POSITIVE EVIDENCE for WTC7 Controlled Demolition

[pomeroo]

Yes, looked hotter.

Just imagine the sort of stuff you'd post if you were a twoofer.

 

[1337m4n]

I wasn't aware you could tell the temperature of something by looking at it.

 

[Gravy]

So the reported temperature of near 1000C in JOM is an anomoly?

No. Exactly what about my post did you not understand?

And intergranular melting/rapid oxidation/sulfidization are then anomilies too?

Yes, obviously. That's why they saved those few unusual samples to study.

And what official report of recent even covers these issues?

Shouldn't you do your homework before you make your claims? Is there any reason to argue from ignorance, beyond enjoying trolling?

Third time, Sizzler: present your evidence that the fires in the piles could not have have burned as they did.

Next, present your evidence that explosives or incendiaries like thermite cause months-long, spreading fires in rubble piles.

Time to poop or get off the pot. Stop wasting our time.

 

[Pardalis]

Just imagine the sort of stuff you'd post if you were a twoofer.

Still waiting for that "pull it" aren't ya?

 

[Sizzler]

No. Exactly what about my post did you not understand?

Yes, obviously. That's why they saved those few unusual samples to study.


Shouldn't you do your homework before you make your claims? Is there any reason to argue from ignorance, beyond enjoying trolling?

Third time, Sizzler: present your evidence that the fires in the piles could not have have burned as they did.

Next, present your evidence that explosives or incendiaries like thermite cause months-long, spreading fires in rubble piles.

Time to poop or get off the pot. Stop wasting our time.

So thinning/melting/fast oxization/etc is an anomoly. That anomoly needs a temperature near 1000C. To have that temperature melt steel, sulfur is needed.

So what would happen if we mixed red hot steel with crushed gypsum and a nice thick blanket of dust. Would the steel rapidly oxidize increasing in temperature such that it forms an oven and the steel "burns" and melts itself?

Isnt that what 9-11debunking should have me believe?

Is that what I should believe?

 

[Pardalis]

How can you tell?

How the simple questions always get ignored...

 

[Sizzler]

How the simple questions always get ignored...

Dude I don't care to reply because your question is stupid.
I can post more than photo of a large fire in an skyscraper that is cited as being 800C.

Thus I use that figure for WTC7 even though the fire is smaller.

So whatever, right.

800C is fair.

 

[Pardalis]

Dude I don't care to reply because your question is stupid.
I can post more than photo of a large fire in an skyscraper that is cited as being 800C.

Thus I use that figure for WTC7 even though the fire is smaller.

So whatever, right.

800C is fair.

My question is stupid?

How can you tell how hot a fire is from a picture?

Pretty straight-forward to me.

 

[Gravy]

So what would happen if we mixed red hot steel with crushed gypsum and a nice thick blanket of dust. Would the steel rapidly oxidize increasing in temperature such that it forms an oven and the steel "burns" and melts itself?

Why?

Isnt that what 9-11debunking should have me believe?

Why?

Is that what I should believe?

Why?

Fourth time, Sizzler: present your evidence that the fires in the piles could not have have burned as they did.

Next, present your evidence that explosives or incendiaries like thermite cause months-long, spreading fires in rubble piles.

Time to poop or get off the pot. Stop wasting our time.

 

[Gravy]

Thus I use that figure for WTC7 even though the fire is smaller.

Do you understand that one image of fire in WTC 7, taken long before collapse, is not representative of all the fire and all the temperatures in the building? Yes or no?

 

[Sizzler]

Why?

Why?

Why?

Fourth time, Sizzler: present your evidence that the fires in the piles could not have have burned as they did.

Next, present your evidence that explosives or incendiaries like thermite cause months-long, spreading fires in rubble piles.

Time to poop or get off the pot. Stop wasting our time.

The evidence was already presented.

We know temperatures of the steel had to be near 1000C according to JOM.

I'm assuming a temperature of 800C for the steel in the office fires. So the fires must have gotten hotter in the rubble piles such that the steel increased 200C. Diffuse oxygen poor fires may smolder longer than open fires, but certainly not hot enough to cause steel to be 1000C.

Remember oxygen is the fuel source. How can removing a lot of the fuel source cause more heat to be released over a longer period of time? It's one or the other.

This is explained on 911debuning.com in the section on "iron burns".

Steel oxidizes faster when it is hot. So if one were to take several red hot steel beams and put a blanket of debris on it, the steel beams would eventually melt away. If gypsum board is added then sulfur will also lower the melting temperature.

