c) a smoldering fire even with an oxygen supply and unsaturated by water will not generate temperatures sufficient to melt steel
But thermite reactions can produce temperatures sufficient to melt steel

and so far the root of the argument stating that thermite caused the molten metal to be found weeks later has been taken apart...

It looks like I put it back together then

In response to the following question:

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?

You said

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

Well i will answer your question with an answer: I agree that heat does not always require fire. The first comment in this article http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02074.pdf
states that

“Smoldering is a slow burning, low temperature, flameless form of combustion”

That said, I feel your question-answer did not address the obvious problems concerning your position behind the unusually high temperatures and the production of molten steel. My question asked for an explanation not a question. i gave my explanation for the high temperatures and molten steel - now its your turn

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Please refrain from trying to change the subject. You had asked for a precedent for a comparable building collapsing due to fire. However, 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.

so what your saying is there was nothing unusual about the destruction of three steel skyscrapers on spetember 11th eventhough no skyscraper prior to or since 911 was destroyed from fire because the towers were subject to unique circumstances.

Are you saying that wtc 1, 2 + 7 would have been destroyed without any fires?

Assuming you are not asserting the above claim then you must agree that the impact of jets and debris were not the principal cause of the towers destruction. if anything they played a contributory role

According to the official unproven hypothesis the primary cause was fire in all cases.

if there were no impacts of jets and debris but teh same amount of fuel and fire was established in the towers would you beleive they would fall or remain standing.

i am asking this question because with your response i plan on determining whether the impacts and fires were necessary, sufficient, or some other category of cause.

but in response to post. no matter how hard you try to highlight the uniqueness of the event you can never remove the fact that (a) wtc 1, 2 and 7 were steel framed skysrapers with a steel core (b) and that fire was the primary cause of destruction according to the unproven offical hypothesis.

peace

 

[Norseman]

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

According to the Oxford American Dictionary included on my Mac computer "thousands" are any number between 1000 - 9999. I absolutely agree that the "expert" were talking in Fahrenheit. Converted into Celsius we are starting at 537,78 degrees. At 549 degrees Celsius steel has lost 50% of its strength and at 749 degrees it has lost 90% of its structural strength. This article should be of interest to you:

http://rustylopez.typepad.com/newcovenant/2007/03/history_is_made.html

Video showing how a Sherman's Necktie is made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drsgs6-3Qlg

And who said that you need high temperatures to bend steel:
Tractor with steel beam wrapped around it

A description of the tornado:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/severe/jul18_tor/PNSFAR
The remainder of the photo gallery:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/severe/jul18_tor/jul18_tor.php

Yet another tornado that bent I-beams around threes, look down on the page:
http://www.wilcoxwebworks.com/tornado/

 

[Norseman]

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

The quality of the journal and article in question is covered in this thread, links directly to three posts in the thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3634733#post3634733
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3634184#post3634184
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3634377#post3634377

 

[Norseman]

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.

NIST tested floor assemblies built to original specification with fireproofing applied. They did not test floor assemblies without fireproofing. See FAQ #8 here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

The aircraft dislodged the fireproofing from the steel on the impact floors, that is a well established fact.

 

[applecorped]

proving already provable points. it gets tiring.

 

[thewholesoul]

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

I havent ruled it out read post 826.

You have yet to establish it to be 'super/nano thermite'...

I await the independent review of the red chips. What will you say when they are verfied? I think you should start preparing your lines of disbelief now my friend.

What would generate more temperature (a) a smoldering pile of office material and hydrocarbons? or (b) a smoldering pile of office materials, hydrocarbons and nanothermites?

In response to the following question;

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?

You said

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...

Ok omit the word “fire” and insert “pile”. It was a smoldering pile of rubble. Smoldering is by definition a slow burning low temperature flamless form of combustion. The only possible way a smoldering pile could ever reach temperatures in excess of 1500c is with plenty of oxygen. Unfortunately for you the smoldering pile was oxygen starved. Your explanation is that corrosion is an exothermic reaction. And I agree but that does not explain how the molten steel was produced. Corrosion can occur in low temperatures and high temperatures. My question for you is how were these high temperatures produced from a smoldering pile of rubble. You do accept it was a smoldering pile or do you prefer another description? I apologise if I seem repetative but you need to be pressed in order to realize that you have no explanation.

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.

Jones already believes he has found nanothermite it simply requires independent verification and once that is achieved he doesnt need to rule out other mundane sources as what on earth is nanothermite doing in the WTC dust? The iron microspherules may be the smoking gun but to find unignited nanothermite is the gun! But I agree let us await the independent verification of jones’s red chips that have the same chemical fingerprint as commercial thermite and flare up when exposed to heat.

