Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
That plus the pressurized oxygen tank in the crew cabin.
Greening vs. Jones
- Thread starter pomeroo
- Start date
That plus the pressurized oxygen tank in the crew cabin.
I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that a thermite reaction is burning aluminum. Your observation is not merely wrong; it is, in fact, a logical paradox.
I humbly suggest that you read and try to learn from this discussion, rather than merely dismissing it.
And now that's out of the way, back to the discussion...
<-- Note avatar at left. I am an avid paintballer, and as such have seen more people subject small pressurized cylinders to abuse than I could mention in a week.
Some of the small oxygen bottles I've seen on aircraft might survive the impact, in my opinion. I don't have any specs, but they appear to be high-tensile moly-steel, 6000 PSI test tanks. Such a tank would be far stronger than virtually any part of the aircraft. Puncture is a problem, but such tanks have superlative performance in response to blunt impact, particularly when filled, as well as abrasion (this is not true for fiber-wrapped tanks).
Yes, 500+ knots into a building is one heck of an impact. But such tanks are actually more robust than most "Black Box" flight data recorders. I think it's not unreasonable, certainly not impossible, for one to have survived.
However, I must depart from Greening in one aspect. Such a tank would also have a built-in overpressure relief valve (a "burst disc" or more sophisticated failsafe). Supposing a tank survived, it is likely that it would begin to vent upon reaching a temperature of perhaps 70 oC, surely venting by 100 oC. Given the size and intensity of the fires, I expect this would have happened shortly after impact.
Once the relief valve was opened, we would see a thin stream of oxygen venting into the nearby area. This would increase combustion, but probably not enough to make much difference or be visible from afar. I just don't see any possibility, except at impact itself or following secondary collapse, where a lucky oxygen tank would bring about a sudden burst effect.
Oxygen generator, perhaps. I don't know much about them. I also want to be clear that while I find Greening's hypothesis unlikely, it's still worth exploring. It's far more credible than "thermite" for a wide variety of reasons.
Interesting question.
<-- Note avatar at left. I am an avid paintballer, and as such have seen more people subject small pressurized cylinders to abuse than I could mention in a week.
Some of the small oxygen bottles I've seen on aircraft might survive the impact, in my opinion. I don't have any specs, but they appear to be high-tensile moly-steel, 6000 PSI test tanks. Such a tank would be far stronger than virtually any part of the aircraft. Puncture is a problem, but such tanks have superlative performance in response to blunt impact, particularly when filled, as well as abrasion (this is not true for fiber-wrapped tanks).
Yes, 500+ knots into a building is one heck of an impact. But such tanks are actually more robust than most "Black Box" flight data recorders. I think it's not unreasonable, certainly not impossible, for one to have survived.
However, I must depart from Greening in one aspect. Such a tank would also have a built-in overpressure relief valve (a "burst disc" or more sophisticated failsafe). Supposing a tank survived, it is likely that it would begin to vent upon reaching a temperature of perhaps 70 oC, surely venting by 100 oC. Given the size and intensity of the fires, I expect this would have happened shortly after impact.
Once the relief valve was opened, we would see a thin stream of oxygen venting into the nearby area. This would increase combustion, but probably not enough to make much difference or be visible from afar. I just don't see any possibility, except at impact itself or following secondary collapse, where a lucky oxygen tank would bring about a sudden burst effect.
Oxygen generator, perhaps. I don't know much about them. I also want to be clear that while I find Greening's hypothesis unlikely, it's still worth exploring. It's far more credible than "thermite" for a wide variety of reasons.
Last edited:
Cheap metal from computers. Aircraft aluminum with contaminates. Plastic. Lead from UPS and computer metals melted by aircraft oxygen generators from the large Boeing aircraft crammed in the corner of the building.
Oxygen!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4 there are a lot of these on many of the planes you fly.
Or it was a fire fall like this:
Or is this steel? Plus if you check I can get you almost any color you want in melted Al.
In some Air Force aircraft there is a LOX converter. We carried 6 liters of LOX. When you crashed it was under the crew area. You needed to get out quick!
I think the second impact at the WTC as the first was enough with the fires to set off the oxygen generators. I looked as if there was an oxygen fire at the corner of the building.
