Molten Steel

[GStan]

Ah, no you didn't.

I assume you're referring to the following specification:

<snip all the stuff i don't understand>

Anyway, regarding the camera specification, it's an honest mistake you made and I hope my explanation helps to clarify. Unfortunately, there is a huge difference between finding something that sounds like it could be right, and actually being right. This is why merely Googling around is no substitute for actual training and expertise, and this is why the Truth Movement ever existed to begin with.

jesus h rice, is there any technology that you don't know about?

 

[R.Mackey]

Of course there is.

However, I wrote my graduate thesis on hot-rodding LWIR devices to measure extremely thin objects, which requires a working knowledge of their physics -- so I am unusually well versed in this subject...

 

[Baylor]

jesus h rice, is there any technology that you don't know about?

is there any technology that truthers do know about?

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Ah, no you didn't.

I assume you're referring to the following specification:


Now, what this marketeering site doesn't tell you is that in order to get measurements in the 1500^oC range, you need to set up the camera very, very carefully, and even then the accuracy will be abysmal. You can't just pull it out of the case, turn a dial, and get that result. You need to know precisely what the material is made of. You need to set up proper filters for a particular temperature range. And you need to control the geometry of the problem. You would need to place a calibrated target basically right next to the object you wanted to measure, and shoot from only that location. Changes in angle, smoke, and sunlight will require a recalibration.

None of this is possible from a helicopter, period.

The reason for this is in the detector. Note this is an LWIR device, with peak sensitivity between 8 and 12 microns. This is a great range for measuring the temperature of something where the peak emission wavelength is between 8 and 12 microns, or, in other words, 241 K to 362 K, or about -30^oC to 90^oC, according to Wien's Law. This covers the range of most daily temperatures and most living things, and this is the range nearly all LWIR cameras operate in. This includes the FLIR mounted on DEA helicopters, which I imagine is what the images referred to actually came from.

The way the camera measures temperature is one of two ways, either measuring photons (focal-plane array) or measuring the total amount of energy deposited in a given pixel (bolometer). The effect is pretty much the same, though the physics is different. The FPA approach is electrical in nature, sort of like a CCD, whereas the bolometer measures tiny increases in temperature caused by absorption.

Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. The FPA is preferred in nearly all portable applications, because it allows a lighter device. Bolometers need active cooling and large heat sinks, often using liquid nitrogen, and are expensive and messy particularly in an aviation context. On the other hand, the FPA is much harder to calibrate, and every single pixel requires its own calibration because tiny variations in the array change its characteristics; most FPAs have a built-in sequence to do this but accuracy is limited. A good bolometer can be made with great precision, and as a result can be pushed further outside its normal envelope by a clever researcher.

Whichever device is used, it measures temperature by measuing how much energy arrives at a pixel in some given length of time. When the sensitivity window is comparable to the peak wavelength of the emitted spectrum, the detector captures a large fraction of the total energy. This energy varies with the fourth power of temperature. In our typical example above, going from the low end to the high end -- 241 to 362 K -- means a five-fold increase in energy. So our detector needs to respond to a maximum gain of five. If you want to resolve temperature differences of 1 K, you need about eight bits of resolution, because the difference from 241 to 242 K is about 1/245th of the difference from 241 to 362 K. No problem.

Aha, but now you want to point that detector at a hot fire, up to 1500^oC, or 1773 K. Big, big difference.

First of all, the peak frequency is now well outside the sensor's range -- it's at 1.6 microns.

Second of all, the total power output has raised by a factor of nearly three thousand.

Both cause you problems. Obviously, the energy output is so much higher that you need some way to either block it (like putting on sunglasses) or else you need a whole lot more than eight bits of range. But you also need a totally new analysis approach. Before, you could assume that your detector captured a good fraction, say 25% or more, of the total energy. Now, that is no longer true. Your window of 8-12 microns is now not even a few percent. So your original assumption -- and the equation your camera uses to estimate temperature -- goes out the window.

