Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

[tfk]

Toke,

Without checkking the details I still belive that the neccecary amount of thermite to heat a steel collum to weakening is thicker than a coat of paint. By two or tre orders of magnitude.

I did a quick BOTE on this. Assuming uniform, infinite steel (actually iron) plate, uniformly coated with 100µ of thermite, under adiabatic conditions...

Numbers from:
http://physics911.net/thermite
Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns
by D. P. Grimmer

Iron
Density = 7874 kg/m3
Specific heat = 25.1J/mol K = 449 J/kg K = 0.449 kJ/kg K

Thermite
Thus the physical density of our densely-packed Fe2O3/Al thermite mixture is 213.66 g/61.5 cm3 = 3.474 g/cm3 = 3.474 x 10+6 g/m3
and our energy density (per volume) is given by 849 kJ/61.5 cm3 = 13.805 kJ/cm3 = 1.3805 x 10+7 kJ/m3.
1 square meter x 100µ = 1x10e-4 m^3 of thermite.
heat content of 1 m^2 x 100µ thickness of thermite => (10e-4 m^3) (1.4e7 kJ/m^3) = 1.4e3 kJ.

one square meter of steel, @ 5" thick = (.127 m^3) = (.127 m^3) (7873 kg/m^3) = 1000 kg steel.
Raising this mass of steel (per degree K) takes (1000 kg)*(0.449 kJ/kg °K) = 449 kJ/°K

@ 5" steel thickness, 100µ of thermite will give you a rise of: 1.4e3kJ/449 kJ/°K = 3.1°K = 3.1°C once equilibrium has been reached.

1" thick piece of steel rises 15°C.
1/2" thick rises 30°C.

Someone check the math. I was in the middle of a boring meeting...

tom

 

[zooterkin]

...

1" thick piece of steel rises 15°C.
1/2" thick rises 30°C.

Someone check the math. I was in the middle of a boring meeting...

Oh, that's no good at all. You need to recalculate for super-duper uber-nano thermite...






(Thanks, that puts things in perspective. Even if the stuff that was found was thermite and not paint, it couldn't have had any significant effect anyway.)

 

[tfk]

Galileo,

I am not a troll. I am pro-science, and a debunker of faith based religious claims as well as a debunker of kooky conspiracy theories like Bigfoot, Area 51, and the 9/11 Commission.

[emphasis added]

I am beyond skeptical of your "pro-science" claim.

Two of the cornerstones of "pro-science" are caution & rigor.

Caution requires waiting for verification of preliminary results by independent sources before accepting them.

Rigor requires enthusiastically challenging the beliefs that you most wish to be true.

I am hard-pressed to see these traits in your posts.

tom

 

[tfk]

so put that into context. they put 1000 lbs of thermite on TOP of a car, set it off, and it couldn't even burn through the TOP of a car completely (a piece of metal that is no more than 4" thick), and it TOOK a long time to even get a slight burn

What does that tell you about thermite? IT ain't the most efficient nor quick reacting type of element to cut through metal.

I found this site that had several thermite videos:

http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite_pics-videos.html
This one seemed most pertinent.

500 g of thermite failed to melt thru an iron skillet:
http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Videos/Fe2O3/3/Thermite(Fe2O3)3%5BBetter%5D.wmv

For comparison, at 100µ thickness, a 15" skillet would have contained (3.14*(7.5" * 2.54cm/")^2 * (1 m^2/10^4 cm^2)*100e-6 meters * (3.47e6 g/m^3) = 40g

This feels high, but I guess a 100 micron (.004") is a pretty thick coat.

Still, based on the numbers above & assuming the skillet is about 1/8" thick, the numbers above would predict a temp rise of about 120°C temp rise for a 100µ thickness. OK, seems reasonable.

This is a pretty silly exercise, since we already know that none of the columns in the towers were melted.

tom

 

[BigAl]

I found this site that had several thermite videos:

http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite_pics-videos.html
This one seemed most pertinent.

tom

Here are the two examples I use.

Mythbusters Toast 1/2 Ton of Thermite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPAYZMzGMwQ
(notice slag falling off hood and that the SUV isn't melted into a
puddle of liquid steel.)
(WARNING- Loud Music for first 20 seconds)

4 pounds of thermite doesn't even melt a PC chassis
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4147847319296070400
(skip 0:2:30)​

 

[A W Smith]

a Dualsaw brought down the towers!

just to drive home a point, how many pounds of thermite did the Mythbusters use, just to try and cut a car in half????

ETA: noticed i stated half; they couldn't even do that without a huge amount of thermite.

They should have used a Dualsaw!

 

[FineWine]

Not to mention the media from all over the world, including Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, China, Russia...

This is what amazes me. Assuming that the all-powerful conspiracy controls every form of American media, how is it supposed to prevent scientists in other countries from revealing the truth?

 

[lapman]

I found this site that had several thermite videos:

http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite_pics-videos.html
This one seemed most pertinent.

