Moderated Thermite: Was it there or not?

[alienentity]

I didn't miss what you said. You missed most of the picture.



"portion" the operative term there. Not complete. And after how many hours? Keep wondering but pretending not to. Good for you.

And how is any of this relevant to the question of thermite?....

This is:

http://darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I didn't miss what you said. You missed most of the picture.

What? That the concrete remained standing while the 11 stories of steel failed due to fire alone? Tell me O' enlightened one, what did I miss?

"portion" the operative term there. Not complete. And after how many hours? Keep wondering but pretending not to. Good for you.

Yes, the steel portion, not the concrete portion. As far as how long it lasted I couldn't say with any accuracy. I can't say. What I can say is that this picture:

was taken while it was fully involved and nearing collapse and that the fire started at the 21'st floor at ~midnight and propagated downwards much slower than it did upwards (as all fires do). Seeing as it's still dark outside I can only make a logical assumption based upon the failing steel columns visible in this photo that this happened before daybreak. So I'll make a guess at no more than 6 hours from fire initiation to collapse. There's more but I await your response to these basic facts before I go on.

I take it back. Looking closer at the picture I think that it might be a PhotoShopped picture and without outside verification I won't use it as evidence. I still stand by everything else I said excluding that image.

 

[TruthersLie]

Steel structured highrise buildings have burned for days. Maybe a partial collapse would occur in some part of the building if it was completely engulfed in flames. But not often. Some buildings have fell over sideways from earthquakes or CD gone bad. No fire has ever caused the complete collapse of any steel structured highrise ever.

Amazing that you compare apples to oranges.

which open floor steel framed skyscrapers burned for days... I'd love to see this list.

Please... Which ones?

ETA: First time in history cannard, REALLY? Wow... I love how twoofs completely do this....
August 1945 first time in history a single bomb destroyed a city.. happened 2x. Were they fake?
1959 first time a person ever went into orbit... are satelights fake?

Really? Honestly? Wow... you (and most twoofs arguments) are a very damning indictment of public education around the world. Absolutely amazing.

 

[bill smith]

bill, you're not in a position to pass judgment on others around here. Have you paid much attention to the reaction your posts get? It's not very complimentary, and for this there are good reasons.

If you want to deny that oxygen deprived fires can get very hot, you go right ahead. It makes you look like an idiot. Y'see, this stuff has been well documented by people who study such things, and many of us have already availed ourselves of that information.

bill, have a look at this research page, from University of Manchester, England.
And, yes, you have once again been pwned. Tough being so wrong, idennit?
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...e/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm

'It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time.'

Here's the chart for you. Note that the smoldering fire (blue line) reaches approx the same temp as the standard fire after only 2 hrs.

So long bill. You lose again..

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_304704a8f61252183f.gif[/qimg]

[Sigh]....A smoulering fire may become very hot internally while emitting or radiating very little heat except by conduction to those items directly in contact with it. So we are talking about isolated pockets of smoulering fires in the rubble (if that is true at all). I believe that only about 3% of the total material in the rubble was combustible which further rules against the putative smouldering fires being of any significance.

I'm sure that you already know all this stuff. The discriminating reader may not appreciate being misled.

I don't get rave reviews here on the jref. What else would you expect ? The proportions here are about 500 debunkers to every 10 truthers. We still run you ragged. Try going on a Truther forum and see how long your tall tales will survive.

 

[dtugg]

We still run you ragged.

By "run you ragged," I assume that you mean, "provide you with excellent free entertainment at our expense." Because that's all you twoofers are. A joke; good for nothing except unintentional comedy. And you especially bill.

 

[BigAl]

Not as a risk of the complete collapse of a steel structured skyscraper.

Then why did the firemen predict collapse hours in advance?

"complete collapse" is 20/20 hindsight. WHile it was burning, nobody could say exactly how it would come down.

Is WUBRINY63 a sock puppet? It sure feels like it.

