QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 15 2007, 01:54 PM)
The ISSUE gentlemen is this:
Did the AIRPLANE IMPACT actually create SUBSTANTIALLY MORE damage via these chemical reactions than the NIST IMPACT analysis indicated.
While you have both implied that it did, you have shown NO QUANTITATIVE evidence of any sort that it did, nor have you shown any LOGIAL data to conclude that it should have, nor have you shown any VISUAL evidence of the towers POST IMPACT that would indicate that YOUR analysis is MORE ACCUATE than the NIST one. (In this regard, remember to consider that the NIST fire and impact cases resulted in a slightly HOT result, in both cases the models progressed to the point of collapse a bit faster than the actual towers)
So while I appreciate both of you explaining why the CHEMICAL/REACTIVE nature of the impact/fire would likely ADD additional ENERGY to that which the impact/fire released, I have yet to see ANY CONVINCING EVIDENCE that the AMOUNT of energy added from these chemical reactions was such a SIGNIFICANT fraction of the TOTAL ENERGY RELEASED during the impact/fires as to significantly alter the outcome.
If either of you think you have identified a SIGNIFICANT source of additional energy that should have been considered in the Collapse Scenario, then please, state its source precisely and quantify it as precisely as you can (and tell NIST about it).
For example by what quantity (and at what time) would you change NIST's estimates that 8,000 GJ of heat energy (with a peak plateau of 2 GW) was released by the fires in WTC 1 and that 3,000 GJ of energy (with a peak plateau of 1 GW) was released by the fires in WTC 2?
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 EX Sum pg xlvi
or
By what quantity would you change NIST's estimates of floor and column damage in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 fig 5-13 (case A - WTC 1) or fig 5-16 (case B - WTC 2) pgs 135-138 or and fig 5-19 (case C - WTC 2) or fig 5-22 (case D - WTC 2) pgs 141-144?
I believe the MOST convincing evidence that these chemical reactions were NOT a substantial issue is the general agreement NIST gets with its very detailed impact studies and the visual/physical evidence and secondly the fact that BOTH towers were stable AFTER the impact and remained so until they were SLOWLY damaged by the fires.
Arthur
air is hardly the only oxygen source, in the buildings were referring to the metal particulates they react with the Oxygen in the water created by the burning hydrocarbon itself.
What I have found is that there are several oxygen sources for reactions of the metals and the metal themselves provide added energy to make the damage from the impacts and the resulting reactions more damaging than previously though.
The oxygen sources for the burning metal particulates include, carbon monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen generators on the plane, water in the building and that created by the burning hydrocarbon, Hemoglobin and human flesh that forms spheres like Dr. Jones found. and just a few others like Lead oxide, and oxides used in paints.
I am still finding other sources of oxides, that would do very well at forming reactions.
The temperature of the fuel air explosion acts as a catalyst to other reactions and over comes the fire retardants in the PVC releasing large amounts of HCl in a short amount of time. It also releases Sulfates built up over years in the buildings the resulting reactions are quite devastating to the buildings structure.
Did the AIRPLANE IMPACT actually create SUBSTANTIALLY MORE damage via these chemical reactions than the NIST IMPACT analysis indicated.
While you have both implied that it did, you have shown NO QUANTITATIVE evidence of any sort that it did, nor have you shown any LOGIAL data to conclude that it should have, nor have you shown any VISUAL evidence of the towers POST IMPACT that would indicate that YOUR analysis is MORE ACCUATE than the NIST one. (In this regard, remember to consider that the NIST fire and impact cases resulted in a slightly HOT result, in both cases the models progressed to the point of collapse a bit faster than the actual towers)
So while I appreciate both of you explaining why the CHEMICAL/REACTIVE nature of the impact/fire would likely ADD additional ENERGY to that which the impact/fire released, I have yet to see ANY CONVINCING EVIDENCE that the AMOUNT of energy added from these chemical reactions was such a SIGNIFICANT fraction of the TOTAL ENERGY RELEASED during the impact/fires as to significantly alter the outcome.
If either of you think you have identified a SIGNIFICANT source of additional energy that should have been considered in the Collapse Scenario, then please, state its source precisely and quantify it as precisely as you can (and tell NIST about it).
