Merged So there was melted steel

(six weeks however (if true) seems like a very long time for the dispersed fuel).
Click to expand...

You may fancy yourself a non-truther, but statements like this show otherwise, for two reasons:

6 weeks isn't a long time.
You have no way of knowing how dispersed whatever fuel was burning was.

There too many examples of fires burning for 6 months or more to even begin to post, nevermind 6 weeks. Fires do not go out on their own if there is fuel to burn, and oxygen to sustain it. In the pile, there were an abundance of both.

When you make statements like that, you need to do a bit of research. 6 weeks is too long? Well - typically when presented with a thought like that people would try to determine if it is indeed too long. They don't just call it "suspicous" or imply that it is. They'd head on over to the local Googles and let their fingers do the walking.

Do me a favor - go to Google, type in "longest fires" and tell me what you find.

Here's some text from that very search:
The other reasons are human. For nearly three weeks, Tinsley says, city officials insisted that work at Ground Zero was a rescue operation, meaning it would have been inappropriate to flood the rubble with water. As a result, he says, "the fires had a 17-day head start when we arrived."


Bottom line - if you think something is out of the ordinary or remarkable in some way, try to find out if it actually is.
 
Zeuzzz said:
So what do people make of the NASA AVIRIS thermal image of ground zero on 9/16/01?

[qimg]http://www.cf911truth.org/ae911truth.16b.jpg[/qimg]

Anyone know the temperatures this demonstrates? And what the chances of that many natural steel melting furnaces forming are?
Click to expand...

It shows areas that were realtively hot which could be indicative of underground fires and in probably is for the most part.

I for one do believe that a furnace like condition could manifest itself in the rubble pile. Insulated volume surrounding a volume in which carbin fuels are combusting and drawing air in and exhausting hot combustion byproducts. The fires burn heating the insulative layer which the incoming air must pass through thus this air is preheated before reaching the combustion zone. Exhaust gases at first travel into areas where unburned volitiles condense on cooler surfaces. After a few days though these condensates are them selves now involved in the volume in which new fuel is burning, the incoming air is heated more than it was days ago, thus the temperature of the combusting volume goes up as heat released no longer is needed as much to heat the oxygen and these unburned condensates now ignite and release more heat, burning at temperatures not originally reached earlier, drawing greater air flow.

In fact the above basically describes a chimney fire in some aspects. Wood stove chimney fires DO reach temperatures of 2000 F

Zeuzzz said:
Curiosity. This is direct data that you can apply direct scientific meaning to, not just a video or someones anecdotal account of events.
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
Do we have accounts of people traveling down subway tunnels all the way to points of collapse and damage? would be nice to see maps/plans of the subway tunnels in relation to the world trade centers, including information on their depth.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are. Search the forums and you will even find a picture or two of the rubble extending into the subway.

Zeuzzz said:
Ok i'm convinced that a few underground fires could have had enough oxygen supplied to stay sustained (six weeks however (if true) seems like a very long time for the dispersed fuel). The rubble above them was not a solid mass, there would have been numerous air holes and pipes as stated above to keep fires going underground for a short time.
Click to expand...
If air was getting in on day one it would very likely continue to get in on day 45. Volume that is burning would indeed travel and follow the fuel source. Air reaching this area would be moving through areas that were previously burning thus preheating that air thus increasing the temperatures reached in the newer burn.


Its the NASA data released to the whitehouse and government agencies that I want to see to clarify the temperature scale on colors in the AVIRIS thermal image of ground zero.
Click to expand...

Well you got that image from somewhere, what does that source say about where it comes from? Did they not attribute it to anyone? If they found the original report from which it is taken, don't you think you can too?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Do we have accounts of people traveling down subway tunnels all the way to points of collapse and damage? would be nice to see maps/plans of the subway tunnels in relation to the world trade centers, including information on their depth.
Click to expand...