But, oxidation requires oxygen. Remeber.....

So I ask you, if I take red hot steel and add crushed gypsum and put a blanket of debris on it, will the steel exibit intergranular melting/rapid oxidation/sufidization?

 

[Sizzler]

Do you understand that one image of fire in WTC 7, taken long before collapse, is not representative of all the fire and all the temperatures in the building? Yes or no?

fine. how hot were the office fires then? simple question.

 

[R.Mackey]

I may be wasting my time here, but let me try to help. You've made numerous errors here, regardless of what you're trying to conclude -- I wouldn't let a "debunker" get away with these things, either.

The evidence was already presented.

We know temperatures of the steel had to be near 1000C according to JOM.

The "JOM" is a journal. It doesn't conclude anything. What article are you referring to? Because I can name several that say something quite different. Citation, please.

I'm assuming a temperature of 800C for the steel in the office fires. So the fires must have gotten hotter in the rubble piles such that the steel increased 200C. Diffuse oxygen poor fires may smolder longer than open fires, but certainly not hot enough to cause steel to be 1000C.

I'll buy your 800 ^oC estimate, it's high but not much. But why do you think the piles got hotter? I'm not saying they didn't, I want to know what you're talking about.

"Diffuse oxygen poor fires" such as smouldering coal seams can easily exceed 1000 ^oC. You're going to have to be more precise, because as you have it stated here, you're wrong.

Remember oxygen is the fuel source. How can removing a lot of the fuel source cause more heat to be released over a longer period of time? It's one or the other.

Oxygen is not a fuel source except in the most extreme cases. It's an oxidizer. Removing a lot of the oxygen almost guarantees heat would be released over a longer period of time, because it lowers the rate of fuel consumption.

This is explained on 911debuning.com in the section on "iron burns".

Steel oxidizes faster when it is hot. So if one were to take several red hot steel beams and put a blanket of debris on it, the steel beams would eventually melt away. If gypsum board is added then sulfur will also lower the melting temperature.

Eh, no. "Red hot beams," i.e. beams in the 600-1000 ^oC range, will not combust without extraordinary circumstances. They'll rust quickly on the surface, but that's not going to have much effect. Adding sulfur will both lower the melting temperature and increase erosion through chemical attack. But it's not quite as simple as you have it here.

But, oxidation requires oxygen. Remeber.....

It doesn't if there's another oxidizer present, but oxygen is by far the most common oxidizer. Just a nitpick.

So I ask you, if I take red hot steel and add crushed gypsum and put a blanket of debris on it, will the steel exibit intergranular melting/rapid oxidation/sufidization?

This is a fair question. It probably will exhibit some intergranular eutectic reaction with sulfur, but it's not going to be an instant thing. Probably hours, maybe days, maybe more. Sulfur in drywall is not in a particularly favorable form, being already in a stable state. A physical chemist could tell you more. If instead of drywall, you add sulfuric acid for instance, the reaction will be much more pronounced.

How dramatic the reaction is will be a complex function of temperature, chemistry, surface condition, and so on. We'd need a number of experiments to predict how fast it would occur.

 

[Gravy]

The evidence was already presented.

False. You have not answered these questions, which you need to be able to do to establish your claim.

Fifth time, Sizzler: present your evidence that the fires in the piles could not have have burned as they did.

Next, present your evidence that explosives or incendiaries like thermite cause months-long, spreading fires in rubble piles.

 

[Gravy]

fine. how hot were the office fires then? simple question.

I'll be waiting for NIST to explain their analysis of that question in their final WTC 7 report. That's because I can't determine how hot the fires were inside the building from looking at a few windows on the outside. Is there any reason that I should guess instead?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Sizzler, you claim that you're just interested in the truth, and you don't think the official version is correct, right?

I've got to ask why?

I don’t mean to be overly sarcastic, but your position appears to be identical to the people who don’t believe Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, but have no trouble accepting the premise that little gray men are piloting saucers out of Groom Lake every night.

You don't have an alternative theory that holds an ounce of water, and you've spent all this bandwidth on minutiae that completely ignores the big picture.
In order for there to be any explanation that even remotely fits the CD model you have to have a conspiracy that at least 4 people were willing to kill themselves for, utilizing a method of demolition that has never been demonstrated before, defying every standard procedure for a CD (while at the same time leaving no trace above the microscopic level), and has the ability to solicit the cooperation of at least a dozen separate (and usually competing) City, County, State and Federal agencies, all working within a veil of secrecy that has maintained an airtight operational security envelope for over six years despite the fact that it would have involved hundreds of conspirators.