His intellectual insights are sufficiently low to make me put him on my ignore list.

Bye.

 

[Thunder]

I think either you or I need glasses if you think that looks anything like a complete collapse. We are trying to compare what happened to the buildings on 9/11 correct?

the WTC towers and WTC 7 had a design different then pretty much every other steel structure on Earth. it is pretty much worthless to compare fires in a typical steel high rise with a fire in WTC 1, 2, and 7.

as far as I have read and seen, significant exterior damage and a raging fire in WTC 1 and 2 pretty much ensured a collapse. the designers should have considered this.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This first time crap has been dealt with a million times... If he can't comprehend it, then too bad. Don't waste your time explaining something which he has no intention of listening to. It's derailing this entire damn thread.

Per the chemistry calculations in the link, below, you are proposing that someone got as much as 30,000 tons of thermite into the pile with nobody noticing the delivery or the incendiary effect when ignited or the 10s of thousands of tons of slag, afterwords.

It takes 2 pounds of Thermite to make 1 pound of molten iron. By my calculation, that's almost 400,000 cubic feet of thermite.

A shipping container is about 1,300cu/ft. Do the math.

As I understand it, nothing "nano" affects this calculation in any significant way. If anything it makes it worse.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4477911#post4477911

(hope I got the math right today. )

Explosives would have been too loud, and thermite would have been a brilliantly bright display of fireworks in broad daylight. It doesn't last long enough sustain a reaction for months at a time, and the chaotic nature of the collapses would have almost assured that the chemistry of the Iron oxide and aluminum oxide powders was ruined. The numbers required to make "tons" on molten steel is absurd. What more is needed to call BS the thermite debate?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

[Sigh]....A smoulering fire may become very hot internally while emitting or radiating very little heat except by conduction to those items directly in contact with it. So we are talking about isolated pockets of smoulering fires in the rubble (if that is true at all). I believe that only about 3% of the total material in the rubble was combustible which further rules against the putative smouldering fires being of any significance.

I'm sure that you already know all this stuff. The discriminating reader may not appreciate being misled.

Okay, we know what you believe. But what are the facts to substantiate your belief? Is there accurate data that demonstrates the fires would not have been capable of smoldering for months?

 

[Thunder]

Okay, we know what you believe. But what are the facts to substantiate your belief? Is there accurate data that demonstrates the fires would not have been capable of smoldering for months?

facts??? we don't need no stinkin' facts!!

we got da truth!!!!!

 

[BigAl]

Bump for Bill. I want to hear that he knows he is suggesting that as much as 30,000 tons (400,000 cubic ft) of thermite was carried to the pile and ignited and nobody noticed.

Originally Posted by bill smith

Whether the heat was caused by molten steel with or without added thermite the quantity of molten steel was no mere ten tons or so. No..we are talking in the thousands of tons. Maybe ten or fifteen thousand tons.

Source
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5031517#post5031517

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Any attempt to downplay the amount of combustibles in the rubble piles is insane and stupid. What matters is the total amount of combustibles and the amount of potential combustion energy that it represents. Does anyone remember the Delta Group study? They concluded that the total energy available for release through combustion was 43 trillion joules. As a comparison, the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 63 trillion joules. The amount of potential combustible energy available in the piles was on the same order of magnitude as the energy release of an atomic bomb. The difference is that an A-bomb's release happens all at once.

It's just plain dumb to try to downplay the amount of burnable material in the rubble piles. Just plain dumb.

 

[bill smith]

Any attempt to downplay the amount of combustibles in the rubble piles is insane and stupid. What matters is the total amount of combustibles and the amount of potential combustion energy that it represents. Does anyone remember the Delta Group study? They concluded that the total energy available for release through combustion was 43 trillion joules. As a comparison, the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 63 trillion joules. The amount of potential combustible energy available in the piles was on the same order of magnitude as the energy release of an atomic bomb. The difference is that an A-bomb's release happens all at once.