They burn pretty good just by themselves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4
Last edited:
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
He didn't have to answer the question, it was irrelevant. The whole point of the exchange is that Jones is misrepresenting what Greening said. No where does Greening say anything about molten steel. If Jones wants to conclude from what Greening said that there was molten steel, then Jones needs to state that it is his interpretation, not something Greening stated or implied.
This is about misrepresentation of what was written, not what material produces an "intense yellow glow".
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
OK, so you don't think it was aluminium. You base this on, what? Your Mark I, Mod 1 eyeball? Psychic power? Taste test? Smell-O-Vision? Just how did you come to this amazing conclusion?
And byproducts of a thermite reaction; what are those? How much exposure have you had to thermite? How does it react? How is it used?
Come on, you just made these statements. Back them up, dude! Unable to? Most likely!
There are seven portable oxygen tanks throughout the cabin, in addition to the crew oxygen tank. And there are seven Protective Breathing Equipment pouches which each have 2 oxygen cylinders. All that in addition to the 60 or so chemical oxygen generators Beachnut was talking about. Other than that, not much O2 on board a 767...
R.Mackey said:
Yup, they're pretty beefy alright and the crew oxygen tank is quite large. I dont know what the testing criteria is, but its typically charged at 1800 psi, so I imagine it could take double that easily....the portable cylinders are charged at 1800 psi as well..
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
I believe the cylinder in question has a pressure relief valve, but it can be damaged, in impacts when damaged, it might not work.
If the relief valve fails and the cylinder does get red hot the cylinders steel will self ignite just like an Oxygen lance in a huge fire ball. That is assuming that it is pinned under debris and does not become a missile from the pressure of the compressed gas inside it.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
How did the thermite survive the fire for so long?
How did they manage to plant it EXACTLY where the plane was going to crash?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Like a lot of troofer theories, the ONLY purpose it serves it to support their anti-government agenda. It has absolutely no explanatory power in the real world.
I thought of that, and it is possible, but such devices tend to be "fail safe." An impact that damages the valve will almost always cause it to fail open or be weakened, rather than welded shut.
Still, we could be more precise about this if we knew the precise design used in this particular case. What you're suggesting is possible, just seems unlikely.
Jones Responds
Jones responds:
Dear Frank,
I have checked my notes. On our Forum discussion for the Scholars group, we discussed your writings on the oxygen cylinders. Note that there are two references mentioned in my paper, not just the addendum you referred to.
In our group, we interpreted your writings on this as referring to molten iron/steel -- all of us had this understanding.
It is true that you do not mention molten STEEL in the addendum, but in the other article referenced in my paper [Greening, 2006], you state:
"These fires would have been hot enough to MELT IRON, especially in the presence of chlorine and hydrochloric acid vapors from burning PVC" [my emphasis]
What would be the source of iron for this melting, if not structural steel?
Further, you state:
" An interesting feature of the videos and still photographs of this event is the bright yellow
glow inside WTC 2 from what appears to be the source of THE MOLTEN METAL. The color
and intensity of this glowing ball shows that something was burning at a very high
temperature - perhaps as high as 1100 C. Such a temperature is well beyond the 800 -
900 range of flame temperatures attainable in typical solid or liquid hydrocarbon-fuelled
fires. This has led some researchers to invoke the inevitable “ pre-placed thermite
incendiaries” as the cause of the bright yellow glow. However, rather than jump to this
conclusion, we offer below an alternative, less-conspiratorial, explanation of this
phenomenon: “
Which phenomenon? Seems you were talking about the molten metal, especially in view of the fact that you later state "These fires would have been hot enough to MELT IRON, especially in the presence of chlorine and hydrochloric acid vapors from burning PVC" [my emphasis]
That is how we understood you.
Anyway, you have now stated that you do not claim that oxygen-fed fires melted structural steel, and so I wish to correct my paper. I could add clarifying material quoted above, but I think it better to simply remove the material you objected to on January 22, namely:
"F. Greening's latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building, to produce the large metal flow seen at yellow-hot temperature, flowing from WTC 2. Note that the latest proposed explanation provides no mechanism for feeding fuel (office materials) into the oxygen stream, i.e. this is not like an oxy-acetylene torch. Moreover, even if the tanks survived the plane crashes, to melt steel would require steel (not air) temperatures of over 2,700 degrees F - while the steel structure is wicking the heat away from the heat source. Greening needs to consider heat transport in the steel...”
