A Fermi problem for C7: Iron spheres mean how much thermite?

[Oystein]

Thanks, Mikemcc!

You are definitely zeroing in on the target!

A couple of questions:

1.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
You quote "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel"
However, there is also the number "According to FEMA, more than 350,000 tons of steel were extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it was cut up for recycling."
Which number should we go with?

2.
http://www.physforum.com/What-was-the-weight-of-a-WTC-Tower_4299.html
That thread runs from january to september 2006 - with a late last post by Gregory Urich from may 2007 - the same Urich who I relied on for estimate of total mass.
I think from that early guesstimate of 9.6E10g per tower we should not subtract estimates of hauled away steel - the errors of guessing will multiply wildly!

3.
You say "Therefore the 'missing steel' is 3.53E10g (only 35kt of steel there folks!) This would mean that 1760t of steel ended up as this 'dust'."
I don't get that. The 1760t of dust are 5% of 3.53E10g. What's the reasoning there?

 

[GlennB]

Don't think there is much value in the thread, but...

Mythbusters need to work on their efficiency I reckon...

1000lbs/Plant pot.

Nope. Couple of pounds / plant pot. Hole in safe. Safe mostly untouched.

Had the safe weighed 1000 tons but of the same thickness metal then the result would be the same.

You really have no shame do you?

 

[Oystein]

Don't think there is much value in the thread...

Why do you think so? Maybe I can explain?

 

[beachnut]

Don't think there is much value in the thread, but...

...

value?
Like your work, with no goal you are proud of.

You post a safe being hit by thermite. Wow, already posted years ago, but the army did it in Iraq. Not too smart if you want the money inside.

Now where are your delusional flower pots used to destroy the WTC, and how do you get the pots to gravity flow sideways? lol

You are an on the fence no-planer with thermite and CD delusions saying there is no value in a thread? You can't figure out how many flt 175s there were, no wonder you can't find value when you have no idea what happen on 911.

 

[Oystein]

...
Mythbusters need to work on their efficiency I reckon...


1000lbs/Plant pot.

Okay, here we see about 2l of thermite - let that be somewhere close to 7kg to 8kg.

And 2" steel, or 5cm thick steel.

let's say they melted a circle 10cm across or 78.5cm².
That's 392.5³ of steel melted.
And then some more inside.

Maybe a total of 550cm³
With steel having a density close to 8g/cm³, that's 4.3kg steel melted by 7.5kg of thermite, or a ratio of 1:1.75:

1.75 mass units of thermite can melt 1 mass unit of iron


Thanks, femr, for contributing to this thread!



ETA: I think the Mythbusters teach us that efficiency is not easy to achieve. The car was an uneven surface. Maybe that was part of the problem. It is apparently easy to nelt through horizontal sheet metal, but it gets much harder as soon as your target is of a different shape or alignment.

 

[femr2]

1.75 mass units of thermite can melt 1 mass unit of iron


Thanks, femr, for contributing to this thread!

You're very welcome

Then instead of looking at the mass of the building, why not work out the cross-sectional area of the core columns around floor, say, 98, then the volume of about, what, 6 inches ? a foot ? vertically.

 

[Oystein]

Ok here is a first estimate for a lower bound on the amount of thermite to account for 6% iron spheres in airborne dust:

Assumptions
1. Thermite was applied in a maximally efficient way to melt all the steel it melted, and nothing beyond that
2. All steel that melted went into airborne dust
3. No further energy was lost by that process of dustification
4. The melted and then cooled iron spheres mixed uniformly with the other airborne dust to constitute 6% of the dust's mass
5. The thermite itself does not result in iron spheres


Step 1: In post 18, I estimated a lower bound of the mass of airborne dust:
9 x 10⁷g

Step 2: Assuming that 6% of the dust is formerly melted iron, that gives us
9 x 10⁷g * 6% = 5.4 x 10⁶g of melted iron

Step 3: In post 25, I estimated that we need 1.75g of thermite to melt 1g of iron. That gives us
5.4 x 10⁶g x 1,75 = 9,45 x 10⁶g of thermite, or about 10 metric tons.