For example by what quantity (and at what time) would you change NIST's estimates that 8,000 GJ of heat energy (with a peak plateau of 2 GW) was released by the fires in WTC 1 and that 3,000 GJ of energy (with a peak plateau of 1 GW) was released by the fires in WTC 2?
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 EX Sum pg xlvi
or
By what quantity would you change NIST's estimates of floor and column damage in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 fig 5-13 (case A - WTC 1) or fig 5-16 (case B - WTC 2) pgs 135-138 or and fig 5-19 (case C - WTC 2) or fig 5-22 (case D - WTC 2) pgs 141-144?
I believe the MOST convincing evidence that these chemical reactions were NOT a substantial issue is the general agreement NIST gets with its very detailed impact studies and the visual/physical evidence and secondly the fact that BOTH towers were stable AFTER the impact and remained so until they were SLOWLY damaged by the fires.
Arthur
air is hardly the only oxygen source, in the buildings were referring to the metal particulates they react with the Oxygen in the water created by the burning hydrocarbon itself. What I have found is that there are several oxygen sources for reactions of the metals and the metal themselves provide added energy to make the damage from the impacts and the resulting reactions more damaging than previously though.
The oxygen sources for the burning metal particulates include, carbon monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen generators on the plane, water in the building and that created by the burning hydrocarbon, Hemoglobin and human flesh that forms spheres like Dr. Jones found. and just a few others like Lead oxide, and oxides used in paints.
I am still finding other sources of oxides, that would do very well at forming reactions.
The temperature of the fuel air explosion acts as a catalyst to other reactions and over comes the fire retardants in the PVC releasing large amounts of HCl in a short amount of time. It also releases Sulfates built up over years in the buildings the resulting reactions are quite devastating to the buildings structure.
QUOTE (Daru+Jul 15 2007, 02:04 PM)
"Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressure, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris."
www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
Jest fuel is not an explosives... and FEMA knows that ...obviously.
What does Nist say. I have not find it.
But the problem is that when I look at the 2.tower impact videos... then it looks to me like a massive explosion.
(And I dont buy "A huge air fuel blast aided by liquid burning metals, making it more thermobaric like" theory... it sounds like a wild conspiracy theory to me)
Study coal mines the highest overpreasures in thermobaric happen because of entrapment of the energy in a structure such as in a coal mine shaft or an elevator shave or the Interior of a building.
The entrapment intensifies the shock waves energy!
It is simular to what happens when an ocean wave hits a shallow bay or reef, the wave is increased in height. That makes for excellent surfing.
www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
Jest fuel is not an explosives... and FEMA knows that ...obviously.
What does Nist say. I have not find it.
But the problem is that when I look at the 2.tower impact videos... then it looks to me like a massive explosion.
(And I dont buy "A huge air fuel blast aided by liquid burning metals, making it more thermobaric like" theory... it sounds like a wild conspiracy theory to me)
Study coal mines the highest overpreasures in thermobaric happen because of entrapment of the energy in a structure such as in a coal mine shaft or an elevator shave or the Interior of a building.
The entrapment intensifies the shock waves energy!
It is simular to what happens when an ocean wave hits a shallow bay or reef, the wave is increased in height. That makes for excellent surfing.
QUOTE
then it looks to me like a massive explosion.
That's because you don't know what an explosion really looks like.
The ones in the movies aren't real explosions, they're fireballs. Real explosions have a characteristic that they appear at or near the speed of sound. That's what an *explosive* is, is something that produces gas in a chemical reaction faster than the gas can leave, so the pressure builds up. In the case of high explosives, like C-4, the pressure builds up so fast that it can shatter steel because its explosion rate is faster than the speed of sound in steel. The force applied doesn't have a chance to stress the whole steel column before the blast reaches pressures that can cause the column to snap. That's how explosives work.
You can see what real explosives look like on TV shows that feature actual war footage. When the explosive goes off, you'll see a blast wave propagating through the image at the speed of sound. That's the characteristic of an explosive detonation.
The expanding-fireball of the WTC aircraft collision had no such shock wave. It was just fuel going 500mph burning with air.