The other problem is that your detector is not only sensitive to the 8-12 micron band. It is most sensitive there, and there is some rudimentary filtering applied (filtering that is as lightweight as possible, since it too emits thermal energy and will confuse your readings), but it will be partially sensitive to radiation well outside this range. The actual response curve will be a spiky, jaggy thing over the entire continuum. So, suppose your detector is 100% efficient on photons in the 8-12 micron range, and a mere 5% efficient in the 1-2 micron range. Well, with a temperature this high, the contribution from 1-2 microns may actually swamp that of the intended range. Unless you've tested this, you cannot predict how it will behave. And as the temperature goes up, more and more of the shorter wavelengths come into play.

So the smart thing to do, obviously, is pick a different detector that is most sensitive around the new peak wavelength. Why don't we do that? Well, we do, in fact, with a device called an optical pyrometer. What this does is to either intercept all of the incoming radiation, across all bands, or it seeks the peak wavelength, and from either measurement extrapolates temperature. These are pretty common.

Unfortunately, they don't work in this case. A lot of the energy is in the visible or near-IR spectra. That's bad because now there are lots of new sources of interference. Smoke will block it, sunshine will add to it, and now the emissivity of the material becomes of crucial importance. An optical pyrometer only works well if you can test it in the shade, and if you can get pretty close to the object you're studying. Neither of these work well in this case.

The reason the DEA FLIR is still somewhat relevant is the 8-12 micron range is pretty good at cutting through smoke, and is not greatly affected by daylight. So it's a good one to use from a helicopter. But, because you're operating in the entirely wrong part of the spectrum, it gives you terrible performance in temperature estimation. I even believe the FLIR may have given them a 2800^oF estimate, but that number can't be trusted -- it would be +/- 1000^oF or more. I've actually observed this effect with LWIR cameras. The ones with better software throw you an "UNCAL" flag to warn you that the number is totally bogus.

Now, back to the specification. You can, if you're careful, set up a good LWIR camera just like an optical pyrometer. But to do this requires repeatability. Nobody knows what the camera will do if you point it at a 2800^oF object under certain conditions of lighting, distance, surface condition, and so on, so what you do is set up a test where the temperature is known. Then you add filters and adjust the gain and fiddle with the camera until that known object shows up in the middle of the camera's operating range. Then, so long as everything stays the same, you can use it to estimate temperature of a similar, unknown object. It's doable in the laboratory, and absolutely ridiculous on the Pile from a helicopter.


But there is one other way to do it, one that doesn't require all the babysitting described above. The other way is, rather than estimate temperature from the total energy received by the detector, is to look at the shape of the blackbody curve. Even if you're restricted to a suboptimal frequency band like the 8-12 micron range, you can still make a pretty good guess about the temperature from how steep the blackbody curve is in that region.

To do this, you need a detector with many different, narrow bands of sensitivity, or one that measures not just the total number of photons, but the actual energy (the "color," if you will) of each one. Such a device is known as a spectrometer. This is what AVIRIS does, and that's why it produces reliable temperature estimates, though the processing is complicated. See the papers I already linked you to, where they describe the shape-fitting process to work out the actual temperature.

But this can't be done with a thermal imager, period. Those have no capacity for spectroscopy.


In summary, there is no IR camera that will work in this case. Can't be done. You would either need (a) a near-IR camera, in which case smoke and daylight and materials will interfere so much that it's not worth doing; (b) some way to brute-force calibrate a LWIR camera that accurately describes the conditions of the Pile, which is not possible period; or (c) give up and hire a spectrometer.

The officials in charge chose option (c), and the instrument determined the temperatures were nowhere near 2800^oF. Maximum observed was under 1400^oF. That's all there is to it.



The evidence I have is that there are several papers presenting the AVIRIS data. Obviously that instrument was there, is capable of measuring the temperature, and proved it was much lower than the other article (with no support and no credible way of getting its measurement) claimed.



No. There is no reason to assume it was fused by heat. During the collapses, it would have experience pressures in excess of 100,000 PSI. That's more than enough to fuse steel and concrete. Even at room temperature, if you hit steel hard enough, it will weld.

Anyway, regarding the camera specification, it's an honest mistake you made and I hope my explanation helps to clarify. Unfortunately, there is a huge difference between finding something that sounds like it could be right, and actually being right. This is why merely Googling around is no substitute for actual training and expertise, and this is why the Truth Movement ever existed to begin with.

Holy Christ. That wouldn't be you would it?