500 g of thermite failed to melt thru an iron skillet:
http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Videos/Fe2O3/3/Thermite(Fe2O3)3%5BBetter%5D.wmv

For comparison, at 100µ thickness, a 15" skillet would have contained (3.14*(7.5" * 2.54cm/")^2 * (1 m^2/10^4 cm^2)*100e-6 meters * (3.47e6 g/m^3) = 40g

This feels high, but I guess a 100 micron (.004") is a pretty thick coat.

Still, based on the numbers above & assuming the skillet is about 1/8" thick, the numbers above would predict a temp rise of about 120°C temp rise for a 100µ thickness. OK, seems reasonable.

This is a pretty silly exercise, since we already know that none of the columns in the towers were melted.

tom

I really like the first site. Especially the vid of the 2000g of thermite that couldn't melt through the 1/4" I beam. If you look at the beam before and after the fire, you see a great example of thermal expansion if you look at the top of the vertical members.

 

[Gaspode]

Derail removed. Back on topic please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[lapman]

Derail removed. Back on topic please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

Cool. Thank you!

 

[alienentity]

'Galileo' wrote 'The scientists found the thermite. It says right in their report' Too late, dude. Other scientists already investigated, for FEMA and NIST and concluded that the buildings fell due to plane impacts and fires. It says right in their reports.

btw, I did a quick check on the 'scientists' who contributed to the paper. I can't find Kevin Ryan's bio, but he was 'a lab director at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc'. He was apparently fired for unprofessional conduct. You can read about it if you wish.

Next on the list:
Farnsworth, physics student at BYU
Jeffrey Farrer - lab manager
Gregg Roberts - journalist - bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work
James Gourley - attorney with science background, not a professional scientist

If this little hodgepodge impresses you so much, why is it that you ignore the impressive list of professional scientists who came to different conclusions long ago? Ah yes, you don't like what they concluded, therefore they must be wrong.

btw, you went off topic as much as anyone else on this thread, so you can't complain about it. You were even talking about burning debris piles and thermite......hypocrite!

Here's a sample of qualified persons who contributed to just the NIST WTC7 report released in 2008:

S. Shyam Sunder, Sc.D. (NIST) Lead Investigator
Richard G. Gann, Ph.D. (NIST) Final Report Editor; Project Leader, Project 5:
Reconstruction of Thermal and Tenability Environment
William L. Grosshandler, Ph.D. (NIST) Associate Lead Investigator; Project Leader, Project 4:
Investigation of Active Fire Protection Systems
H.S. Lew, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire
Codes and Practices
Richard W. Bukowski, P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire
Codes and Practices
Fahim Sadek, Ph.D. (NIST) Project Leader, Project 2: Baseline Structural Performance
and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis
Frank W. Gayle, Ph.D. (NIST) Project Leader, Project 3: Mechanical and Metallurgical
Analysis of Structural Steel
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and
Collapse Analysis
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and
Collapse Analysis
Jason D. Averill (NIST) Project Leader, Project 7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and
Emergency Communications
J. Randall Lawson (NIST) Project Leader, Project 8: Fire Service Technologies and
Guidelines
Harold E. Nelson, P.E.

 

[alienentity]

Galileo, another question is why it's so damn hard to get bios for the Jones Boys. Are they a little sheepish (pun intended) about revealing this information?

Why is it not surprising that some basic aspects of their inquisition inquiry seem VERY unprofessional?

1) Totally nonexistent protocols for chain of custody of materials - this would never stand up in court for more than a nanosecond.
2) Presence of oxygen while heating the red chips, basic fail in ruling out paint or other source for material
3) wildly varying energy density of chips not addressed properly. Given that thermite has an energy density of 4 kJ/Gram, and known thermite doesn't produce any more than about 2.5, 3 out of 4 Jones samples are almost certainly NOT Thermite, by definition.

And it can't be just ANY type of thermite. No. It is precisely that which contains the elements found in the red chips. There's no wiggle room to hypothesize about the composition anymore. The choice has indeed been made.

4) Jones was bleating for years to his flock about 'Abundant Iron, Zinc; Barium & Sulfur (typical in military thermates*' http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.journalof911studies.com%2Fvolume%2F200609%2FDrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf&ei=6ALySZqaIpWgtgPMkLHUCg&usg=AFQjCNGKNxhhY1CL0fFZJut0WjNlSJv8tQ&sig2=bS6XCvyvlyiKYEMF6QlPmA

Whoopsidaisies! Where'd the Zinc and Sulphur go? Oh....it's a FAIL! Surprise, surprise...

 

[Toke]

tfk,

Thanks,
I can´t see if you include the energy to heat the thermite too, but glad to see my guess of 2-3 orders is not too far off.

Wonder if galileo will conclude anything from the quick and dirty paintjob calculations.

 

[tfk]

tfk,

Thanks,
I can´t see if you include the energy to heat the thermite too, but glad to see my guess of 2-3 orders is not too far off.