And while we're on the topic of thermobarics and nanothermate, etc., I think it's worth pointing out that the paper referenced earlier that starting this discussion, showing a nice blast from a nanothermate formulated (in 2004), wasn't a high-explosive, nor did it suggest that it was. It just claimed to be a way of adding pressure/displacement effects to thermate. Useful, interesting, but not really relevant.
Recognize that Arthur's point of it being oxygen-limited applies to the combustion of aluminum, too, so whatever energy you'd get from oxidizing aluminum in that reaction, you'd have to subtract the energy that you *wouldn't* get from burning the fuel with the same oxygen.
For the sake of the others, the oxygen in a thermite/thermate reaction comes from rust, not a chemical reaction between aluminum and iron. The aluminum wants the oxygen in the rust more than the iron does, so the aluminum takes it away from the iron. There wasn't enough rust in the WTC to make that a significant source of energy, even if you assume that the aluminum in the aircraft truly atomized from the collision.
I'd hate to have to swear that aluminum-rust-fuel-air/thermobaric-like reactions *didn't* take place, but I think that their contributions would've been limited in scope to the extent that they wouldn't have played a major role in the collapse. They certainly weren't required to explain what happened at a top level. Impact-damage to structure + fire-weakening of the remaining structure = collapsed tower(s).
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 15 2007, 09:31 AM)
air is hardly the only oxygen source, in the buildings were referring to the metal particulates they react with the Oxygen in the water created by the burning hydrocarbon itself. What I have found is that there are several oxygen sources for reactions of the metals and the metal themselves provide added energy to make the damage from the impacts and the resulting reactions more damaging than previously though.
The oxygen sources for the burning metal particulates include, carbon monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen generators on the plane, water in the building and that created by the burning hydrocarbon, Hemoglobin and human flesh that forms spheres like Dr. Jones found. and just a few others like Lead oxide, and oxides used in paints.
I am still finding other sources of oxides, that would do very well at forming reactions.
The temperature of the fuel air explosion acts as a catalyst to other reactions and over comes the fire retardants in the PVC releasing large amounts of HCl in a short amount of time. It also releases Sulfates built up over years in the buildings the resulting reactions are quite devastating to the buildings structure.
All well and good, but you have still not QUANTIFIED any of this.
As to your sources of oxygen, as the article on Nanothermates explained:
QUOTE
reaction kinetics of composite energetic materials are typically controlled by the mass transport rates between reactants,
So, no, based on your description of these other oxygen sources (mostly RECYCLED OXYGEN) it does not appear that any of these reactions that you describe would occur at fast enough mass transport rates to create highly kinetic reactions.
But, I await your PROOF on the matter, since it is apparently of interest to you.
The key word being PROOF.
So far I've seen NONE.
When you do Then you can answer these questions:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| reaction kinetics of composite energetic materials are typically controlled by the mass transport rates between reactants, |
So, no, based on your description of these other oxygen sources (mostly RECYCLED OXYGEN) it does not appear that any of these reactions that you describe would occur at fast enough mass transport rates to create highly kinetic reactions.
But, I await your PROOF on the matter, since it is apparently of interest to you.
The key word being PROOF.
So far I've seen NONE.
When you do Then you can answer these questions:
If either of you think you have identified a SIGNIFICANT source of additional energy that should have been considered in the Collapse Scenario, then please, state its source precisely and quantify it as precisely as you can (and tell NIST about it).
For example by what quantity (and at what time) would you change NIST's estimates that 8,000 GJ of heat energy (with a peak plateau of 2 GW) was released by the fires in WTC 1 and that 3,000 GJ of energy (with a peak plateau of 1 GW) was released by the fires in WTC 2 and WHY?
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 EX Sum pg xlvi
or
By what quantity would you change NIST's estimates of floor and column damage in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 fig 5-13 (case A - WTC 1) or fig 5-16 (case B - WTC 2) pgs 135-138 or and fig 5-19 (case C - WTC 2) or fig 5-22 (case D - WTC 2) pgs 141-144 and WHY?
It REALLY is that simple.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 15 2007, 03:07 PM)
All well and good, but you have still not QUANTIFIED any of this.
As to your sources of oxygen, as the article on Nanothermates explained:
So, no, based on your description of these other oxygen sources (mostly RECYCLED OXYGEN) it does not appear that any of these reactions that you describe would occur at fast enough mass transport rates to create highly kinetic reactions.