I've never seen so much hand waving in all my life.

Did you actually appeal to an authority that is you?

How long would it take for your head to globally collapse and what would be the heat measurements from a infrared camera on Mars?

Calculations please.

Thank you.

 

[GStan]

Of course there is.

However, I wrote my graduate thesis on hot-rodding LWIR devices to measure extremely thin objects, which requires a working knowledge of their physics -- so I am unusually well versed in this subject...

Well, it seems as though you are unusually well versed in quite a few subjects. In any case, thanks for the continued enlightenment on the stuff I can understand, and **** you for the headaches I got from the stuff I couldn't.

[/OT ego stroke]

 

[GStan]

Holy Christ. That wouldn't be you would it?

I've never seen so much hand waving in all my life.

Did you actually appeal to an authority that is you?

How long would it take for your head to globally collapse and what would be the heat measurements from a infrared camera on Mars?

Calculations please.

Thank you.

Now this post I can actually sympathize with. I would probably be frustrated too if my belief system had no authorities to appeal to who were supporting it.

 

[funk de fino]

so you agree then that NIST did not follow the NFPA guidelines?

peace

They did not have to, they were not investigating a suspected arson attack they were carrying out an engineering study.

Why ignore the link I gave you where people are named who may have followed the guidelines ? Page 8 Assertion 6.

Do you agree with the fact the steel was examined by forensic investigators, demo teams and city officials as stated? It debunks some of your other claims.

 

[T.A.M.]

Of course there is.

However, I wrote my graduate thesis on hot-rodding LWIR devices to measure extremely thin objects, which requires a working knowledge of their physics -- so I am unusually well versed in this subject...

Mackey:

My Physics is not much beyond intro college level, and has not been used much by me, in, oh, 15 years.

That said, I thought, for something to fuse, that the fusing parts, at least on their contact surfaces, had to have heat sufficient to meld the parts together.

Since you seem to indicate otherwise, care to give me a brief, "semi laymen" physics/chemistry lesson on how it works without heat.

Thanks

TAM

 

[NutCracker]

Holy Christ. That wouldn't be you would it?

I've never seen so much hand waving in all my life.

Did you actually appeal to an authority that is you?

How long would it take for your head to globally collapse and what would be the heat measurements from a infrared camera on Mars?

Calculations please.

Thank you.

Please, HI, if you disagree with Mr. Mackey, as you seem to do, please do take the opportunity to prove him wrong. Get yourself acquainted with IR camera technology and relevant theory such as black body radiation, Stefan-Boltzmann law and point out where and why he is wrong.

Since you did nothing of the kind and Mr. Mackey's position draws on, and is consistent with, knowledge that mankind has accumulated over well over a century, upon the time you do just that I stick to the position that it is actually you that is doing the hand waving.

 

[T.A.M.]

whining and complaining is HI's MO. I'd say get use to it, or do what I do (hint, the ignore function can be brought up by clicking on the username to the left of their post).

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

It is not an appeal to authority when the one making the argument provides facts. An appeal to authority is saying "Person X is right because he is an expert". The part that makes that statement logically fallacious is that it is not supported with reason or logical arguments. Instead, it's nothing more than an assertion.

Contrast that to Ryan's post. What he did was state "My conclusion is correct because of these facts". That is the complete opposite of making an argument resting on authority. He rested it instead on his personal knowledge of the technology. The fact that it was personal knowledge cannot be used against him in rebuttal. That's just silly.

This shouldn't have to be explained. It's stupid that anyone can even try to build a case that a factually supported argument should be disqualified because of the arguer's personal knowledge of the subject. That abuses logic.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey:

My Physics is not much beyond intro college level, and has not been used much by me, in, oh, 15 years.

That said, I thought, for something to fuse, that the fusing parts, at least on their contact surfaces, had to have heat sufficient to meld the parts together.

Since you seem to indicate otherwise, care to give me a brief, "semi laymen" physics/chemistry lesson on how it works without heat.

Thanks

TAM

Sure.

Friction. That is all.

If you had two ideally flat plates being pressed together by an immense uniform normal force, I don't think that would fuse anything, but that's not what we've got here.

