• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

So what? How about providing a reference to where it's ever been used in demolishing a building?
 
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Flashbang

http://www.wapipedia.org/wikipedia/mobiletopic.aspx?cur_title=Grenade

You know thermate is used in grenades. I think everyone is confusing the word ignites. Ignites means the pyrotechnic reaction we see once the therma/ite reaches a certain temperature.
Main Entry: ig·nite
Pronunciation: ig-'nIt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ig·nit·ed; ig·nit·ing
Etymology: Latin ignitus, past participle of ignire to ignite, from ignis
transitive verb
1 : to subject to fire or intense heat; especially : to render luminous by heat
2 a : to set afire; also : KINDLE b : to cause (a fuel) to burn
3 a : to heat up : EXCITE <oppression that ignited the hatred of the people> b : to set in motion : SPARK <ignite a debate>
intransitive verb
1 : to catch fire
2 : to begin to glow


Main Entry: self-ig·nite
Pronunciation: -ig-'nIt
Function: intransitive verb
: to become ignited without flame or spark (as under high compression)
- self-ig·ni·tion
/-'ni-sh&n/ noun

Main Entry: ig·ni·tion
Pronunciation: ig-'ni-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act or action of
igniting : as a : the starting of a fire b : the heating of a plasma to a temperature high enough to sustain nuclear fusion
2 a : the process or means (as an electric spark) of
igniting a fuel mixture b : a device that activates an ignition system (as in an automobile) <put the key in the ignition>

To ignite thermite you must do one of the following:
1) Expose it to flame or spark that is sufficiently hot enough to causing ignition in the thermite.
2) Expose it to sufficient heat to reach its autoignition temperature (this is higher than its ignition temperature)

Thermite grenades are ignited by use of a magnesium fuse within the grenade and the grenades are typically used to put enemy machinations out of commission (engines, cannon barrels, etc)
 
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Flashbang

http://www.wapipedia.org/wikipedia/mobiletopic.aspx?cur_title=Grenade

You know thermate is used in grenades. I think everyone is confusing the word ignites. Ignites means the pyrotechnic reaction we see once the therma/ite reaches a certain temperature.
mince words all you like, you know darn well we are asking what that "certain tmperature" is and if a typical office fire is capable of generating it

also, just as a note, while i dont frown on wikipedia as a source others here do, so i thought id point out that both those articles appear to be mirrors of the wikipedia article on "grenade"
 
Main Entry: ig·nite http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?ignite01.wav=ignite')http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: ig-'nIt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): ig·nit·ed; ig·nit·ing
Etymology: Latin ignitus, past participle of ignire to ignite, from ignis
transitive verb
1 : to subject to fire or intense heat; especially : to render luminous by heat
2 a : to set afire; also : KINDLE b : to cause (a fuel) to burn
3 a : to heat up : EXCITE <oppression that ignited the hatred of the people> b : to set in motion : SPARK <ignite a debate>
intransitive verb
1 : to catch fire
2 : to begin to glow


Main Entry: self-ig·nite http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?selfig01.wav=self-ignite')http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: -ig-'nIt
Function: intransitive verb
: to become ignited without flame or spark (as under high compression)
- self-ig·ni·tion
http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?selfig02.wav=self-ignition')http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif /-'ni-sh&n/ noun

Main Entry: ig·ni·tion http://javascript<b></b>:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?igniti01.wav=ignition')http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif
Pronunciation: ig-'ni-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act or action of
igniting : as a : the starting of a fire b : the heating of a plasma to a temperature high enough to sustain nuclear fusion
2 a : the process or means (as an electric spark) of
igniting a fuel mixture b : a device that activates an ignition system (as in an automobile) <put the key in the ignition>

To ignite thermite you must do one of the following:
1) Expose it to flame or spark that is sufficiently hot enough to causing ignition in the thermite.
2) Expose it to sufficient heat to reach its autoignition temperature (this is higher than its ignition temperature)

Thermite grenades are ignited by use of a magnesium fuse within the grenade and the grenades are typically used to put enemy machinations out of commission (engines, cannon barrels, etc)

Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black-powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction.
 
28K, your display of knowledge is somewhat shocking in the last few pages. I trust you will pay close attention to what I am going to say in this post. Please bear in mind that some of what I am about to discuss falls within my expertise field (I have a degree with specialisation in cinematography).



How many times...do I have to address the same facts. NIST even states in their FAQ:

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery."

To clarify, re: molten aluminium, 28K is correct. Molten aluminium does give off a cherry red glow, however it has very low incandesence, and under direct sunlight it is not noticable to the human eye, thus the metal looks silver.