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/30/article-1334404-0044ED8900000258-910_468x293.jpg (source)
http://www.stevespak.com/gzh6.jpg (source)
http://www.usace.army.mil/History/PublishingImages/September 11th1/WTC/WTC_subway_jpg.jpg (source)

Edit: Plenty of images here.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
I for one do believe that a furnace like condition could manifest itself in the rubble pile. Insulated volume surrounding a volume in which carbin fuels are combusting and drawing air in and exhausting hot combustion byproducts. The fires burn heating the insulative layer which the incoming air must pass through thus this air is preheated before reaching the combustion zone. Exhaust gases at first travel into areas where unburned volitiles condense on cooler surfaces. After a few days though these condensates are them selves now involved in the volume in which new fuel is burning, the incoming air is heated more than it was days ago, thus the temperature of the combusting volume goes up as heat released no longer is needed as much to heat the oxygen and these unburned condensates now ignite and release more heat, burning at temperatures not originally reached earlier, drawing greater air flow.
Click to expand...


What are these unburned condensates? And how is the supply of them so constant over such a long time period to keep the fires ablaze for six weeks?

I'm not 100% sure of what you are talking about, if you could try to re-phrase it more coherently that would be appreciated.

In fact the above basically describes a chimney fire in some aspects. Wood stove chimney fires DO reach temperatures of 2000 F
Click to expand...


Agreed.
 
Zeuzzz said:
What are these unburned condensates? And how is the supply of them so constant over such a long time period to keep the fires ablaze for six weeks?
Click to expand...

OK, you do know what a chimney fire is, right?
It is combustible chemicals released from wood as it burns yet which does not ignite. It goes into the flue, condescences on the inside surface of the flue and at a later date under various circumstances does then ignite and burn hotter than a normal wood fire. It WILL burn through stainless steel chimney pipes. Chimney pipes involved in a chimney fire MUST, under Canadian fire codes, be replaced. (at least that is what the chimney manufacturer rep told me back when I used to sell them.)
Same would occur in a fire that is burning other carbon based fuels.

With me so far?

I have NOT said that these condesates would be THE fuel that keeps the volume burning for 6 weeks. That is the job of the fuel not yet reached by the fires. Even in a bonfire you will see unburned wood at the edges of the fire which eventually do burn BUT NOT ALL THE FUEL is burning at the same time. It it had to be so then house fires would be inescapable wouldn't they?

So the fires follow the fuel source, unburned condensates ingite as the volume gets hotter due to both the insulation and the preheating of combustion air. These condensates burn at higher temps than the original fuels and release even more heat to the underground enviroment.

I'm not 100% sure of what you are talking about, if you could try to re-phrase it more coherently that would be appreciated.
Click to expand...


I did not think it was so hard to follow but does the above help?

You mistakenly seem to think that the only air avalable would be used up over time.
You also now seem to mistakenly think that all the underground fuels would be burning all at once.
 
Last edited:
In fact stove pipe(the uninsulated steel pipe that runs from stove to ceiling and connects with the insulated chimney section there) is installed with the crimp edge facing down. People look at this and wonder why this way? They seem to think that this will allow smoke to escape at the crimp as it moves up.
No it won't as the draft will actually draw air INTO the pipe at that point. The crimp goes down so that condensing gasses do not drip down on the outside of the pipe.
 
Zeuzzz said:
What are these unburned condensates? And how is the supply of them so constant over such a long time period to keep the fires ablaze for six weeks?
Click to expand...

The same way it happens in a landfill fire, only it had even more fuel and even more oxygen. :rolleyes:
 
Zeuzzz said:
Curiosity. This is direct data that you can apply direct scientific meaning to, not just a video or someones anecdotal account of events.
Click to expand...

Well, you quoted the answer already:

...fires burning at the World Trade Center site with temperatures ranging from 800 degrees to 1,000 degrees...
Click to expand...

Are you surprised that there were fires on the surface of a debris pile? Or are you surprised that fires reach temperatures ranging from 800 degrees to 1,000 degrees (Celsius, I presume)?

Do you have any idea what the temperature of the flame of your log fire or romantic candle is? (Hint: Bonfires frequently exceed 1000°C, candles reach up to 1400°C)
 
Oystein said:
Are you surprised that there were fires on the surface of a debris pile? Or are you surprised that fires reach temperatures ranging from 800 degrees to 1,000 degrees (Celsius, I presume)?
Click to expand...


Celsius I presume too, not much difference between K and C tbh when we get into more than 10^3 temps.

I'm not surprised at all, but I would like to re-iterate my question:

Zeuzzz said:
I would very much like to see that data so I can understand the temperature scale attributed to the pictures
Click to expand...