ETA: There's a few articles on the subject, such as here. It's somewhat cost-prohibitive to set up a collapsing structure to do your welding for you, so the pressures are generally created using explosives in industrial applications.

 

[bje]

Would you support the analyze of the meteorite to establish empirically and to end all speculation that it is indeed – (as the expert suggests) – a fused element of steel and concrete through heat?

Now assuming it is determined to be a fused element by heat and we know that to melt steel takes 2800 F. We can conclude that absolutely ‘something’ must have generated this heat. Any ideas?

Given that the office fires would not be hot enough to cause such an effect, that the collapse itself would not generate the heat to cause this effect, then perhaps it was created in the rubble pile? If not then i would be more inclined to believe that it was caused from exotic accelerants.

You're always welcome to show us how it would be possible for molten metal to solidify around steel rebar without melting the rebar.

So far none have taken up the challenge.

 

[T.A.M.]

Sure.

Friction. That is all.

If you had two ideally flat plates being pressed together by an immense uniform normal force, I don't think that would fuse anything, but that's not what we've got here.

ETA: There's a few articles on the subject, such as here. It's somewhat cost-prohibitive to set up a collapsing structure to do your welding for you, so the pressures are generally created using explosives in industrial applications.

right, but that in of itself is heat, is it not. That was my point, that all fusion, in pure form, is the result of heat, isn't it?

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

The situation is adiabatic. No heat is added to the system.

You can freely convert other forms of energy into heat and vice versa, but that always happens, so unless you're nitpicking I would say "no."

 

[rwguinn]

The situation is adiabatic. No heat is added to the system.

You can freely convert other forms of energy into heat and vice versa, but that always happens, so unless you're nitpicking I would say "no."

I think that what T.A.M. was saying is that the contact surfaces must be at the melting point for fusing to take place.
How it gets to that temp is a matter of applied energy-friction, outside heating, whatever.
Or am I way off base, T.A.M. ?

 

[T.A.M.]

I think that what T.A.M. was saying is that the contact surfaces must be at the melting point for fusing to take place.
How it gets to that temp is a matter of applied energy-friction, outside heating, whatever.
Or am I way off base, T.A.M. ?

you are 100% correct sir, and obviously stated it much clearer than I did.

TAM

 

[thewholesoul]

fusion of the meteorite, I would guess, regardless from fire or compression, was ultimately due to heat.

Ok, let’s say that after analyzes the meteorite was proven to be the fusion of steel and concrete. Presumably temperatures around 2800 F would be required. Let us also assume that the Big Mackey is right and the 2800 F temperature reading from Professional Safety magazine is false or made up, that such extreme temperatures could never have been and were never generated from within the rubble pile. Consequently we can rule out the meteorite being formed in the rubble pile. This would mean that it must have occured prior to the rubble pile, during the collapse? Extreme temperatures sufficient to fuse steel and concrete during the collapse would not support the official collapse hypothesis. What do you think?

I am not familiar with what NFPA is, or its relevance to this, but sulfur residue is likely due to the tonnes of sulfur found within the wallboard. The WTC was full of it. Can you prove the sulfidation was not due to the combination of heat, sulfur from the wallboard or other components of the debris pile, and the iron/steel?

The fact that 7 years on we are still talking about the sulfur residue on the steel “likely” being this and “likely” being that is the point i wish to make. It is a fact that sulfidation of steel is an indication – not proof - of the presence of exotic accelerants. The official investigation has terminated so a new investigation is needed whereby this question is settled empirically in a lab by physical testing with published videos, photos etc. For instance if the sulfidation and “swiss cheese” effect observed on the wtc 7 steel samples can be recreated by the sulphur in the wallboard or by the diesel fuel as suggested by sunstealer then lets have it. Likewise if truthers can recreate this effect from exotic accelerants then show us the beef, but this continual state of ambiguity on so many issues in relation to 911 screams out for a new more empirically orientated investigation. Wouldnt you agree? Because i dont want to be here in another 7 years still talking about “maybes”.

No, if we were having unresolved issues that would lead to another cause of the collapse initiation, then we would need a new investigation. As I said above, molten metal, and presence of sulfur residue are to be expected.

Firstly, explain to me why they were expected?