But, I await your PROOF on the matter, since it is apparently of interest to you.
The key word being PROOF.
So far I've seen NONE.
When you do Then you can answer these questions:
It REALLY is that simple.
Arthur
You might want to consider that the water created by the Hydrocarbon is in the form of super heated steam, and that reacts very quickly with any exposed oxidizable metal.
The oxidation reaction of the metals also produce Hydrogen from said water, which then expands until it meets air and burns producing more water.
Also water tanks were within the buildings on the mechanical floors, and would have provided excellent oxygen sources as would the water in piping.
It is quite simple Author, any metal on which the oxide layer is compromised that comes in contact with any oxygen source Oxidizes on contact.
The reactions are unavoidable.
The oxide layer is the key it is disrupted by energy, and white flashes were observed on impact with the buildings outer structure similar reactions occurred inside the buildings and were intensified by the heat, do to the softening and melting of the metals.
Any Oxidizing metals would have significantly increased the heat potential of the fuel air blasts and the damage to the structure.
As to your sources of oxygen, as the article on Nanothermates explained:
So, no, based on your description of these other oxygen sources (mostly RECYCLED OXYGEN) it does not appear that any of these reactions that you describe would occur at fast enough mass transport rates to create highly kinetic reactions.
But, I await your PROOF on the matter, since it is apparently of interest to you.
The key word being PROOF.
So far I've seen NONE.
When you do Then you can answer these questions:
It REALLY is that simple.
Arthur
You might want to consider that the water created by the Hydrocarbon is in the form of super heated steam, and that reacts very quickly with any exposed oxidizable metal.
The oxidation reaction of the metals also produce Hydrogen from said water, which then expands until it meets air and burns producing more water.
Also water tanks were within the buildings on the mechanical floors, and would have provided excellent oxygen sources as would the water in piping.
It is quite simple Author, any metal on which the oxide layer is compromised that comes in contact with any oxygen source Oxidizes on contact.
The reactions are unavoidable.
The oxide layer is the key it is disrupted by energy, and white flashes were observed on impact with the buildings outer structure similar reactions occurred inside the buildings and were intensified by the heat, do to the softening and melting of the metals.
Any Oxidizing metals would have significantly increased the heat potential of the fuel air blasts and the damage to the structure.
Chainsaw,
I don't disagree with any of what you are saying but what is it about the importance of QUANTIFING these effects that apparently eludes you?
Simple question:
Given that NIST has stated how many Gigajoules of energy were released by the fires in each tower and at what rate.
HOW many MORE Gigajoules of energy do you claim these SPECIFIC chemical reactions released and at what rate?
Arthur
I don't disagree with any of what you are saying but what is it about the importance of QUANTIFING these effects that apparently eludes you?
Simple question:
Given that NIST has stated how many Gigajoules of energy were released by the fires in each tower and at what rate.
HOW many MORE Gigajoules of energy do you claim these SPECIFIC chemical reactions released and at what rate?
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 15 2007, 03:02 PM)
That's because you don't know what an explosion really looks like.
The ones in the movies aren't real explosions, they're fireballs. Real explosions have a characteristic that they appear at or near the speed of sound. That's what an *explosive* is, is something that produces gas in a chemical reaction faster than the gas can leave, so the pressure builds up. In the case of high explosives, like C-4, the pressure builds up so fast that it can shatter steel because its explosion rate is faster than the speed of sound in steel. The force applied doesn't have a chance to stress the whole steel column before the blast reaches pressures that can cause the column to snap. That's how explosives work.
You can see what real explosives look like on TV shows that feature actual war footage. When the explosive goes off, you'll see a blast wave propagating through the image at the speed of sound. That's the characteristic of an explosive detonation.
The expanding-fireball of the WTC aircraft collision had no such shock wave. It was just fuel going 500mph burning with air.
And while we're on the topic of thermobarics and nanothermate, etc., I think it's worth pointing out that the paper referenced earlier that starting this discussion, showing a nice blast from a nanothermate formulated (in 2004), wasn't a high-explosive, nor did it suggest that it was. It just claimed to be a way of adding pressure/displacement effects to thermate. Useful, interesting, but not really relevant.