Wonder if galileo will conclude anything from the quick and dirty paintjob calculations.

I started to include the thermite, but then realized that at 100 microns thick, the heat capacity of the thermite itself disappears into the thickness tolerance of the beams.

Old engineer's rule of thumb: If there is any plausible reason to NOT have to include something in a BOTE calculation, embrace it immediately.

tom

 

[tfk]

Here are my best arguments against thermXte (in ascending order). There are hundreds of reasons. We all have our favorites.

1. Timing: During the last 50 stories of collapse, the towers were coming down at about 1 story per 0.1 seconds. Let's say that, in order to meet the "no resistance" nonsense that requires the demo, the columns would need to be cut with "1/2 story" precision. That is, sequenced to about 0.05 seconds.

Here is thermite cutting a 1/2" thick steel beam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0qnHlVTaVs&feature=related

Seven seconds (after ignition) to cut thru 1/2" thickness. With linear assumption, 28 seconds to cut thru 2" thick beam. Almost a full minute for a 4" thick beam. The timing precision is impossible with something as slow as thermite.

2. Thermite residue: This page shows how obvious the residue is.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/photosoftorch-cutsteel (the top 4 pictures)
You can't hide the evidence of thermite use. Look at the photos of GZ. None of this obvious thermite residue anywhere.

3. The ultimate trump card: No cut columns in GZ rubble pile. It doesn't matter how you cut the columns, there should be an enormous number of cut columns in the rubble pile. (If you cut 1/2 the columns per floor, then the 1-story-high cut columns will out-number the 3-story-high uncut columns by a 3:1 ratio.)

You can look at the photos of GZ today (so this evidence has NOT been destroyed) and see that there are no 1 story cut columns. They broke at their end joints. Ergo, no cut beams. By ANY method.

It is gilding the lily in the extreme to get into the twigs of "chain of custody of dust particles" or EDX spectra of red vs. grey "mystery material", when the forest is the provable fact that there were no statistically significant number of cut beams. (I can't find a single one in the hi-res photos, but that's only on the top layer, of course.)

The big picture, people...

tom

 

[FactCheck]

Check out these pics of recovered WTC steel. Notice the color of the steel. Thermite? I dont think so.

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912418.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912396.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912252.jpg

[qimg]http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912492.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912506.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912511.jpg
[qimg]http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912506.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24928806.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912199.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912513.jpg

The dark stuff looks like paper...

http://debunking911.com/jones.htm

 

[ferd burfle]

Toke,



I did a quick BOTE on this. Assuming uniform, infinite steel (actually iron) plate, uniformly coated with 100µ of thermite, under adiabatic conditions...

Numbers from:
http://physics911.net/thermite
Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns
by D. P. Grimmer

Iron
Density = 7874 kg/m3
Specific heat = 25.1J/mol K = 449 J/kg K = 0.449 kJ/kg K

Thermite
Thus the physical density of our densely-packed Fe2O3/Al thermite mixture is 213.66 g/61.5 cm3 = 3.474 g/cm3 = 3.474 x 10+6 g/m3
and our energy density (per volume) is given by 849 kJ/61.5 cm3 = 13.805 kJ/cm3 = 1.3805 x 10+7 kJ/m3.
1 square meter x 100µ = 1x10e-4 m^3 of thermite.
heat content of 1 m^2 x 100µ thickness of thermite => (10e-4 m^3) (1.4e7 kJ/m^3) = 1.4e3 kJ.

one square meter of steel, @ 5" thick = (.127 m^3) = (.127 m^3) (7873 kg/m^3) = 1000 kg steel.
Raising this mass of steel (per degree K) takes (1000 kg)*(0.449 kJ/kg °K) = 449 kJ/°K

@ 5" steel thickness, 100µ of thermite will give you a rise of: 1.4e3kJ/449 kJ/°K = 3.1°K = 3.1°C once equilibrium has been reached.

1" thick piece of steel rises 15°C.
1/2" thick rises 30°C.

Someone check the math. I was in the middle of a boring meeting...

tom

Lurkers (it will be wasted on the twoofers), please note that tfk very generously assumed that all of the heat was transferred into the steel. So his assumptions are substantially biased in favor of the twoofer view. And still they fail wildly.

Ferd

 

[Sunstealer]

@ 5" steel thickness, 100µ of thermite will give you a rise of

What tfk has been even more generous and done a calculation using 100µm thickness, when Jones' chips (red layer - the gray layer doesn't form part of the reaction) only have a thickness of no more than 15µm as shown by their own paper!

 

[lapman]

Lurkers (it will be wasted on the twoofers), please note that tfk very generously assumed that all of the heat was transferred into the steel. So his assumptions are substantially biased in favor of the twoofer view. And still they fail wildly.

Ferd

I think that was more of a "what if" than supporting twoofers.

 

[ferd burfle]

I think that was more of a "what if" than supporting twoofers.

Lapman, I agree 100% and apologies if my wording was ambiguous.

Ferd