If we assume that the thermite itself contributes all of its iron molecules to the iron spheres in the dust, less thermite is needed:
1.75g of thermite result 0,915g of iron, which are added to the 1g of melted iron from the steel.
So 1,75g of thermite can produce 1,915g of iron spheres. That's a ratio of
0.914:1

To produce 5.4 x 10⁶g of melted iron, we need 4.93 x 10⁶g of thermite
Or roughly 5 metric tons.
That's assuming a lot.

Assumption 2. should probably be modified to allow for a factor of 20 (only 5% or less of the melted iron went into airborne dust)
Assumption 3. should probably be modified to allow for a factor of at least 2 (half of the energy used to melt the steel is lost on dustification, kinetic energy, increased heat loss du to larger surface etc.

Which gives us a more realistic lower bound of 5t x 2 x 20 = 200 metric tons of thermite to account for the dust spheres.

 

[Oystein]

You're very welcome

Then instead of looking at the mass of the building, why not work out the cross-sectional area of the core columns around floor, say, 98, then the volume of about, what, 6 inches ? a foot ? vertically.

Look at the OP!

Christopher7 has argued several times that the iron-rich spheres found in WTC dust near GZ, which account for 6% of the mass of that dust, could only have been formed by thermite.

The goal of this thread is to evaluate christopher's claim.

 

[R.Mackey]

Okay, here we see about 2l of thermite - let that be somewhere close to 7kg to 8kg.

And 2" steel, or 5cm thick steel.

No way that safe was 2" thick solid steel. A typical safe that size and difficulty rating has double walls, typically about 3/8" outer plate and 16 gauge inner. You can even see the double wall construction in the hole in the bottom after they open the door.

What any of this has to do with the OP, however, I have no idea. Typical Truther tactics: Rather than answer the question, answer a question that nobody asked, and answer it wrong anyway...

 

[femr2]

Look at the OP!

Christopher7 has argued several times that the iron-rich spheres found in WTC dust near GZ, which account for 6% of the mass of that dust, could only have been formed by thermite.

The goal of this thread is to evaluate christopher's claim.

Yes, as I said, I don't see much value in the thread. It's clearly a ridiculous premise, that he'll ignore any way.

The result always going to be a ridiculous number followed by asking how the team of supersekrit ninjas hauled it all in there.

I, surprise surprise, don't really give supernanothermiate much value, but I think you'd get a more manageable output value if you looked at the cross-sectional area of the core, for about a foot, instead.

But whatever...

 

[Mikemcc]

Thanks, Mikemcc!

You are definitely zeroing in on the target!

A couple of questions:

1.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
You quote "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel"
However, there is also the number "According to FEMA, more than 350,000 tons of steel were extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it was cut up for recycling."
Which number should we go with?

2.
http://www.physforum.com/What-was-the-weight-of-a-WTC-Tower_4299.html
That thread runs from january to september 2006 - with a late last post by Gregory Urich from may 2007 - the same Urich who I relied on for estimate of total mass.
I think from that early guesstimate of 9.6E10g per tower we should not subtract estimates of hauled away steel - the errors of guessing will multiply wildly!

3.
You say "Therefore the 'missing steel' is 3.53E10g (only 35kt of steel there folks!) This would mean that 1760t of steel ended up as this 'dust'."
I don't get that. The 1760t of dust are 5% of 3.53E10g. What's the reasoning there?

They were just the first results from my searches (life's too short to get too worried about this!)

The 5% figure was from the OP saying that 5% of the dust was from iron particulates - having just typed this, does that figure mean metallic iron, or all compounds containing iron, which would further reduce the useful amount?

We will always need to subtract the hauled steel so that we are left with considering the 'missing steel', that's the only part that could possibly contribute to this dust.