It typically takes a couple of days for the webmaster to make a change in the on-line Journal, but the above will be removed and my apologies for evidently misunderstanding you. (I do hope you can see how WE came to the view that you were talking about the fires “hot enough to melt iron”/steel etc.)
Sincerely,
Steven Jones
PS – I should note that this change will need to be approved by co-editor Kevin Ryan, since he was the one who handled my paper for the peer-reviews before publication as well as insertion into the Journal of 9/11 Studies. (CC: Kevin Ryan)
Jones responds:
Dear Frank,
I have checked my notes. On our Forum discussion for the Scholars group, we discussed your writings on the oxygen cylinders. Note that there are two references mentioned in my paper, not just the addendum you referred to.
In our group, we interpreted your writings on this as referring to molten iron/steel -- all of us had this understanding.
It is true that you do not mention molten STEEL in the addendum, but in the other article referenced in my paper [Greening, 2006], you state:
"These fires would have been hot enough to MELT IRON, especially in the presence of chlorine and hydrochloric acid vapors from burning PVC" [my emphasis]
What would be the source of iron for this melting, if not structural steel?
Further, you state:
" An interesting feature of the videos and still photographs of this event is the bright yellow
glow inside WTC 2 from what appears to be the source of THE MOLTEN METAL. The color
and intensity of this glowing ball shows that something was burning at a very high
temperature - perhaps as high as 1100 C. Such a temperature is well beyond the 800 -
900 range of flame temperatures attainable in typical solid or liquid hydrocarbon-fuelled
fires. This has led some researchers to invoke the inevitable “ pre-placed thermite
incendiaries” as the cause of the bright yellow glow. However, rather than jump to this
conclusion, we offer below an alternative, less-conspiratorial, explanation of this
phenomenon: “
Which phenomenon? Seems you were talking about the molten metal, especially in view of the fact that you later state "These fires would have been hot enough to MELT IRON, especially in the presence of chlorine and hydrochloric acid vapors from burning PVC" [my emphasis]
That is how we understood you.
Anyway, you have now stated that you do not claim that oxygen-fed fires melted structural steel, and so I wish to correct my paper. I could add clarifying material quoted above, but I think it better to simply remove the material you objected to on January 22, namely:
"F. Greening's latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building, to produce the large metal flow seen at yellow-hot temperature, flowing from WTC 2. Note that the latest proposed explanation provides no mechanism for feeding fuel (office materials) into the oxygen stream, i.e. this is not like an oxy-acetylene torch. Moreover, even if the tanks survived the plane crashes, to melt steel would require steel (not air) temperatures of over 2,700 degrees F - while the steel structure is wicking the heat away from the heat source. Greening needs to consider heat transport in the steel...”
It typically takes a couple of days for the webmaster to make a change in the on-line Journal, but the above will be removed and my apologies for evidently misunderstanding you. (I do hope you can see how WE came to the view that you were talking about the fires “hot enough to melt iron”/steel etc.)
Sincerely,
Steven Jones
PS – I should note that this change will need to be approved by co-editor Kevin Ryan, since he was the one who handled my paper for the peer-reviews before publication as well as insertion into the Journal of 9/11 Studies. (CC: Kevin Ryan)
CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
Pagan,
perhaps you'd be kind enough to present a logic theory as to HOW this thermite demoltion took place?
When it was planted, by who, where and most importantly: HOW WAS THE THERMITE ABLE TO BURN THROUGH DOZENS OF VERTICAL BEAMS AT THE SAME TIME?
perhaps you'd be kind enough to present a logic theory as to HOW this thermite demoltion took place?
When it was planted, by who, where and most importantly: HOW WAS THE THERMITE ABLE TO BURN THROUGH DOZENS OF VERTICAL BEAMS AT THE SAME TIME?
CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
It must be humiliating to brag about a "peer-review" in a journal that he set up!
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I know what he'll say: "I'm just asking questions, I don't pretend to have all the answers."
That's all well and good, but sometimes there are questions that really, really need to be answered before we go beyond the "idle speculation" phase and dive head-first into the "accusing real, living, breathing people of committing murder" phase.