In response to the following question;

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?

You said

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

So now you say molten metal but before you said

TWS, TWS, you're missing the point... The molten steel was found several weeks AFTER the collapse was it not?

Are you going to explain this inconsistency?

Before i asked

How do you know it (molten steel) wasnt there immediately after the collapse?

You replied

We don't know if it was there at the time of the collapse

Your not a lawyer grizzly, or a politician. Just give me a straight answer: would you accept that a CD using thermite and cutter charges would produce molten pools of steel immediately after collapse? Its a hypothetical but i would really appreciate a simple yes or no.

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?

Because it is nanothermite and really small it was not crushed by the collapsing building but rather was distributed randomly within the debris pile and elsewhere. The nanothermite would not have reacted until it became ignited. The unignited nanothermite would therefore become ignited through exposure to the heat that we both agree was there within the smoldering debris pile. But it was precisely because there was unignited nanothermite randomly distributed within the rubble pile that the temperatures reached such heights. The presence of nanothermite answers the question of how the smoldering pile got so hot. Without the nanothermite the smoldering pile would not have reached sufficient temperatures sufficient to melt steel. if it can i am still waiting to hear your explanation.

How do you establish that this thermite being the small red chips that they 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.

The fuel consists of office material and hydrocarbons. This fuel feed the smoldering pile. The nanothermite reacted from the heat produced by this smoldering pile. And the temperature of the smoldering pile subsequently increased enough to melt steel which in turn further sustained and intensified the temperatures of the smoldering pile. Because the smoldering pile was the longest structural fire in history I think we can safely rule out any shortage of fuel. But as for the reactions of the nanothermite themselves they dont have to be long – just a combination of many short little reactions scattered randomly throughout the rubble pile would in addition to the smoldering pile increase the temperature. Would it not?

So its not a question of me pumping steroids into the nanothermites; its a question of you pumping steroids into a smoldering pile of rubble.

peace

 

[applecorped]

I forgive you.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

why is fuel a problem for nanothermite, but not a problem for a smoldering fire?

Source
"It is important to mix the thermite ingredients thoroughly in order to create a homogeneous mixture. Unless the thermite is sufficiently mixed, it may be difficult to ignite or sustain the thermite reaction."

So you know for a fact that this 'nano thermite' after the collapse was able to retain a reasonable pure state?

-- In other words... this 'nano thermite' is made up of small 'chips' am I understanding you right yet? Just how long is a single chip of this nano thermite supposed to be able to sustain a reaction?

-- Are you assuming that there were aggregate concentrations of these chips to sustain a long lasting reaction?


So then where does the ignition source come from several weeks later if you suppose that some of this presumed thermite survives in a dormant state? Apparently according to you, the 'smoldering fires' should not be hot enough to provide a reaction ignition. Does this nano thermite some how work different in principal than traditional?

I shoulad also mention that the metal in the pictures doesn't look particularly 'liquified'... it seems to still have some plastic properties to it... care to elaborate?
As in this:

Versus this:

Exothermic oxidation [corrosion] reactions do not require such a homogenous mix, and the debris piles were full of different materials... Gypsum, steel, etc.

the cutting occured during the collapse to remove the vertical load resistance of the columns.

This is what 7 kilos (15 pounds) worth of thermite looks like when it is ignited:


Wouldn't a few thousand pounds of thermite look a little inconspicuous?

the unignited nanothermite would ignite when exposed to smoldering temperatures

-- According to this source: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/23/1095651433980.htm

"However, it is relatively difficult to ignite and requires an ignition source much hotter that a cigarette lighter, for example.

Magnesium ribbon fuse appears to be the recommended method to ignite the substance."

Didn't you also claim that the smoldering fires or oxidation reactions cannot possibly account for the high temperatures? If thermite is supposed to account for these abnormal temperatures, and it's requires a high temperature to active the reaction process, then what is our ignition source?

You can't have it both ways...

A water saturated and oxygen starved smoldering fire cannot generate these temperatures. I know this because I read the following academic paper about smoldering fires http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02074.pdf

Smoldering is a 'flameless burning'... but combustion isn't always the cause for heating. I know I've told you this before. Steel still oxidizes in the presence of water due to water molecules being made up partly of oxygen... Pouring water on a heated piece of steel does not stop oxidation... Just what do you think rust is a product of?