Another factor - how does the angle of attack influence the result - vertical action is easy with thermite, horizontal action is much less efficient, it requires a structure that can withstand the temperatures of a thermite reaction long enough to produce a cutting jet. The largest that I've ever seen (only in pictural form is approx 2" in diameter.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, as I said, I don't see much value in the thread. It's clearly a ridiculous premise, that he'll ignore any way.

The result always going to be a ridiculous number followed by asking how the team of supersekrit ninjas hauled it all in there.

I, surprise surprise, don't really give supernanothermiate much value, but I think you'd get a more manageable output value if you looked at the cross-sectional area of the core, for about a foot, instead.

But whatever...

What value does your 175 study have? It had value to show you lacked knowledge in flying topic, FAA, and more. What value does you claim you don't know if there were real planes used on 911? It shows you can't logically process evidence and make a sound conclusion.

The value here is to show the nut case idea the iron spheres are from thermite used to bring down the WTC complex is insane. With your goals not even stated for your video opinion study, how can you make the value statement? right, you typed it. oops

You see no value because it debunks 911 truth thermite? Or the fact thermite was made up out of insane claims by Jones?

Your are right, there is no value in using thermite or super-nano-thermite as something used on 911 to destroy the WTC complex.

Your work on the video is meaning less and free of value, it has no goal and no tie to 911 truth claims of CD.

I see your point, I find no value to any of your efforts on 911; example, the apple falling at 17 seconds, no value!

How much thermite was needed to make all the extrapolated iron dust? I find this stuff in my backyard, was there thermite here? Do you want to check their math? Help out? Debunk thermite?

 

[Mikemcc]

Ok here is a first estimate for a lower bound on the amount of thermite to account for 6% iron spheres in airborne dust:

Assumptions
1. Thermite was applied in a maximally efficient way to melt all the steel it melted, and nothing beyond that
2. All steel that melted went into airborne dust
3. No further energy was lost by that process of dustification
4. The melted and then cooled iron spheres mixed uniformly with the other airborne dust to constitute 6% of the dust's mass
5. The thermite itself does not result in iron spheres


Step 1: In post 18, I estimated a lower bound of the mass of airborne dust:
9 x 10⁷g

Step 2: Assuming that 6% of the dust is formerly melted iron, that gives us
9 x 10⁷g * 6% = 5.4 x 10⁶g of melted iron

Step 3: In post 25, I estimated that we need 1.75g of thermite to melt 1g of iron. That gives us
5.4 x 10⁶g x 1,75 = 9,45 x 10⁶g of thermite, or about 10 metric tons.



If we assume that the thermite itself contributes all of its iron molecules to the iron spheres in the dust, less thermite is needed:
1.75g of thermite result 0,915g of iron, which are added to the 1g of melted iron from the steel.
So 1,75g of thermite can produce 1,915g of iron spheres. That's a ratio of
0.914:1

To produce 5.4 x 10⁶g of melted iron, we need 4.93 x 10⁶g of thermite
Or roughly 5 metric tons.
That's assuming a lot.

Assumption 2. should probably be modified to allow for a factor of 20 (only 5% or less of the melted iron went into airborne dust)
Assumption 3. should probably be modified to allow for a factor of at least 2 (half of the energy used to melt the steel is lost on dustification, kinetic energy, increased heat loss du to larger surface etc.

Which gives us a more realistic lower bound of 5t x 2 x 20 = 200 metric tons of thermite to account for the dust spheres.

Your estimate assumes ideal reactions - this isn't true since the reaction is acting against solid steel rather than fines and you can't easily cut sideways in steel using thermite. Even then, you can only cut for a short distance, not sufficient to cut through structural steel columns in buildings as massive as WTC7, never mind WTC1 or 2.

 

[femr2]

What value does your 175 study have?

Oooh. Loads. Shows that the NIST impact orientation and trajectory was quite severely wrong, thus bringing the initial damage assessment into serious doubt, thus...

What value does you claim you don't know if there were real planes used on 911?

