Chemistry, Fire, and Collapse

[rwguinn]

Apollo20 and Crazy Chainsaw, in this thread, and this one postulate that there were som major chemical reactions taking place that resulted in the 2 Towers collapse in a little over an hour's time, and which greatly abetted the thermal related failures in the structure.
Remarkably, while these reactions worked so well in WTC-1 and -2, they took their own sweet time in WTC-7, even though there were many similarities--diesel/Jet fuel + office supplies+ office furnishings+ physical damage.

The thing that has me concerned is the lack of numbers. There would have to be quite a volume of reactants, and apparently, lots of water available. Now, I am assured (there's a misnomer if there ever was) that these things existed in large quantities in the midst of a 500-->1000 degree C fire--rather than being dried out by the fire, this particular fire generated lots of water that soaked the very stuff it was burning.
While water is a product of combustion, it is energetic and departs the scene, rapidly. It is telling that a very large, and tall, column of smoke and other combustion by-products were visibly exiting the towers with considerable urgency, to the point that rescue helicopters were unable to land atop the towers, yet the water vapor and HCl hung around on the floors with the damage from the airplanes ramming them.
Additionally, zinc can embrittle stainless steel, very rapidly. The source of zinc, was, of course, the galvanized steel floor pans of each story of the building. These pans were sagging, and according to crazy chainsaw, burning rapidly. The zinc apparentl dripped from the sagging pans, and ran uphill to the ends of the sagging floor to contaminate the carbon steel collumns.
All of this happened on the floors damaged by the airliner. It all stayed in place, to perform chemical magic, because, quite visibly and obviously, the final collapse was observed initiating at these damaged floors. Wierdly, on WTC7, the reactions were much slower, and worked their way downward to the 7th floor or so.
Apollo20, Crazy Chansaw--IF it seems I am making a personal attack here, I'm sorry--I'm not. I am just trying to make sense of assertions made, with no math, no estimate of volume, no mechanism for implementation--just plain, bald assertions that this happened--with the implied caveat that we're too simple to understand them if we had them.

I do't demand answers, and I'm not just asking questions. I am seeking enlightenment. So give me an idea of what you're trying to say, OK?

 

[R.Mackey]

Good argument, comparing to WTC 7. I've tried to use the Pentagon as a model for the actual impact dynamics in WTC 1 and 2, but met with little understanding...

I should point out, though, WTC 7 did show some interesting phenomenology as well, specifically the infamous "dissolved" sulphidized steel elements noted in the FEMA report. While there's no reason to conclude this led to or materially contributed to the collapse, indeed seems to be a curiosity, it is worth further study.

Again, I don't expect to find more than a footnote to the question of what caused the collapses, but there are still some things to be learned from the collapses. These kinds of disasters just don't happen every day.

 

[rwguinn]

Good argument, comparing to WTC 7. I've tried to use the Pentagon as a model for the actual impact dynamics in WTC 1 and 2, but met with little understanding...

Well, being an obstinate engineer, I've always thought that repeatability was kind of important... and the similarities were just to big to ignore, yet the results are so dissimilar.

I should point out, though, WTC 7 did show some interesting phenomenology as well, specifically the infamous "dissolved" sulphidized steel elements noted in the FEMA report. While there's no reason to conclude this led to or materially contributed to the collapse, indeed seems to be a curiosity, it is worth further study.

I wans't up-to-date on that, but its is certainly worth knowing. Yet my questions on the sulfer/ssulphuric acid formation under the circumstances have gone unanswered/ignored, while hydrogen and zinc take the primary positions.

Again, I don't expect to find more than a footnote to the question of what caused the collapses, but there are still some things to be learned from the collapses. These kinds of disasters just don't happen every day.

And thank the deity of your choice, Finangle, and the skill and attention going into preventing it that it is not a common occurance.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Well, being an obstinate engineer, I've always thought that repeatability was kind of important... and the similarities were just to big to ignore, yet the results are so dissimilar.

I wans't up-to-date on that, but its is certainly worth knowing. Yet my questions on the sulfer/ssulphuric acid formation under the circumstances have gone unanswered/ignored, while hydrogen and zinc take the primary positions.

And thank the deity of your choice, Finangle, and the skill and attention going into preventing it that it is not a common occurance.

How much aluminum was in world trade 7 since aluminum speeds the process, and the bolts being galvanized A 325 in the towers might have some thing to do with the zinc getting too them.


Also the smoke crosses out across the floor pans before exiting out of the hole in the buildings plenty of times for reactions.

YOU know I thought that large aluminum planes hit the towers, guess I was wrong.

 

[rwguinn]

How much aluminum was in world trade 7 since aluminum speeds the process, and the bolts being galvanized A 325 in the towers might have some thing to do with the zinc getting too them.


Also the smoke crosses out across the floor pans before exiting out of the hole in the buildings plenty of times for reactions.

YOU know I thought that large aluminum planes hit the towers, guess I was wrong.