Recognize that Arthur's point of it being oxygen-limited applies to the combustion of aluminum, too, so whatever energy you'd get from oxidizing aluminum in that reaction, you'd have to subtract the energy that you *wouldn't* get from burning the fuel with the same oxygen.
For the sake of the others, the oxygen in a thermite/thermate reaction comes from rust, not a chemical reaction between aluminum and iron. The aluminum wants the oxygen in the rust more than the iron does, so the aluminum takes it away from the iron. There wasn't enough rust in the WTC to make that a significant source of energy, even if you assume that the aluminum in the aircraft truly atomized from the collision.
I'd hate to have to swear that aluminum-rust-fuel-air/thermobaric-like reactions *didn't* take place, but I think that their contributions would've been limited in scope to the extent that they wouldn't have played a major role in the collapse. They certainly weren't required to explain what happened at a top level. Impact-damage to structure + fire-weakening of the remaining structure = collapsed tower(s).
QUOTE
Recognize that Arthur's point of it being oxygen-limited applies to the combustion of aluminum, too, so whatever energy you'd get from oxidizing aluminum in that reaction, you'd have to subtract the energy that you *wouldn't* get from burning the fuel with the same oxygen.
The recycling of the oxygen means that the carbon is recycled as well and since the metals react to Oxides the the Carbon can not, the energy is increased on an order of magnitude governed by the amount of reactants available to react over a given time span. I might point out that your also releasing hydrogen and recycling hydrogen as well. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Recognize that Arthur's point of it being oxygen-limited applies to the combustion of aluminum, too, so whatever energy you'd get from oxidizing aluminum in that reaction, you'd have to subtract the energy that you *wouldn't* get from burning the fuel with the same oxygen. |
The recycling of the oxygen means that the carbon is recycled as well and since the metals react to Oxides the the Carbon can not, the energy is increased on an order of magnitude governed by the amount of reactants available to react over a given time span. I might point out that your also releasing hydrogen and recycling hydrogen as well. I'd hate to have to swear that aluminum-rust-fuel-air/thermobaric-like reactions *didn't* take place, but I think that their contributions would've been limited in scope to the extent that they wouldn't have played a major role in the collapse. They certainly weren't required to explain what happened at a top level. Impact-damage to structure + fire-weakening of the remaining structure = collapsed tower(s).
Your thinking in terms of thermites I am not, I am looking into reactions that are likely to occur because they are highly favored by the environment! The more energetic the environment the more likely metal oxidation reactions will occur. Can you name a more energetic of reactive environment than the fuel air explosions?
Question why was the planes impact so much more damaging than anticipated by the engineers and it was not simply the speed of the plane or the fuel.
You do not have to have Iron oxide to have aluminum oxidize and produce temperatures of 2800c, compromise the oxide layer and it Oxidizes in air.
You guys are really providing me now with entertainment, I did not think that people on this forum would make me laugh as much you have.
you see I did the experiments Nist did not perform impact tests I did.
I even tested beef liver and got a reaction, Human flesh and blood would do the same.
What your missing out of this is that macro sized and micro size molten aluminum oxide particles have to occur and increase the damage over what Nist estimates the explosion intensity is directly related to the heat energy available for expansion, and since the greatest expansion occurs inside the buildings when the metal reaches a fragmented molten state that explains much of the unusual effects.
I hate to break it to you but this is an area not adress at all in the Nist reports of even contemplated by NIST!
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 15 2007, 04:01 PM)
Chainsaw,
I don't disagree with any of what you are saying but what is it about the importance of QUANTIFING these effects that apparently eludes you?
Simple question:
Given that NIST has stated how many Gigajoules of energy were released by the fires in each tower and at what rate.
HOW many MORE Gigajoules of energy do you claim these SPECIFIC chemical reactions released and at what rate?
Arthur
I am still working on Quantifying the data, but it looks like Nist is off by a third mostly were looking at an increase in the impact energy do to more expansion in the building.
We may even be looking at increased damage to the fire proofing down the core do to entrapment down the core though shafts in said core, resulting in the damage in the basements reported.
With a moderate increase in the energy in the buildings of about 1/5th what Nist estimates do to reactions taking place.
However it is not how much energy but that the energy is mostly concentrated on the impact Zone at the core and above the trusses near the floor pans.