Greening Responds
Greening responds:
Dear Dr. Jones,
Well, thank you for your latest e-mail and for agreeing to change your paper with regard to the comments I made on oxygen enhanced fires in WTC 2. However, about this “yellow glow” and the associated “yellow waterfall”…. Here are a few points:
In your previous e-mail you ask: “What material is it that provided the "intense yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC2" if not hot steel?”
Well, I can think of a number of possibilities starting with the oxygen-enhanced fire itself: the combustion of cellulose-based materials, plastics and polymeric materials such as rubbers and fibers used in carpeting and upholstery, etc, etc. But I agree that this does not completely explain the “yellow waterfall”.
I believe that I would be correct in saying that molten steel and molten aluminum are the only reasonable suggestions made to date; but I have a third option that should be of interest to you and might well surprise you: lead and/or lead slag!
I am making this suggestion based on a recent (Jan 18th) article by Christopher Bollyn. I believe you should be familiar with the article (since you are quoted as a source of some of the information), entitled: “9/11-Who Put Thermate in the World Trade Center?” In this article we read in reference to WTC 2:
“Fuji Bank was the tenant of floors 79-82, yet for some reason the NIST researchers were unable or unwilling to provide any description of the contents of these crucial floors – four years after 9/11.
A former Japanese bank employee recently came forward and explained that the 81st floor was an entire floor of server-size computer batteries:
Fuji Bank had reinforced the 81st floor, he said, so the floor could support more weight. The entire floor was then filled with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.
These units were bolted to a raised floor about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. "The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.”
Now if we accept this as true it is indeed very significant in light of the fact that such a UPS would undoubtedly involve the use of a large interconnected array of lead-acid batteries. Lead-acid batteries contain kilogram quantities of the extremely hazardous liquid sulfuric acid, and toxic materials such as lead, lead sulfate and lead dioxide, together with smaller amounts of antimony, antimony oxide and cadmium.
In an article on the hazards associated with lead-acid batteries, by Robert L. Taylor,of Morning Star Industries, Inc, we read:
“What happens if a fully charged lead-acid battery cell is shorted? Hopefully the device shorting the battery becomes hot and melts or vaporizes and clears the short. In large installations, there is enough energy available to vaporize copper buss bars and other circuitry. Vaporizing copper has the same expansion rate as exploding dynamite.
If a shorted battery cell does not clear the external short, the electrical connection between the battery terminals allows for a very rapid chemical reaction as the sulfuric acid converts the lead and lead dioxide to lead sulfate. Now the electrical energy is not dissipated externally, but internally in the form of heat. The resulting temperature rise inside the battery cell literally destroys the cell and actually may vaporize the battery materials including the electrolyte and lead.
Actual battery applications are comprised of multiple battery cells. A typical car battery has six cells in series. Telecommunications typically have battery strings of 12 and 24 cells each. Industrial Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems typically have 60 cells in series. When a short is placed across a string of batteries, the resulting fault current will begin discharging all of the cells until one or more cells fail. Now, instead of each cell destroying itself, the cells that have not failed dissipate their energy into the failed cells. Not only do the failed cells typically melt and give off vapors, but these failed cells often become arc furnaces due to the energy contribution from the rest of the battery string. The amount of energy dissipated in the failed cell(s) is usually enough to totally vaporize the whole battery unless the battery fails in such a way as to disconnect the circuit. When the battery cell is on a grounded rack or mounting surface, the circuit continuity is continued through the battery cell’s melted parts and the conductive mounting surface. This type of destruction of the battery cell(s) is typically what is called a battery fire. Substantial clouds of acid mist and vapor will be present during this type of fire and will typically overwhelm a typical ventilation system.”
So consider this scenario but add the effects of an aircraft impact and intense hydrocarbon-fuelled fires and the possibilities become quite frightening! Certainly a Pb-PbSO4-PbO-PbS electrochemical soup would be created and mixed with other chemical species already present on the 81st floor of WTC 2 such as Fe and C. The result would be like a lead smelter which is known to produce WHITE SMOKE, so-called "lead fume", molten lead, and "lead slag".....
Frank Greening
Greening responds:
Dear Dr. Jones,
Well, thank you for your latest e-mail and for agreeing to change your paper with regard to the comments I made on oxygen enhanced fires in WTC 2. However, about this “yellow glow” and the associated “yellow waterfall”…. Here are a few points:
In your previous e-mail you ask: “What material is it that provided the "intense yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC2" if not hot steel?”