Lots of aluminum around, indeed. The facade of the building, all the trim work was Al--as were the airplanes.
Where did you get the galvanized bolt stuff? That is the first I have heard of that--and it would seem to me to be poor engineering practice, especially since the building was enclosed, and hot riveting is cheaper, faster, and more efficient--not to mention it is generally stronger

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Well, being an obstinate engineer, I've always thought that repeatability was kind of important... and the similarities were just to big to ignore, yet the results are so dissimilar.

I wans't up-to-date on that, but its is certainly worth knowing. Yet my questions on the sulfer/ssulphuric acid formation under the circumstances have gone unanswered/ignored, while hydrogen and zinc take the primary positions.

And thank the deity of your choice, Finangle, and the skill and attention going into preventing it that it is not a common occurance.

The funny thing is a reaction with free Chlorine is even possible if aluminum is involved.
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEsoft/CCA/CCA3/MAIN/CLH/PAGE1.HTM

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Lots of aluminum around, indeed. The facade of the building, all the trim work was Al--as were the airplanes.
Where did you get the galvanized bolt stuff? That is the first I have heard of that--and it would seem to me to be poor engineering practice, especially since the building was enclosed, and hot riveting is cheaper, faster, and more efficient--not to mention it is generally stronger

A 325 are routinely galvanized that is what Dr. Greening ask NIST About DA, if the bolts were Galvanized.
Gee the floor pans were galvanized and just pouring concrete in on the galvanized metal causes hydrogen to form between the metal and the floor pan and can lead to the formation of hydrogen sulfide.
You must of though we were talking of the burning floor pans melting onto the bolts and that would not have happened, although the melting floor pans and zinc Chloride would have fallen into the fires, and onto any aluminum.
Remember there are also galvanized wall studs to consider.

Dr. Greening and I are looking at the whole dam buildings complete in the conditions, that were present in the whole buildings nut just at the hydrocarbon based fires that Nist seems to indicate could not have created the spheres, and could not have sustained the prolonged heating in the rubble pile. NIST did not go into the post collapse, Or study the chemical reactions like sulfidication that was discovered on the steel.
We have!

 

[FactCheck]

You said you asked NIST, were they helpful? Just curious...

 

[rwguinn]

A 325 are routinely galvanized that is what Dr. Greening ask NIST About DA, if the bolts were Galvanized.

In other words, you don't know, at all. You have asked (or Dr. Greening has) and gotten no response.
I can't find any refeerence to galvanized A325. It dosn't appear that it is routinly galvanized.

Gee the floor pans were galvanized and just pouring concrete in on the galvanized metal causes hydrogen to form between the metal and the floor pan and can lead to the formation of hydrogen sulfide.

references? Sources?

You must of though we were talking of the burning floor pans melting onto the bolts and that would not have happened, although the melting floor pans and zinc Chloride would have fallen into the fires, and onto any aluminum.
Remember there are also galvanized wall studs to consider.

yes--but not around the outer structure. The inner structure, yes. I can see that.

Dr. Greening and I are looking at the whole dam buildings complete in the conditions, that were present in the whole buildings nut just at the hydrocarbon based fires that Nist seems to indicate could not have created the spheres, and could not have sustained the prolonged heating in the rubble pile. NIST did not go into the post collapse, Or study the chemical reactions like sulfidication that was discovered on the steel.
We have!

The argument under way is that all these chemical reactions were primarily resonsible for the collapse. It's what the Doctor has his knickers in a twist about.
Any mention of post collapse reactions will be consrtued as trolling, evasion, and prevarication.

 

[OMGturt1es]

from my understanding, the towers should have collapsed regardless. structural engineers that are famililar with the buildings' desgin all seem to agree. i don't think it would be feasable to argue that any other factors actually iniated the collapse without the existence of some serious physical evidence.

STILL, i would not doubt that embrittlement, eutectic melts, etc, all occured within the buildings. if the proper conditions existed, these reactions would ahve to occur. the thing is, we have bent trusses, and we have photos of the outer core being pulled in prior to collapse. we don't have much evidence of these interesting reactions that can damage stell.

we do have the documented intergranular eutectic melts from WTC 7 though. we also should consider that such reactions would be probably more than likely to occur in isolated areas, so it seems likely that much evidence of these reactions could likely be utterly destroyed by the collapse. so i think that greening and crazy should continue thinking about these reactions, and i wish they could get their hands on physical evidence, because i'd be willing to bet that there's a lot of interesting things we could learn from these collapses.

but in WTC 1 and 2, i just don't think it can be argued that these reactions initiated the collapse. i think it can definantly be argued that they were occuring, though. if the proper conditions existed, they would have to occur.

in WTC 7? i'd suspect that anything could be the culprit, but i'd go with heat right now. it was a raging inferno, left to burn, for how long? fireproofing just buys time. but you never know. maybe NIST will find that the eutectic melts that barnett researched for FEMA helped the collapse along? it should be interesting to hear what NIST makes of the evidence.

but yeah! thanks greening and crazy for the interesting ideas. i've been hoping that when NIST finishes with WTC 7 we'll get much more documentation on those eutectic melts.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

In other words, you don't know, at all. You have asked (or Dr. Greening has) and gotten no response.
I can't find any refeerence to galvanized A325. It dosn't appear that it is routinly galvanized.
references? Sources?

http://www.boltcouncil.org

If you check you will find that A 325 can be either steel or hot dipped galvanized. the towers only specified A 325 in the contract with the builders.
Probably type one A 325, only an examination of the bolt themselves can tell you if they were galvanized or not.
Nist has not stated what the bolts exactly are and will not release data on them.


yes--but not around the outer structure. The inner structure, yes. I can see that.