Compared to that, just exactly what is so unbelievable?

 

[Sizzler]

I may be wasting my time here, but let me try to help. You've made numerous errors here, regardless of what you're trying to conclude -- I wouldn't let a "debunker" get away with these things, either.



The "JOM" is a journal. It doesn't conclude anything. What article are you referring to? Because I can name several that say something quite different. Citation, please.



I'll buy your 800 ^oC estimate, it's high but not much. But why do you think the piles got hotter? I'm not saying they didn't, I want to know what you're talking about.

"Diffuse oxygen poor fires" such as smouldering coal seams can easily exceed 1000 ^oC. You're going to have to be more precise, because as you have it stated here, you're wrong.



Oxygen is not a fuel source except in the most extreme cases. It's an oxidizer. Removing a lot of the oxygen almost guarantees heat would be released over a longer period of time, because it lowers the rate of fuel consumption.



Eh, no. "Red hot beams," i.e. beams in the 600-1000 ^oC range, will not combust without extraordinary circumstances. They'll rust quickly on the surface, but that's not going to have much effect. Adding sulfur will both lower the melting temperature and increase erosion through chemical attack. But it's not quite as simple as you have it here.



It doesn't if there's another oxidizer present, but oxygen is by far the most common oxidizer. Just a nitpick.



This is a fair question. It probably will exhibit some intergranular eutectic reaction with sulfur, but it's not going to be an instant thing. Probably hours, maybe days, maybe more. Sulfur in drywall is not in a particularly favorable form, being already in a stable state. A physical chemist could tell you more. If instead of drywall, you add sulfuric acid for instance, the reaction will be much more pronounced.

How dramatic the reaction is will be a complex function of temperature, chemistry, surface condition, and so on. We'd need a number of experiments to predict how fast it would occur.

Thanks. You helped me out a lot.

I'll start with this.

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

ANALYSIS
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

but then I read this about the Twin Towers,

Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

So I assumed the WTC7 steel would experience similar temperatures before collapse.

So I wonder how some beams increased from 750-800C to nearing 1000C. And, where did the sulfur come from?

If the office fires got the steel to 800C, how could the same smoldering fires increase the temperatures of the steel?

Was coal in WTC7? I thought diffuse hydrocarbon fires burn around 850 or so. Smoldering rubble piles had less oxygen. Longer fires but lower temperatures.

 

[MikeW]

I thought diffuse hydrocarbon fires burn around 850 or so. Smoldering rubble piles had less oxygen. Longer fires but lower temperatures.

We could always try taking a look at real fire tests:

(Source)

And what it means:

The effect of ventilation and fire load on fire severity is illustrated in Figure 2. Fire tests were conducted in compartments where the fire load and the natural ventilation were varied. The well ventilated compartments experienced lower temperatures and fires of shorter duration. In Figure 2 the numbers identified with each curve indicate the fire load density in kg/m2 (ie 60, 30 or 15) and the ventilation area as a proportion of the façade area (ie ½ or ¼).

So the first number is the fire load, and we can see from the graph that has a big influence on temperature. Reduced ventilation resulted in higher temperatures, though: the fire built up more gradually, lasted longer, and the insulating effect of the compartment ensured temperatures could increase further. Up towards 1500 degrees C, in fact.

Now, we can argue about how applicable this might be to Ground Zero. Perhaps there still wouldn't have been sufficient fuel load. Maybe if the ventilation were lower still, then temperatures would have dropped, rather than increased. But what you can't do is argue that regular fires cannot reach 1000 degrees C, or reducing the oxygen supply automatically means lower temperatures in the pile, because that simply isn't true.

 

[Sizzler]

The simple facts of temperatures:

1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

what does this mean then?

 

[MikeW]

what does this mean then?

Well, I've just presented real-world tests that show regular fires can attain temperatures approaching 1500 degrees C, and that those temperatures are higher when the ventilation is reduced.

I suppose we could throw that away and pretend it never happened because it's inconvenient to the demolition case.

Or, we could assume that your interpretation is missing something. Like any measurement of what "oxygen-starved" actually means, any proof that the ground zero fires were oxygen-starved (let's not forget those basements with the PATH tunnels), and the fact that you're talking only about "flame temperature", ignoring what happens if fires burn for longer and heat is retained by the insulating effect of the rubble pile.