Moderated Thermite: Was it there or not?

[BigAl]

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.

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. )

 

[Thunder]

Whether 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.

fifteen thousand tons of molten steel?

lol.

that would be something to see. got any pics or evidence of this large quantity?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Bill, the pile that I spent many weeks on was certainly not 100% in the basement. To assume that is retarded at best. If I recall correctly, that pile was quite high, maybe as much as ~8 storeys. I do not recall exactly how tall it was, but it wasn't in the basement. Maybe someone can provide that high-def picture that someone took. Some NASA or something like that.

It's not exactly what you asked for but it does give one a sense of how large it was.

 

[Thunder]

It's not exactly what you asked for but it does give one a sense of how large it was.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4754/5277x.jpg

doesn't look molten to me.

 

[BigAl]

It's not exactly what you asked for but it does give one a sense of how large it was.

[qimg]http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4754/5277x.jpg[/qimg]

Imagine that picture spread over 10s of acres or football fields worth of real estate. That picture is what the pile looked like after several days if not weeks needed to get equipment in and to work from the edge into the higher parts.

Here's the debris height map made days after the collapse. Bill's been shown this before.

http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/geonews/october2001.pdf

 

[Thunder]

http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/geonews/october2001.pdf

spent many months in that department. good folks. and I helped them pick up a large laser printer one block from WTC 7. my one official day at GZ, and the 2nd time I got sick from the air.

 

[WUBRINY63]

Thermal Expansion at WTC-7. Was it there or not before 2008?

 

[BigAl]

Thermal Expansion at WTC-7. Was it there or not before 2008?

The risk of thermal expansion of beams in steel building fires has been on FDNY officer's test for decades.

Source: http://snurl.com/j5434 [Report From Ground Zero, page 7]

Because the officers in command at WTC on 9/11 passed that test, nobody died in the WTC7 collapse. The collapse was predicted for hours.

 

[TokenMac]

Thermal Expansion at WTC-7. Was it there or not before 2008?

Yes, it was there in before 2008, in 2001 to be exact

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The risk of thermal expansion of beams in steel building fires has been on FDNY officer's test for decades.

Source: http://snurl.com/j5434 [Report From Ground Zero, page 7]

Because the officers in command at WTC on 9/11 passed that test, nobody died in the WTC7 collapse. The collapse was predicted for hours.

It's also a topic that's been studied academically for many years now.
Example I
Example II
Example III
Example IV

Yes, it was there in before 2008, in 2001 to be exact

And before September 11, 2001, the amount of expansion/contraction that was occuring was negligible and only due to the climate/weather. But on that day, well... you can say that conditions were such that temperatures were considerably outside the normal range. But we of course all knew that.

 

[alienentity]

<standard denial and misinterpretation removed for brevity>
Interesting that you agree that smouldering fires produce a lot less heat. I assume we can now rule them out as being the cause of the enormous heat in the pile. <snip more nonsense>

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..

 

[WUBRINY63]

The risk of thermal expansion of beams in steel building fires has been on FDNY officer's test for decades.

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

 

[Myriad]

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

Of course thermal expansion is on the test because of the collapse risk it can present. Why else would a FDNY officer care if a steel beam got a few inches longer?

(Maybe because if you're using a steel ladder and it's 9 inches too short, you can heat it up in the fire to fix it?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

(ETA: Or maybe it's so they know that if a guy on the street tries to sell them a hot steel beam, they're getting ripped off because it'll be shorter once it cools down?)

 

[TokenMac]

The risk of thermal expansion of beams in steel building fires has been on FDNY officer's test for decades.

Source: http://snurl.com/j5434 [Report From Ground Zero, page 7]

Because the officers in command at WTC on 9/11 passed that test, nobody died in the WTC7 collapse. The collapse was predicted for hours.

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

Are you playing dumb, or do really think steel building can lose steel beams and not be at risk for collapse?

 

[WUBRINY63]

Of course thermal expansion is on the test because of the collapse risk it can present. Why else would a FDNY officer care if a steel beam got a few inches longer?

Then why wasn't it ever a leading theory for 7 years? A COMPLETE collapse. STRAIGHT down.

 

[TokenMac]

Then why wasn't it ever a leading theory for 7 years?

And what was NIST's leading theory for those years? Also whhy do you think thermal expansion would have to be the "lead theory" for the report to be valid?

A COMPLETE collapse. STRAIGHT down.

That is how most things fall.
If they didn't I don't think you could call it falling anymore, gravity is weird that way.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Fire was a leading theory for the whole time. What people got wrong was the source (diesel fuel) instead of a plain old unchecked office fire and that the exterior damage didn't cause the collapse but did initiate the fires. Which way other than "Straight down" would you expect a steel framed building to fall?

 

[Myriad]

Then why wasn't it ever a leading theory for 7 years?

Because the computational resources and manpower to do a complete dynamic analysis were not assembled by anyone else until NIST did it, and until that was done, heat weakening of the steel structure (which is another physical phenomenon well known to FDNY firefighters) as in the towers seemed the most likely answer. (Might as well ask, why wasn't heliocentrism ever a leading theory for over 5,000 years?)

A COMPLETE collapse.

Yeah, it didn't stop collapsing in mid-air. Hard to believe, right?

STRAIGHT down.

Yeah, it didn't collapse horizontally or upward. Hard to believe, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Thunder]

Then why wasn't it ever a leading theory for 7 years? A COMPLETE collapse. STRAIGHT down.

gravity tends to make things go straight down.

and it wasn't a complete collapse at first...as we saw that large pieces of the core stood after the initial collapse.

 

[WUBRINY63]

Fire was a leading theory for the whole time. What people got wrong was the source (diesel fuel) instead of a plain old unchecked office fire and that the exterior damage didn't cause the collapse but did initiate the fires. Which way other than "Straight down" would you expect a steel framed building to fall?

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.