I have to admit I am still working on this, the reactions are so favored that I can nut understand how Nist missed them, I can not believe they spent 20 million, and did not catch the mistake they made.
The real clincher though is the increased damage caused by hot Aluminum Oxide, it melts though steel it leave steel venerable to chemical reactions by making holes that cause the steel to degrade faster.
I am really hoping that others will look into this, I could be wrong I the estimates could be substantially higher but I doubt they would be lower, the materials are just to high energy.
I don't disagree with any of what you are saying but what is it about the importance of QUANTIFING these effects that apparently eludes you?
Simple question:
Given that NIST has stated how many Gigajoules of energy were released by the fires in each tower and at what rate.
HOW many MORE Gigajoules of energy do you claim these SPECIFIC chemical reactions released and at what rate?
Arthur
I am still working on Quantifying the data, but it looks like Nist is off by a third mostly were looking at an increase in the impact energy do to more expansion in the building.
We may even be looking at increased damage to the fire proofing down the core do to entrapment down the core though shafts in said core, resulting in the damage in the basements reported.
With a moderate increase in the energy in the buildings of about 1/5th what Nist estimates do to reactions taking place.
However it is not how much energy but that the energy is mostly concentrated on the impact Zone at the core and above the trusses near the floor pans.
I have to admit I am still working on this, the reactions are so favored that I can nut understand how Nist missed them, I can not believe they spent 20 million, and did not catch the mistake they made.
The real clincher though is the increased damage caused by hot Aluminum Oxide, it melts though steel it leave steel venerable to chemical reactions by making holes that cause the steel to degrade faster.
I am really hoping that others will look into this, I could be wrong I the estimates could be substantially higher but I doubt they would be lower, the materials are just to high energy.
QUOTE
What your missing out of this is ...
OK, I'm not a chemist, so this really is out of my area of expertise.
Also, I've got no beef with your position, you're just saying in essence that the original fireball was hotter than NIST claimed, and I've said all along that I felt that the fire was hotter than their model said it was.
But, from a strictly-physics perspective, the "recycled oxygen" part of the argument seems a bit like double-booking.
Let's assume for the sage of the discussion that none of the oxygen present went into burning the jet fuel/carbon-based fuels, but all of it went into burning the aluminum. How much hotter would that net fire have been than if all the oxygen burned only the carbon-based fuels?
Ultimately, there is only so much oxygen present in the volume of the impacted floors of the WTC towers.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 15 2007, 05:49 PM)
OK, I'm not a chemist, so this really is out of my area of expertise.
Also, I've got no beef with your position, you're just saying in essence that the original fireball was hotter than NIST claimed, and I've said all along that I felt that the fire was hotter than their model said it was.
But, from a strictly-physics perspective, the "recycled oxygen" part of the argument seems a bit like double-booking.
Let's assume for the sage of the discussion that none of the oxygen present went into burning the jet fuel/carbon-based fuels, but all of it went into burning the aluminum. How much hotter would that net fire have been than if all the oxygen burned only the carbon-based fuels?
Ultimately, there is only so much oxygen present in the volume of the impacted floors of the WTC towers.
If that much aluminum instantly oxidized we would be looking at about 2 to 3 stories or more of the structure literally melting I believe.
The carbon can only reach in air about 1800c the Aluminum can reach 2800c and steel reactions with super heated steam can reach 3000c.
We are talking temperature half the surface temperature of the sun, I must also point out that aluminum has a higher fuel density than the liquid Hydrocarbon.
I think that the Aluminum added effects to the Fuel air blasts but was not the major component only increased the energy potential a significant amount and increased the damage.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 15 2007, 11:35 AM)
I am still working on Quantifying the data, but it looks like Nist is off by a third
...
With a moderate increase in the energy in the buildings of about 1/5th what Nist estimates do to reactions taking place.
...
I have to admit I am still working on this, the reactions are so favored that I can nut understand how Nist missed them, I can not believe they spent 20 million, and did not catch the mistake they made.
Well most SCIENTISTS would refrain from making these kind of statements until one HAS worked through quantifing the data.
Personally, I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you will come up with anywhere NEAR the over 2,500 Gigajoules of energy that you claim NIST missed.