It's just plain dumb to try to downplay the amount of burnable material in the rubble piles. Just plain dumb.

I prefer to see it as units of combustible materials expressed as a percentage of the total mount of rubble. As I undersstand it that worked out at about three parts per hundred parts or 3% if you prefer. Do you think it might have been as high as four parts per hundred parts ? Five parts maybe...?

 

[alienentity]

I prefer to see it as units of combustible materials expressed as a percentage of the total mount of rubble. As I undersstand it that worked out at about three parts per hundred parts or 3% if you prefer. Do you think it might have been as high as four parts per hundred parts ? Five parts maybe...?

Here's a metal object that weighs 15,000 tons. It represents the amount of melted steel bill thinks existed somewhere in the debris.......
Of course, there is a tiny, tiny chance he might be wrong.





The RMS Republic, White Star Line - 15,400 tons displacement

 

[BigAl]

I prefer to see it as units of combustible materials expressed as a percentage of the total mount of rubble. As I undersstand it that worked out at about three parts per hundred parts or 3% if you prefer. Do you think it might have been as high as four parts per hundred parts ? Five parts maybe...?

Is that 3% before or after someone trucked in the 30,000 tons of Thermite as you seem to believe happened?

 

[alienentity]

bills latest antics are a reminder that, in order to cling to the contrarian truther position (ie: whatever you say, truthers must believe the opposite) you must throw Occam's Razor out the window.

So, while a normal person would accept that there was a huge amount of combustible material in the debris, and that it was smoldering for weeks if not months, a truther must not only deny that there was oxygen, combustible material or significant smoldering fires, but must additionally claim a completely different, fantastical reason for the fires - namely expressed in the statement of bill smith thus:

The quantity of molten steel(with or without added thermite) was no mere ten tons or so. No..we are talking in the thousands of tons. Maybe ten or fifteen thousand tons.

I guess if you're going to profer an evidence-free theory, y'might as well go big, huh?

Why not go for 100,000 tons of melted steel? Since there's no evidence of even a single ton of melted steel, what difference does it make?

While you're at it, it's also equally plausible that a death-ray weapon from outer space melted the steel and vaporized it before it hit the ground, which is why FEMA didn't find any.

Go big bill, don't hold back! Make Judy Wood proud.

 

[Thunder]

I prefer to see it as units of combustible materials expressed as a percentage of the total mount of rubble. As I undersstand it that worked out at about three parts per hundred parts or 3% if you prefer. Do you think it might have been as high as four parts per hundred parts ? Five parts maybe...?

still waiting on that evidence for 10,000 tons of molten steel at GZ. any day now?

 

[alienentity]

Assuming bill's 3% figure is even remotely accurate (just for amusement purposes), the amount of combustible material (3% of 1 million tons) from just the towers, were it to be loaded onto trucks,would require 10 semitrailers, each hauling six full loads a day for 23 straight days.
Based on this proposal to haul 30,000 tons of dirt.

 

[bill smith]

Here's a metal object that weighs 15,000 tons. It represents the amount of melted steel bill thinks existed somewhere in the debris.......
Of course, there is a tiny, tiny chance he might be wrong.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_304704a90143bdd9ff.jpg[/qimg]

The RMS Republic, White Star Line - 15,400 tons displacement

Melted down into something like a mass of 15,000 tons of iron I think that would cover it nicely. Of course there would be some quantity of concrete and other tough material that could survive the tremendous heat attached to the exterior of the main block where the forced cooling bagan with the addition of the 'lakes' of water.. I guess the temperature would have been 4,000 degrees centrigade plus to start with and cooling very very slowly. It took almost three months to cool in the end..

 

[Thunder]

Melted down into something like a mass of 15,000 tons of iron I think that would cover it nicely.

any evidence for this 10,000 tons of molten steel?

or are we just pissing in the wind by asking you for corroborating evidence?