Any material can glow red/orange, if heated to a high enough temperature. Glass, aluminum, steel - whatever. The problem is that nothing on those impact floors could possibly burn hot enough to turn glass yellow-orange, steel yellow-orange or aluminum yellow-orange. It would take over 2000C, and the max air temp on the impact floors was only 1000C (That's what NIST even says)


28K, here you go way off the reservation. The colour temperature index is only for PURE METALS. It does not apply to ALL substances. Glass is not a metal. Glass becomes molten at about 1000 degrees C, and it is HIGHLY incandescent. It also glows a very strong yellow/gold colour. The most likely explanation for the materials in the video footage is molten glass. Certainly it is not the ONLY explanation. But the most likely.




"Also, you are claiming the color of this molten material could be inaccurate. What is causing it to be inaccurate? The camera which video taped it? The only thing that should affect the color would be the color/contrast settings on our individual computer screens."

You people should be politicians. You said the color of the molten material in the video I presented, may not be accurate. NIST agrees in their FAQ that this flowing material is yellow-orange.

Now, do you think it's the video camera that is changing the color of this molten material? If not, than what could be changing the color of this molten material?


Okay, pay close attention here 28K, this is my area of expertise.

What we are dealing with here is a think called colour temperature. Various colours on the visible spectrum are assigned colour temperatures in degrees Kelvin, with IR at the "cold" end and UV at the "hot" end.

In order for photographic methods to produce accurate colour representations, they have to be calibrated so they know what colour "white" is. This is because the human eye automatically adjusts itself to different lighting conditions. This process is called colour balance.

Now, for film, the stock is calibrated to one of two nominal levels. Tungsten loads are calibrated to 3200K, which is the colour temperate of a tungsten light bulb. Daylight loads are calibrated to 5600K, which is nominal daylight temperature. As a result all film lights are either 5600K Daylight bulbs, or 3200K tungsten bulbs. Any lighting outside these configurations will produce unnatural colour tones (standard neon lights, for example, produce an ugly green look).

Video is a little different. With video, in each environment you have to tell the CCD what colour white is. This is done either through pre-set selections, or through a manual white balance, whereby the entire screen is filled with a white piece of paper or similar, exposed to the ambient light.

The problem with this is the white balance can only be as successful as the quality of the CCD. In low quality consumer products you will never achieve accurate white balances. There will always be minor deviations.

It is important to note that an incorrect white balance will affect the colour temperature of EVERYTHING IN THE FRAME. (Although white subjects will always be more noticable).

Now, an important thing to note. In the two videos you gave - the one of the car being hit with Thermite and the WTC - we have two different white balances and two different exposure settings (exposure will not affect colour temperature, however it will affect how "bright" something us, thus with a brighter exposure bright things in the frame will exceed exposure capabilities and "burn out" to white).

This automatically causes a problem, because identical colour temperature and intensity items appearing in each video will not look the same, thus making comparisons is impossible. In addition, the two items in question do NOT look exactly the same.

-Gumboot
 
"In principle, any reactive metal could be used instead of aluminum."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Use magnesium instead of aluminum in the thermite mixture...problem solved. Magnesium ignites at 632°C - I win.

Gumboot...so why does this molten material appear to be the exact same color in every photograph in every video at every point and position in and around WTC 2 and ground zero?

Just give up...you just perfectly exemplified the usage of big terms to feign a cohesive counterpoint that makes no logical sense concept. Nothing more than a bunch of generic verbiage...that exists completely outside of the environment in which we are investigating...

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3550/thermiteic0.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774
 
Last edited:
"In principle, any reactive metal could be used instead of aluminum."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Use magnesium instead of aluminum in the thermite mixture...problem solved. Magnesium ignites at 632°C - I win.
did you bother to read the rest of your article?

The melting and boiling points of aluminum also make it ideal for thermite reactions. Its relatively low melting point (660°C, 1221°F) means that it is easy to melt the metal, so that the reaction can occur mainly in the liquid phase[1] and thus proceeds fairly quickly. At the same time, its high boiling point (2519°C, 4566°F) enables the reaction to reach very high temperatures, since several processes tend to limit the maximum temperature to just below the boiling point.[2] Such a high boiling point is common among transition metals (e.g. iron and copper boil at 2887 °C and 2582 °C respectively), but is especially unusual among the highly reactive metals (cf. magnesium and sodium which boil at 1090 °C and 883 °C respectively).
so a magnesium thermite can only produce temperatures of about 1000C

no hotter than the fire itself

you lose.
 
"In principle, any reactive metal could be used instead of aluminum."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Use magnesium instead of aluminum in the thermite mixture...problem solved. Magnesium ignites at 632°C - I win.

Gumboot...so why does this molten material appear to be the exact same color in every photograph in every video at every point and position in and around WTC 2 and ground zero?

Just give up...you just perfectly exemplified the usage of big terms to feign a cohesive counterpoint that makes no logical sense concept. Nothing more than a bunch of generic verbiage...that exists completely outside of the environment in which we are investigating...

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3550/thermiteic0.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

Are you still working on your thermite. Noticed you changed the formula again. Wonder if your change will cut through steel?