Think of it this way: which can generate greater temperatures (a) a smoldering fire? or (b) a smoldering fire with unignited nanothermite?
i will press you until i get a straight answer on this question.

Now lets take a step back and assume for any number of reasons that I am wrong to assume non-combustion [chemical reaction-based] oxidation takes place and generates the heat.

and let us jump to B)
I once again ask you... if thermite requires a high temperature to activate the violent reaction it's known for, and 'smoldering is unable to account for the amount of heat energy needed, then what ignites the thermite?

A smoldering fire cannot generate sufficient temperatures to produce molten metal but a smoldering fire with unignited nanothermite can generate sufficient temperatures to produce molten metal.

See above under previous quote.

The question is how were the unusually high temperatures generated? My answer is that unignited nanothermite would in addition to the smoldering fire produce these temperatures.
See above under previous quote (2nd quote up from this)

(a) a smoldering fire needs a continuous oxygen supply in order to combust
But thermite would provide that oxygen supply in an oxygen starved environment

Adding water does not stop corrosion because water contains oxygen... haven't you ever seen a rusty fence? Rust is a by-product of an extremely slow exothermic reaction which under ordinary circumstances disperses the heat energy off far too quickly to be noticeable to human touch, it'd be interesting to see the result of this same process taking place under a debris pile over the course of several weeks whilst unventilated.

It looks like I put it back together then

And opened up yet another box of worms to problems with the argument...

 

[X]

Edit: Nevermind, Grizzly is far better at this than I am.

Maybe I should start a fan-club.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What will you say when they are verfied?

I will look for other scientists to see if it is a viable assessment. I don't use statements from single individuals to make a decision on the validity of conclusions

I think you should start preparing your lines of disbelief now my friend.

I'll put my tin foil hat at the corner so I have it ready...

You said

So now you say molten metal but before you said
Are you going to explain this inconsistency?

I reap what I sow when I start criticizing people for flip flopping between terms... My 'official' reference is molten metal, for the sake of objectivity.

produce molten pools of steel immediately after collapse?[/I] Its a hypothetical but i would really appreciate a simple yes or no.

Requires that the use of thermite be already concluded on my side of the argument.

Because it is nanothermite and really small it was not crushed by the collapsing building but rather was distributed randomly within the debris pile and elsewhere.

Thus enter viability of the fuel source Would you not agree that the problem here is the individual size of these 'chips' leads to the issues of sustaining a reaction for more than a few seconds? Thermite requires a homogenous mix of its constituent ingredients. I asked this roughly in my last post... so I realize I am repeating this without a prior response... you only have to answer this once...

The nanothermite would not have reacted until it became ignited. The unignited nanothermite would therefore become ignited through exposure to the heat that we both agree was there within the smoldering debris pile.

See my last post regarding this matter

The fuel consists of office material and hydrocarbons. This fuel feeds the smoldering pile. The nanothermite reacted from the heat produced by this smoldering pile.

Enter the issue of the original smoldering not being able to account for the high temperatures. If the base temperature of the smoldering fire (That is, without any acceleration) is unable to produce sufficient heat to explain observed temperatures, how does the thermite ignite?

Again addressed in my last post... you don't need to make a duplicate response as I am aware you've not had the chance to address the last post I made.

But as for the reactions of the nanothermite themselves they dont have to be long – just a combination of many short little reactions scattered randomly throughout the rubble pile would in addition to the smoldering pile increase the temperature. Would it not?

.... Adressed in my previous post....

 

[bio]

According to the Oxford American Dictionary included on my Mac computer "thousands" are any number between 1000 - 9999. I absolutely agree that the "expert" were talking in Fahrenheit. Converted into Celsius we are starting at 537,78 degrees. At 549 degrees Celsius steel has lost 50% of its strength and at 749 degrees it has lost 90% of its structural strength. This article should be of interest to you:

Your problem is:

NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”.4 “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”.
S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR. Gaithersburg”, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, September 2005.

Originally Posted by thewholesoul:
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.

How could this fire produce a horseshoe?

 

[phunk]

Fire didn't produce the horseshoe, brute force did during the collapse.

 

[bio]

Fire didn't produce the horseshoe, brute force did during the collapse.

okay.

How could the fire heat up (and weaken) the steal beam over 500 C, if the fire itself was not so hot?

 

[bio]

The quality of the journal and article in question is covered in this thread, links directly to three posts in the thread:
1. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3634733#post3634733
2. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3634184#post3634184
3. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3634377#post3634377

1. insults with no single argument
2. again insults, no argument
3. again insults, no argumentation

are these the standard references of "debunkers" here?