The argument under way is that all these chemical reactions were primarily resonsible for the collapse. It's what the Doctor has his knickers in a twist about.
Any mention of post collapse reactions will be consrtued as trolling, evasion, and prevarication.

Actually he proposes that they reduced the energy needed for the collapses and speed-ed the decent of the upper structures.
Also there are other problems because fires in the buildings at the time of collapse do not provide a means of keeping the rubble piles hot enough.
The reaction that happened in the towers had to also be the reaction that started the heating of the ground and the rubble pile NIST estimates of the heat about 700-800c could not have sustained the heating, for as long as it did.
The air samples show Spheres that could not have been created in the NIST Hypothesis.
It also possibly caused failure of weld joints.

I do not want to throw NIST away, but they do need refining to reflect reality in a real world.

I am hoping that the report on WT7 will at least take into account some real world chemical situation that happened in the building.

 

[Apollo20]

Chainsaw:

Well said!

 

[Newtons Bit]

There's no reason to use stainless steel (or galvanized) bolts unless they're exposed to something that will produce a galvanic effect. This is usually the case if you're bolting steel to aluminum. You use a rubber or other form of break in the circuit and a then use that bolt to ensure it doesn't cause problems as well. I don't particularly know much about the underlying chemistery, but I do know that galvanized bolts and stainless steel bolts have lower strenght properties than straight about A325.

Again, using galvanized and stainless steel is not cost effective unless you absoluetly most break that galvanic circuit.

 

[rwguinn]

<snip>....and just pouring concrete in on the galvanized metal causes hydrogen to form between the metal and the floor pan and can lead to the formation of hydrogen sulfide. ....<snip>

Do OSHA, NSCE, NSPE, USDOT, and all the State and local Departments controlling building codes and inspection know this?
Because that is a very common practice for buildings and bridges, and would be extremely hazardous.
No wonder all the world is going smoke-free!

 

[~enigma~]

Do OSHA, NSCE, NSPE, USDOT, and all the State and local Departments controlling building codes and inspection know this?
Because that is a very common practice for buildings and bridges, and would be extremely hazardous.
No wonder all the world is going smoke-free!

Is there any way we can figure out how to harness this as a mode of pollution free air travel...some of this is really getting ludicrous...

 

[rwguinn]

Is there any way we can figure out how to harness this as a mode of pollution free air travel...some of this is really getting ludicrous...

While concrete boats tend to float pretty well, I fear the lift-to-weight ratio for concrete aircraft will never fly, even with free fuel.
Especially since, if I interpret the chainsaw correctly, you would have to pour a new airplane every flight to ensure a supply of H2...

 

[~enigma~]

While concrete boats tend to float pretty well, I fear the lift-to-weight ratio for concrete aircraft will never fly, even with free fuel.
Especially since, if I interpret the chainsaw correctly, you would have to pour a new airplane every flight to ensure a supply of H2...

I think this should be a mythbusters episode

 

[T.A.M.]

I do not see the need for anyone to be hostile here. If CC and Greening are legitimately trying to add to the scientific theorems and knowledge bank wrt the WTC collapses, great, how can this hurt, provided it is done with rigerous scientific method, critical thinking, and critical appraisal of the methods, and results.

This is why I can only see it as being positive for them to contact the NIST team and engage them in a dialogue about such things.

TAM

 

[rwguinn]

I do not see the need for anyone to be hostile here. If CC and Greening are legitimately trying to add to the scientific theorems and knowledge bank wrt the WTC collapses, great, how can this hurt, provided it is done with rigerous scientific method, critical thinking, and critical appraisal of the methods, and results.

This is why I can only see it as being positive for them to contact the NIST team and engage them in a dialogue about such things.

TAM

Well, I certainly don't disagree. I' am trying to show the holes in the Chemistry theories, as I view them. Since we don't really know what theory Apollo20 is trying to push, exactly, I can see lots of inconsistencies that need some explanation. I would love to learn more, but I am not a mind reader, nor a cryptologist. I am not intentionally hostile, but I don't have a lot of patience when being talked down to--especially when it is unwarranted, in my mind. Give me some data, for crying out loud!

 

[Gravy]

Also there are other problems because fires in the buildings at the time of collapse do not provide a means of keeping the rubble piles hot enough.
The reaction that happened in the towers had to also be the reaction that started the heating of the ground and the rubble pile NIST estimates of the heat about 700-800c could not have sustained the heating, for as long as it did.

The thermite crowd makes much the same argument. You're both missing the fact that the collapses started fires underground, which burned for 3 months. So there's your method of "keeping the rubble piles hot enough."