You have me (deliberately) mistaken for a no-planer. lol.

With your goals not even stated for your video opinion study, how can you make the value statement?

There's loads of observational value once the methods have been pored over.

Getting increasingly disturbing there beachnut.

Anyway, back to the massive thermite volume calc...

 

[Oystein]

Yes, as I said, I don't see much value in the thread. It's clearly a ridiculous premise, that he'll ignore any way.

The result always going to be a ridiculous number followed by asking how the team of supersekrit ninjas hauled it all in there.

I, surprise surprise, don't really give supernanothermiate much value, but I think you'd get a more manageable output value if you looked at the cross-sectional area of the core, for about a foot, instead.

But whatever...

Oh sure he'll ignore it.
But next time he repeats his idea about that Lee-dust-iron-sphere nonsense, I can point him to this thread and say "hey, if you can't work out the implications of your own claim - stop making it".

Besides, I am compiling some data an links here that might come in handy next time someone muses about thermites.

And lastly, I excercise. Brain sport.

 

[Oystein]

...
The 5% figure was from the OP saying that 5% of the dust was from iron particulates

Uhm 5% (actually 6%) of the dust is iron-rich spheres. That does not mean that 6% of the mass of the WTC steel was turned to dust. Could be that all the "missing" steel was thus dustified, could be only 1% - we'd have to find reasons for such assumptions.
The 6% means: When you collect 100g of dust, you find, say, 50g silicates, 10g organic compounds, 2g rust, 0.1g asbestos, etc etc etc, 6g iron spheres....

- having just typed this, does that figure mean metallic iron, or all compounds containing iron, which would further reduce the useful amount?

Yes, that means (mainly) elemental iron. If they contain 20% contaminants, I'd not worry too much.

We will always need to subtract the hauled steel so that we are left with considering the 'missing steel', that's the only part that could possibly contribute to this dust.

That's correct, but still, subtracting one number from another without looking at how both numbers were derived at invites gross mistakes.

Another factor - how does the angle of attack influence the result - vertical action is easy with thermite, horizontal action is much less efficient, it requires a structure that can withstand the temperatures of a thermite reaction long enough to produce a cutting jet. The largest that I've ever seen (only in pictural form is approx 2" in diameter.

No doubt any thermite proponent would have to show that this horizontal action is at all feasibly, and at what grade of efficiency. For a lower bound, we can assume the same efficiency as for vertical action, and be sure the "real" amount must be higher. By what factor? Speculate away!

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

...

I've run calculations like this on my own before, and the numbers I get are alarmingly large. You can also eyeball it using known thermite experiments, such as this epic from The Mythbusters:

We whipped up some thermite a couple of weeks ago. Here's my YouTube:

I was impressed by the large spheres (lots of mm-sized droplets). Haven't seen any reports of those!

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

It occurs to me that before the amount of thermite becomes relevant in any way, a technically viable method of employment must be put forth, much the same way prison guards don't concern themselves over nuclear bombs because no one has developed a method for "keistering" one yet.
Why argue over how many micro-spheres can fit in an angels a55 until the CT'ers at least demonstrate the existence of the angel?

 

[Oystein]

We whipped up some thermite a couple of weeks ago. Here's my YouTube:

I was impressed by the large spheres (lots of mm-sized droplets). Haven't seen any reports of those!

You fool!! You forgot to nanonize your thermite and thisaway endow it with magical properties! Duh'!

 

[Oystein]

It occurs to me that before the amount of thermite becomes relevant in any way, a technically viable method of employment must be put forth, much the same way prison guards don't concern themselves over nuclear bombs because no one has developed a method for "keistering" one yet.
Why argue over how many micro-spheres can fit in an angels a55 until the CT'ers at least demonstrate the existence of the angel?

It occurred to me that if we can convince them that all the reasons they have to suspect thermite in the first place, mathematically result in ridiculous mass requirements, then we would not have to go into nitty-gritty engineering details of where to put how much in what way to do what exactly.