I do not know for sure until I see the data of which color corresponds to which temperature. All I have to go on is an anecdotal quote from the website I quoted before, which doesn't seem too representative.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Celsius I presume too, not much difference between K and C tbh when we get into more than 10^3 temps.
Click to expand...
I was thinking "degrees Celsius, not Fahrenheit", as Kelvins are not degrees ;)

Zeuzzz said:
I'm not surprised at all, but I would like to re-iterate my question:

I do not know for sure until I see the data of which color corresponds to which temperature. All I have to go on is an anecdotal quote from the website I quoted before, which doesn't seem too representative.
Click to expand...
And why are you interested in that? Because some website told you an anecdote that they failed to support with sufficient citations? Why do you presume anything in that anecdote is of interest? What will you do with the information your seeking once you have it?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Is that guy correct that the molten piles were still burning six weeks or not? Seems like a very long time for a fire that is buried and starved of oxygen ...
Click to expand...

It's exactly because the fire was buried and starved of oxygen that it kept on burning for so long. To burn, a fire needs fuel, heat, and oxygen; when the fuel runs out the fire goes out. Restrict the oxygen supply and the fire will burn more slowly, so the fuel will last longer; but slow it down enough and the heat will leak away and the fire won't be hot enough to keep on burning. But if the fire is buried, it's insulated, so it's harder for the heat to escape, so it keeps on smouldering, never going out because it still has plenty of heat and fuel, but never flaring up and burning the fuel away because there's very little oxygen available.

Dave
 
Zeuzzz said:
Much as I hate to post youtube videos but this one shows lots of witnesses, and in particular a guy working at ground zero showing evidence of a molten *something* still burning for up to "six weeks" after the event.



.....

Is that guy correct that the molten piles were still burning six weeks or not? Seems like a very long time for a fire that is buried and starved of oxygen ...

Doesn't seem in anyway typical of thermite, or nano thermite, however.
Click to expand...


I understand that you're at least trying to learn, so I will take the time to help you out a little.


WRT the "molten something" there are plenty of metals that would have been found in abundance in the WTC that melt at or below 1800 deg. F.


Why would it be oxygen starved? Don't forget, there were subways, and also the "Stack effect" or "chimney effect" would absolutely be a huge factor.

It wouldn't be oxygen starved in the least bit.

WRT Therm*te etc, you're absolutely correct. Thermite doesn't do long periods of time. Asian hookers do. Not thermite.

110 acres X's 2 plus who knows how many other tons of materials most certainly would burn for many many weeks.

This is a cool little tool invented by Firefighters after 9/11. It is used to extinguish fires deep in rubble piles, that are otherwise inaccessable. The biggest problem was getting the wet stuff on the hot stuff. This eliminated that problem. Cut through the rubble, get to the seat of the fire. Problem solved.

Thanks for at least actually asking questions and learning, and being genuine. There are too many truthers out there who claim "fact" when it most certainly is not.

Cheers!

~Tri
 
Why is there this operating presumption amongst those arguing truther positions that the burning rubble piles were somehow hermetically sealed? It may have been packed rubble, but that's not the same as saying airtight. And I imagine that there would've been a complex interplay of combustion gasses and atmosphere leading to areas with more noxious fumes than combustible oxygen, but again: That's not the same as saying hermetically sealed. The piles were not static situations, there were continually produced combustion gasses, convection currents produced by the fires... Tri could give a far, far better description of what I'm trying to get at as a layman, but my point is that it's not like there was only so much oxygen available within the pile and the fires would've eventually burnt themselves out.

I don't get it. I just don't get it.
 
Ok the last few posts seem to be impervious to the fact that I backed down my my previous proclamation:

Zeuzzz said:
Ok i'm convinced that a few underground fires could have had enough oxygen supplied to stay sustained (six weeks however (if true) seems like a very long time for the dispersed fuel). The rubble above them was not a solid mass, there would have been numerous air holes and pipes as stated above to keep fires going underground for a short time.
Click to expand...


The fires underground don't seem too mysterious to me anymore. But I'd still like to see the NASA > white house data to get a temperature scale on the AVIRIS thermal image of ground zero. Its not the the fact that there were fires, more what temperature they were burning at.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom