Debate! What debate?

[The Almond]

[...]
Of course, there are those who would say that post-collapse initiation issues were of no interest to NIST but I would argue that this is simply not true!
[...]

I would counter that anything past collapse initiation is not of interest to NIST because there are no design or safety changes that can be made to improve a building's performance past collapse initiation. Given that NIST's mandate was primarily to investigate the collapse and then study possible methods for making buildings safer, it seems that there can be nothing gleaned from a full collapse study. Collapse initiation was a defined, singular point in the full collapse of the WTC. By looking at each event prior to collapse initiation, it is possible to determine what redundancy can be added to building design to interrupt the chain, and thus prevent collapse initiation.

If you think there is something to be learned about the WTC towers after initiation, I would highly suggest contacting the National Science Foundation and asking for a sizeable grant to do so. Mucking around on the internet is a complete waste of time for someone of your credentials.

 

[~enigma~]

Do you think you can answer this..

Again I ask what was the reason for my inclusion in your "hit" list? you seem to answer questions very selectively. Well this is a question that needs to be answered.

Otherwise I will just keep reposting the question and noting that your refusal to answer looks like a common tactic of the woo.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes, although I hadn't thought about the sulfates.

True, he didn't state that, but if that's not what he means then what's he making a fuss about? If these particles are in fact an expected result of such a fire, to me the next question is "Okay, what's their most likely origin?" Perhaps that question has been addressed in combustion studies. If not, perhaps an expert like Thomas Eagar could provide informed speculation. Whatever the case, it seems logical to me to seek the counsel of people to whom the presence of the particles is not surprising, before looking for more esoteric explanations.

Prof, Thomas Eagar I believe, believes the particles would be the product of burning aluminum in the fires of a large Chimney effect. Which NIST discounts.
Aluminum I have found can burn, red, yellow, and white not just white hot, the oxide can form micro cracks letting oxygen into the material though the oxide layer.

However if the aluminum does not reach the point where the metal super heats the oxide becomes to thick to be broken easily.
In small particles like thermites heating and shock waves cause the compromise of the oxide layer that can not thicken to prevent an electro chemical reaction.
I have actually with sound not ultra sound Caused thermite sparks to jump from aluminum to black iron oxide, it seems to be an electromagnetic reaction.
They always jump from the Aluminum to the iron oxide never the other way around.

If you asked me for a probable theory the only thing I can think of is a sulfate reaction over time with the concrete and steel, made worse by rusting do to chlorine,
that would literally create the stage for either an Iron oxide reaction,with aluminum to super heat carbon and steel causing off gassing.

Or simply a carbon-Iron oxide, reaction, Similar to what I have done with carbon black from diesel to refine iron ore from natural stone on the farm into crude iron, it also produced similar effects.
The Aluminum Oxidizing reaction would require hot iron oxide falling into Aluminum. The carbon-Iron oxide reaction would require a chimney effect, also if you get a sufficient chimney effect you could possibly get ignited iron.

I have seen these effects myself, and I have night mares when I realize what the people in the buildings might have went though in them.
The real horror though is that if something like this can occur then others might be at risk that is why I keep searching, keep trying to figure it out!
This could possibly save untold lives if it were discovered we might learn how to prevent it because nothing says these events can not happen in standard fires.
To tell you the truth I am stumped, but still trying!

 

[Apollo20]

UK Dave:

Spherical iron particles are proof of the formation of molten iron in the WTC prior to collapse. This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I would counter that anything past collapse initiation is not of interest to NIST because there are no design or safety changes that can be made to improve a building's performance past collapse initiation. Given that NIST's mandate was primarily to investigate the collapse and then study possible methods for making buildings safer, it seems that there can be nothing gleaned from a full collapse study. Collapse initiation was a defined, singular point in the full collapse of the WTC. By looking at each event prior to collapse initiation, it is possible to determine what redundancy can be added to building design to interrupt the chain, and thus prevent collapse initiation.

If you think there is something to be learned about the WTC towers after initiation, I would highly suggest contacting the National Science Foundation and asking for a sizeable grant to do so. Mucking around on the internet is a complete waste of time for someone of your credentials.

The point has flown completely over your head, he is referring to the sulfidication of the steel whether it happened before or after the collapses was not studied by Nist.
The fact that the spiracles were generated the way they were points to an event before the collapse for their production.
This indicates the presence of molten Iron before the collapse initiation witch is contrary to Nist's findings.

 

[Yurebiz]

*sigh*

OK, Yurebiz. I'll do some explaining since you are new here, or at least are playing at being new.

First of all, understand the context of the 'no molten steel'. The entire molten steel issue came about from an americanfreepress/indymedia article that quoted folks working at ground zero as finding molten steel. Not little bits of it, mind you, but what were called HUGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL!!!. Those are not my words, they were what was claimed. In fact the term (and the afp article) was so abused that 'HUGE POOLS OF MOLTEN STEEL' became a small running joke on USENET. You can go to google groups and see for yourself.

We were promised pictures and video of these huge pools of molten steel and we basicly got nothing but some eyewitness accounts (from folks who would not know one molten metal from another) anda few pictures of glowing steel, but not molten steel as was promised. A short video of some falling, glowing material was all there was, and there is no indication it was steel, let alone metal.

Dr. Jones had a mad-on for a big pile of debris he insisted, from viewing photos, must have been formerly molten steel that had cooled into a congealed steel mass. He was quite insistant that this was true despite the fact that there were pieces of rebar sticking out of this alleged steel. Rebar, BTW, has a lower melting point that structural steel and so could not have cooled intact in the mass had it been formerly molten. The piece, once more photos were shown, was obviously a compressed mass of materials of all sorts from the collapsing towers. Jones, I think has since removed the mass from his discussions without any admission of his foolish goose chasing.

So the HUGE POOLS failed onn every front. But fast forward a bit and some folks are finding little bits of <b>micron sized</b> spherical bits of steel or iron in the dust from the collapse.

Sounds like a slam dunk for the CT crew? Well, no. Its really not much at all, as several folks explain here it is not really that hard to get such small materials to a melted stage even without the heat required to melt larger amounts. There are far more than enough explanations in this thread, should you have bothered to read it rather than trying to hunt for non-existant contradictions.

It all comes down to how much molten steel was formed. Until we can agree on an amount or range, it's pointless to speculate on this. At least now you folks say there was molten steel, because I'm pretty sure I could come over here months ago and read you guys making fun of CTists saying there was.

Yes:
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

That doesn't say much though.

But anyway, I don't feel I had a proper response. Can Steel melt at 1300 degrees Celsius or not? Pardon my ignorance, I though that it couldn't.

 

[~enigma~]

Do you think you can answer this..

Quote:
Again I ask what was the reason for my inclusion in your "hit" list? you seem to answer questions very selectively. Well this is a question that needs to be answered.

Otherwise I will just keep reposting the question and noting that your refusal to answer looks like a common tactic of the woo.

 

[ref]

Spherical iron particles are proof of the formation of molten iron in the WTC prior to collapse. This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies.

But you do believe, that the cause of the collapses was natural, not helped with explosives?

 

[Apollo20]

The Almond:

When you said "Mucking around on the internet is a complete waste of time.." I think you are correct. But more than that: I have been very disturbed by the reaction of some posters to my "Debate! What Debate?" thread.

Therefore I think it's time I left.

Chainsaw: keep thinking outside the box!

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and hear great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door as in I went"

The Rubaiyat

 

[ref]

When I finally get myself into this thread, he leaves

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It all comes down to how much molten steel was formed. Until we can agree on an amount or range, it's pointless to speculate on this. At least now you folks say there was molten steel, because I'm pretty sure I could come over here months ago and read you guys making fun of CTists saying there was.

That doesn't say much though.

But anyway, I don't feel I had a proper response. Can Steel melt at 1300 degrees Celsius or not? Pardon my ignorance, I though that it couldn't.

NO it burns at 1350, your talking science that is over one hundred years old.

The combustion of iron and certain other (highly heated) metals in a pure oxygen flow is technically of great importance due to the accompanying huge quantities of heat - huge when compared with the unit volume of the metal, for iron, it is around 12900 cal/l compared with 2� cal/l for hydrogen. A strongly condensed sharp oxygen jet, meeting a plate made out of malleable iron or steel at a location, which has been heated to about 1 350�C, combusts the iron there into iron oxide and blows the oxide away. The heat tone of the combustion heats and combusts neighbouring sections; locations in the direction of the gas jet pass through the same process, and since this continues, you can make deep groves in plates and eventually cut them (autogenous). A metal can be cut autogeneously only when its temperature of brisk combustion and oxide melting point lie below its melting temperature. This is the reason, why cast iron, copper, aluminium, et al. cannot be cut, but only melted through. The combustion of aluminium into aluminium oxide (Al2O3) forms the foundation of alumino-thermics (H. Goldschmidt, 1899), which serves generation of high temperatures, especially for welding (rail links, large machine parts), but here the oxygen comes from the interaction of aluminium with iron-oxide. During the conversion of 1 kg thermite mixture, consisting of 3 parts Fe2O3 and one part of Al, there arise about 850 kcal. This enormous heat tone of the reaction is due to its rapid development during a few seconds; the estimated maximum temperature is 3 000�C.

http://kr.cs.ait.ac.th/~radok/physics/j5.htm

Why do you think that I have always said I expected molten iron-steel in the collapse to begin with, I have from the air data and from what I have observe always believe that some had been created.
If you will check Gravy has chastised me once or twice about possible aluminum iron oxide reactions. He did not understand what I was referring to though, and I did not wish to argue again.
I was simply looking into what could have created the usual data. Curiosity may in fact one day lead to my demise but that day is not today.
I must admit though I am not a scientist, not on the level of Dr. Frank Greening not even on the level of Dr. Steven E. Jones, or even Choke Choke Dr. Judy Woods.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy:

Please read my last post: "However, I would say that the presence of molten iron in the WTC is inconsistent with the NIST Report’s conclusion that temperatures in the towers during 9/11 were well below the melting point of iron or steel."

Please explain why you now have no trouble with molten iron in the WTC because some "experts" say molten iron is to be "expected" in building fires; meanwhile NIST cannot generate temperatures within 400 deg C of the melting point of iron!

Which "experts" do you prefer to believe Gravy?

I choose not to form conclusions based on scant evidence. I have suggested that a first step in understanding these phenomena might be to consult people who have studied them. I further suggest that this issue may be very complex. For instance, I don't assume that the spherical particles came from the towers. Fires raged for hours in buildings 4, 5, 6, 7, and 90 West St., as well as in vehicles and among the rubble. Then 7 collapsed, blasting the area with a dust cloud of its contents and the dust from the towers.

 

[einsteen]

But you do believe, that the cause of the collapses was natural, not helped with explosives?

If you read his posts you can find that Dr. Greening concludes an extra source is required to form those spherical partciles. And that is where the thread is all about, no he doesn't think a building is completely wired from top to bottom, he just tries to find answers and just posts a theory. How ridiculous it sounds for some official explanation minded people, if you disagree try to come with something better. It's all a matter of input output isn't it, we've seen the output, now try to find the input and please don't stop at collapse initiation.

 

[ref]

If you read his posts you can find that Dr. Greening concludes an extra source is required to form those spherical partciles. And that is where the thread is all about, no he doesn't think a building is completely wired from top to bottom, he just tries to find answers and just posts a theory. How ridiculous it sounds for some official explanation minded people, if you disagree try to come with something better. It's all a matter of input output isn't it, we've seen the output, now try to find the input and please don't stop at collapse initiation.

I wasn't talking about particles. I was talking about, whether he believed the collapses had man made help or not.

ETA: Other than the man made planes of course.

 

[uk_dave]

I'm not sure I understand why the spherical particles had to have been produced before the collapse, or even, as Gravy suggests, to have come from the towers themselves.

Undoubtedly a tremendous amount of energy was consumed during the collapse and I would certainly speculate that this energy could have raised temperatures within the collapsing structure sufficient to cause some melting of steelwork.

But we can only discuss particles which were found AFTER the collapse, and I see no conclusive evidence to suggest that these particles could only have been created before, during or after the collapse, excpet that the NIST report indicates that the hydrocarbon fueled fire would have been too cool to have produced this.

So unless you introduce an alternative ebergy source, or conclude that NIST was in error, it seems more sensible to conclude that the particles were either created during another event, such as the collapse itself, or from an isolated underground fire, similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_tunnel_fire or from a source other than the towers themselves.

 

[stateofgrace]

UK Dave:

Spherical iron particles are proof of the formation of molten iron in the WTC prior to collapse. This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies.

I wonder if you or somebody could clear this up for me. You say that spherical iron particles are proof of molten iron prior to collapse of the Towers. When you say prior, how prior, are you talking seconds, minutes, hours, weeks, months?
I am curious as when this formation could have taken place and from a result of what.

Clearly anybody who wished to push a conspiracy would argue that this formation was a direct result of some as yet unspecified heat source, but is there another explanation, have you got another one. I know in one of your earlier posts you specifically said you did not think thermite was used for various reasons but did not list them.

Off the top of my head I can imagine a number of scenarios where the residue of molten metal would be found in any steel framed building. Do they not weld the steel together, would this process not produce the same molten metal residue?

Or what about the actual plane crash itself and along with the massive fireball explosion, would this produce the same effect.

I am led to believe that each tower did not have natural gas supplies in them, so this clearly rules out a gas rupture, but could something else from inside the building have produced such heat in isolated pockets that it melted the steel?

like I say I am curious as to what you believe produced molten iron prior to the collapse and is there any way to determine exactly when prior to the collapse?

Another thing that I am curious about is there any way to determine the exact amount of molten steel there was and work back to determine exactly how much heat was required to produce it?

 

[uk_dave]

Or even, when were the particles discovered?

Presumeably they weren't identified in situ, so how do we know they were not the creation of the work needed to cut up and remove the wreckage?

If this has been discussed previously, I apologies for being unattentive, but honestly up until now I have not really understood what point Dr Greening has been trying to make, except as some kind of criticism of NIST (and the NISTIANS) for not investigating the chaotic progressive collapse of the towers, or refusing to return his calls.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

oridginally posted by uk_dave

I'm not sure I understand why the spherical particles had to have been produced before the collapse, or even, as Gravy suggests, to have come from the towers themselves.

Because they are almost totally impossible to reconcile with the NIST conclusions in a logical manor.

Undoubtedly a tremendous amount of energy was consumed during the collapse and I would certainly speculate that this energy could have raised temperatures within the collapsing structure sufficient to cause some melting of steelwork.

Yes but most of that would be small particles and it would be mixed with sulfur, and other chemicals know to have been in the collapse. It sould have also more than likely Oxidized. The particles from my understanding are not iron oxide.

But we can only discuss particles which were found AFTER the collapse, and I see no conclusive evidence to suggest that these particles could only have been created before, during or after the collapse, excpet that the NIST report indicates that the hydrocarbon fueled fire would have been too cool to have produced this.

The fires themselves are way to cool to have produce these. Under the NIST conclusions.
The problem is the particles are almost the same zinc iron ratio as the floor pans.

So unless you introduce an alternative ebergy source, or conclude that NIST was in error, it seems more sensible to conclude that the particles were either created during another event, such as the collapse itself, or from an isolated underground fire, similar to [/QUOTE]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_tunnel_fire or from a source other than the towers themselves.

Already thought of those but they show up in a large amount very quickly, too quickly to be from underground fires. Also they do not appear to be from friction in the collapse, as they from what I understand would have been oxidized, if created by friction in the collapse.
They truely seem to be from the off gassing of carbon Dioxide from heated-molten steel in the floor pans.

Dr Greening will have more to say on this I am sure, I will refrain from posting more until we hear how his research is doing!
Just hope that Christophera does not research concrete admixtures to closely we do not want 1000 posts about a fictional exploding concrete core. Though it might be more entertaining than his world trade center plans tread.

 

[uk_dave]

Interesting that they are traced to the floor pans, which were thin corrugated sheet metal.

Do we know what quantity we are talking about?

Is it possible that they are the remains of the fabrication process which were then trapped against the floor pans when the concrete was poured over?

Can we really establish beyond doubt the provenence of these particles?

 

[kookbreaker]

Has anyone explained why these micron sized particles could not have been generated by friction during steel on hard surface impacts? This has not been explained away as a possibility far as I have seen. Even though it was brought up several times.