Well, I can think of a number of possibilities starting with the oxygen-enhanced fire itself: the combustion of cellulose-based materials, plastics and polymeric materials such as rubbers and fibers used in carpeting and upholstery, etc, etc. But I agree that this does not completely explain the “yellow waterfall”.
I believe that I would be correct in saying that molten steel and molten aluminum are the only reasonable suggestions made to date; but I have a third option that should be of interest to you and might well surprise you: lead and/or lead slag!
I am making this suggestion based on a recent (Jan 18th) article by Christopher Bollyn. I believe you should be familiar with the article (since you are quoted as a source of some of the information), entitled: “9/11-Who Put Thermate in the World Trade Center?” In this article we read in reference to WTC 2:
“Fuji Bank was the tenant of floors 79-82, yet for some reason the NIST researchers were unable or unwilling to provide any description of the contents of these crucial floors – four years after 9/11.
A former Japanese bank employee recently came forward and explained that the 81st floor was an entire floor of server-size computer batteries:
Fuji Bank had reinforced the 81st floor, he said, so the floor could support more weight. The entire floor was then filled with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries.
These units were bolted to a raised floor about 3 feet above the reinforced 81st floor. "The whole floor was batteries," he said, "huge battery-looking things." They were "all black" and "solid, very heavy" things that had been brought in during the night. They had been put in place during the summer prior to 9/11, he said.”
Now if we accept this as true it is indeed very significant in light of the fact that such a UPS would undoubtedly involve the use of a large interconnected array of lead-acid batteries. Lead-acid batteries contain kilogram quantities of the extremely hazardous liquid sulfuric acid, and toxic materials such as lead, lead sulfate and lead dioxide, together with smaller amounts of antimony, antimony oxide and cadmium.
In an article on the hazards associated with lead-acid batteries, by Robert L. Taylor,of Morning Star Industries, Inc, we read:
“What happens if a fully charged lead-acid battery cell is shorted? Hopefully the device shorting the battery becomes hot and melts or vaporizes and clears the short. In large installations, there is enough energy available to vaporize copper buss bars and other circuitry. Vaporizing copper has the same expansion rate as exploding dynamite.
If a shorted battery cell does not clear the external short, the electrical connection between the battery terminals allows for a very rapid chemical reaction as the sulfuric acid converts the lead and lead dioxide to lead sulfate. Now the electrical energy is not dissipated externally, but internally in the form of heat. The resulting temperature rise inside the battery cell literally destroys the cell and actually may vaporize the battery materials including the electrolyte and lead.
Actual battery applications are comprised of multiple battery cells. A typical car battery has six cells in series. Telecommunications typically have battery strings of 12 and 24 cells each. Industrial Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems typically have 60 cells in series. When a short is placed across a string of batteries, the resulting fault current will begin discharging all of the cells until one or more cells fail. Now, instead of each cell destroying itself, the cells that have not failed dissipate their energy into the failed cells. Not only do the failed cells typically melt and give off vapors, but these failed cells often become arc furnaces due to the energy contribution from the rest of the battery string. The amount of energy dissipated in the failed cell(s) is usually enough to totally vaporize the whole battery unless the battery fails in such a way as to disconnect the circuit. When the battery cell is on a grounded rack or mounting surface, the circuit continuity is continued through the battery cell’s melted parts and the conductive mounting surface. This type of destruction of the battery cell(s) is typically what is called a battery fire. Substantial clouds of acid mist and vapor will be present during this type of fire and will typically overwhelm a typical ventilation system.”
So consider this scenario but add the effects of an aircraft impact and intense hydrocarbon-fuelled fires and the possibilities become quite frightening! Certainly a Pb-PbSO4-PbO-PbS electrochemical soup would be created and mixed with other chemical species already present on the 81st floor of WTC 2 such as Fe and C. The result would be like a lead smelter which is known to produce WHITE SMOKE, so-called "lead fume", molten lead, and "lead slag".....
Frank Greening
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
I just sent this to Dr. Greening in an Email,
Dear Dr Greening,
In your reply to Dr Jones you left out one thing,
Violent or explosive reaction when heated with aluminum powder.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:-kVAd4Xynr0J:www.espimetals.com/msds%27s/leadoxide.pdf+Lead+Oxide+and+aluminum+reactions&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