Secondly, the reason these relevant issues remain unresolved is precisely because they have not been sufficiently investigated. According to NFPA both molten metal and sulfidation of steel are possible indications of exotic accelerants therefore it is impossible to rule out the possible presence of exotic accelerants until an investigation actually rules them out. Your putting the horse before the cart my friend.

Thirdly, NIST did fail the requirment of total evidence because it failed to address all relevant evidence. Molten metal and sulfidation of steel. among many other things, are relevant because they indicate the presence of exotic accelerants hence they could potentially falsify NIST’s collapse hypothesis if confirmed or verified.

No, you prove to me that molten steel should not have been found in the debris pile of the collapse of those buildings. None of the experts that were involved in recovery or clean up made any mention of it, or of it being odd, or something that should not be there. As a result, I see no need to investigate it.

No i prove it, no you prove it, we are becoming repetitive amigo mio. The reason i opened this thread was to argue for a new investigation and the very fact there are still unresolved issues left to be resolved only serves to reaffirm my argument.

The crucial question is why should these unresolved issues be investigated? Your rationale that they should not because basically noone thought their presence odd is not a sound reason.

The truth is according to the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations molten metal or sulfidation of steel members is an indication of exotic accelerants which are routinely investigated. For instance between 1981-1991 25 fires suspected of high temperature acelerants were forensically examined eventhough there was no conclusive scientific proof of there use. http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=6 Now funk fino is correct when he says that NIST were not obligated to follow their guidelines but what funk fails to mention is what standard or guidelines was NIST’s investigation following? So investigating such “expected anomolies” (trying to make us both happy) is standard procedure.

Furthermore because molten metal and sulfidation indicate exotic accelerants it is extremely relevant to the investigation because if their presence was established the official collapse hypothesis would be abandoned.

Besides you already agreed in an earlier post that you would welcome further analyses on the steel-concrete meteorite so your resistance now to investigating unresolved issues (which includes the steel-concrete meteorite) is somewhat of a contradiction.

Sorry. Once again, the burden of proof is on the person claiming a theory contrary to the accepted one.

I prove it, you prove it, why not support a new investigation because (a) it is standard procedure in fire and explosion investigation to prove what caused molten metal etc and (b) determining its cause is relevant to the collapse hypothesis.

1. The presence of the microspheres does not confirm thermite. There are many threads on this issue, with the likes of Dr. Greening contributing. The conclusion, certainly was not that ONLY thermite could produce those spheres...sorry.

2. The conclusion of much discussion was that any organic material of sufficient quantity, along with heat and iron, could produce such spheres.

The presence of iron sphericules with the same chemical composition as commercial thermite certainly establishes the possibility that commercial thermite was present. Admitedly more work is needed on behalf of jones to eliminate other possible sources that you have eluded to above.

You mean those ridiculous experiments that Jones carried out. Give me a break. He added a few wood chips to the aluminum, and then when it didnt go orange, he claimed success. Hardly proof, hardly scientific.

Let me get this straight, Jones tested NIST’s claim that the molten metal from south tower was aluminium + organics. And when he proves NIST’s claim false his experiments are ridiculous eventhough he published video and photos of his experiments for all to see! http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf

Why doesnt NIST’s prove THEIR OWN FRIGGIN CLAIM...lol...where is your burden of proof argument now T.A.M.?

Can you send me a single experiment demonstrating how organics mixed with aluminium glows bright orange in daylight? No you cant...

final question and its very important to me in understanding the psychology of defenders of the official conspiracy:
1. why did you believe NIST's claim that the molten flow from the south tower was aluminium + organics when they had never empirically demonstrated their claim to be true?

2. and why do you still beleive their claim eventhough jones has empirically demonstarted their claim to be false?

peace

 

[stateofgrace]

Ok, let’s say that after analyzes the meteorite was proven to be the fusion of steel and concrete. Presumably temperatures around 2800 F would be required.

I read this far.

Please fully explain your presumption. No beating about the bush, no dodging, explain in you own words why the temperature of 2800 F would be required to produce the "meteorite".

Explain fully where the heat came from, explain fully why it is not a product of massive dynamic weights exerting massive pressures. I am on the edge of my seat awaiting your full explanation

 

[rwguinn]

Anybody with a brain got an idea how you "fuse" steel and concrete?