It should take you about 10 years to catch up on science the rate you are going.
 
28k, in addition to the magnesium thermite problem above, you need to explain why the outer columns did not need to be cut?

You said that the core columns could support the upper mass if the outer columns buckled.

It stands then that the outer columns could support the upper mass if the core columns were cut. Even more likely, as there are over 200 outer columns, vs the remaining 37 core columns.

Remember, the Hat truss holds the core structure and the outer columns together.

Awaiting an explanation.
 
Last edited:
Gumboot...so why does this molten material appear to be the exact same color in every photograph in every video at every point and position in and around WTC 2 and ground zero?

Just give up...you just perfectly exemplified the usage of big terms to feign a cohesive counterpoint that makes no logical sense concept. Nothing more than a bunch of generic verbiage...that exists completely outside of the environment in which we are investigating...
Funny, my area of expertise is quite different, but I understood Gumboot perfectly well.

My own point is slightly different. Quite simply, one cannot tell what the chemical composition is of a glowing liquid by judging its color by eye. It is physically impossible (for reasons I explained in an earlier post, and which are very easily found, but which I am perfectly happy to repeat if you wish). A spectral analysis of the light would, if it were thermite, be your best friend; it would be extremely good evidence that supports you and disconfirms, say, molten glass. But you do not have a spectral analysis. You have video. Which, according to Gumboot, can calibrate to (at least?) two different "white" levels, making it impossible to judge by eye (for these technical purposes, anyway). I do not know if it is possible to determine the calibration and use the data to analyze the spectrum from this source; surely somebody does know, though. If you are truly interested, you should seek experts.

It is not mere verbiage; your ignorance on the topic is betraying you. If you are truly interested in finding answers, you would do well to listen to what Gumboot is saying.
 
Gumboot...so why does this molten material appear to be the exact same color in every photograph in every video at every point and position in and around WTC 2 and ground zero?

Just give up...you just perfectly exemplified the usage of big terms to feign a cohesive counterpoint that makes no logical sense concept. Nothing more than a bunch of generic verbiage...that exists completely outside of the environment in which we are investigating...


Did you read that back to yourself before you posted it?

If not, I suggest from now on you do. If you did, you might want to read your posts twice before submitting them.

You incredulously asked how the colour could possibly be different. I explained how. This is very straight forward.

Unless you can find multiple images/video of the EXACT SAME EVENT your assertions are meaningless. Even the two examples you give are not the "exact same colour".

The photograph has much lower exposure levels than the video.

Furthermore, will you address my assertion that the material seen falling from the tower is most probably molten glass?

-Gumboot
 
Just so everyone knows, these are the people on my ignore list:

beachnut, dog town, horatius, jamrat, tbone, stateofgrace, kookbreaker, architect

I can see everyone else. But, these people (on my ignore list) really shouldn't direct anything at me, because you're only making it more difficult for those who actually want to discuss this topic, to follow the conversation.



Teeheehee

Just lets remember why: it's because he said that the beams couldn't fail due to fire, and I posted two highly technical papers by Sheffield and Edinburgh Universities, and then he ran away!

:D
 
I do not know if it is possible to determine the calibration and use the data to analyze the spectrum from this source; surely somebody does know, though. If you are truly interested, you should seek experts.


It's certainly balanced to daylight, because if it was tungsten the image would look horribly blue. However consumer CCDs are not as precise as film stock or professional cameras (and even the high end professional video cameras are far less precise than film stock) which means when you set it to "outside" setting, it could be 5600K, or it might be anything from 5000K to 6000K.

And the problem is, there's really no possible way of determing this. Which is why digital imaging is a very poor way of determining colour temperature.

And that's without even getting into exposure, which, when dealing with light emitting materials, is very important.

And of course, as you say, even if we theoretically could determine the precise colour, that doesn't actually tell us anything about what the substance IS.

-Gumboot
 
And of course, as you say, even if we theoretically could determine the precise colour, that doesn't actually tell us anything about what the substance IS.

-Gumboot

Thanks for the info!

As for this last bit...it might not be able to tell us what something IS, but it could eliminate some possibilities, by telling us what it IS NOT possible to be.

It would be very cool evidence...but I fear the sources of error you list are... prohibitive.
 
What kind of grenades? The kind that explode? Or do they just get really hot and melt stuff?
They get hot and melt stuff. Let's say you want to melt the engine block of a truck to make it unusable. Place a thermite grenade on the truck's front bumper. The thermite will shoot out and melt a horizontal hole right through the engine block!




Wait...let me look at that Field Manual again.
 
There are countless pics and video showing the molten material pouring from WTC 2, and at ground zero after the collapses.



28th, you claim that the above photo, which was taken well after collapse, shows molten metal in the debris. What do you claim is the heat source sustaining this molten state?
 

Back
Top Bottom