Since you have as yet produced NO QUANTIFIABLE DATA AT ALL, I find it hard to accept your "rough" estimates.
As for
NOPE, as the Purdue and NIST studies show, the impact damage was pretty much what their models showed and the combination of the impact and NIST fire models were a bit hotter than actual, so NO, there does NOT appear to be any MISSING energy, CERTAINLY not anywhere near the amount that you claim they missed.
The fact is, while the impacts into the towers were a fairly unique event, high speed aircraft crashes are not, and so one would think that if what you claim is true, then one would be able to find SOME DATA that supports your contention of what occurs during a crash.
I've looked and I've come up empty.
Why do you think that is?
Arthur
...
With a moderate increase in the energy in the buildings of about 1/5th what Nist estimates do to reactions taking place.
...
I have to admit I am still working on this, the reactions are so favored that I can nut understand how Nist missed them, I can not believe they spent 20 million, and did not catch the mistake they made.
Well most SCIENTISTS would refrain from making these kind of statements until one HAS worked through quantifing the data.
Personally, I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you will come up with anywhere NEAR the over 2,500 Gigajoules of energy that you claim NIST missed.
Since you have as yet produced NO QUANTIFIABLE DATA AT ALL, I find it hard to accept your "rough" estimates.
As for
QUOTE
Question why was the planes impact so much more damaging than anticipated by the engineers
NOPE, as the Purdue and NIST studies show, the impact damage was pretty much what their models showed and the combination of the impact and NIST fire models were a bit hotter than actual, so NO, there does NOT appear to be any MISSING energy, CERTAINLY not anywhere near the amount that you claim they missed.
The fact is, while the impacts into the towers were a fairly unique event, high speed aircraft crashes are not, and so one would think that if what you claim is true, then one would be able to find SOME DATA that supports your contention of what occurs during a crash.
I've looked and I've come up empty.
Why do you think that is?
Arthur
Like Chainsaw, I am still working on the chemistry of the fires... and I AM a chemist.... But I certainly have a lot of things to look at yet....
I would say, however, that from the HCl released by PVC combustion on the floors in the fire zones alone, and the subsequent reactions with zinc and iron, that at least 50 GJ of extra heat energy was released.
Now this may look small alongside Arthur's 3000 GJ of TOTAL heat from, for example the WTC 1 fires, but this is not a fair or meaningful comparison. The NIST number is derived from the burning of jet fuel and office furniture that was on the FLOORS in the building.
The 50 GJ I am referring to would be released at the CEILINGS in the fire effected zones and go directly into the floor truss assemblies because it would be coming from HCl/Cl/SO2 attack on the iron and zinc in the floor pans and truss rods.
And by the way, CHLORINE acts CATALYTICALLY in this process with ingressed oxygen scavenging the iron and zinc to form oxides as the final product.
Yes, Chainsaw, I can't believe that NIST missed this either!
I would say, however, that from the HCl released by PVC combustion on the floors in the fire zones alone, and the subsequent reactions with zinc and iron, that at least 50 GJ of extra heat energy was released.
Now this may look small alongside Arthur's 3000 GJ of TOTAL heat from, for example the WTC 1 fires, but this is not a fair or meaningful comparison. The NIST number is derived from the burning of jet fuel and office furniture that was on the FLOORS in the building.
The 50 GJ I am referring to would be released at the CEILINGS in the fire effected zones and go directly into the floor truss assemblies because it would be coming from HCl/Cl/SO2 attack on the iron and zinc in the floor pans and truss rods.
And by the way, CHLORINE acts CATALYTICALLY in this process with ingressed oxygen scavenging the iron and zinc to form oxides as the final product.
Yes, Chainsaw, I can't believe that NIST missed this either!
I think it'd be worth factoring-in the energy it would take to melt/atomize the aluminum into the energy equation. Impacts don't generally have enough energy to do more than just rip an aircraft's aluminum into shreds.
That said, one should probably examine the destruction of the British warship (I forget its name) that was destroyed in the Falklands war by an Exocet missile. IIRC, the Exocet was fired at sufficiently close range that most of the missile's propellant was still in the missile, and the report on the ship's destruction said that the propellant started the ship's aluminum structure burning, which was cited as the main reason the Exocet was more destructive than expected.
Aluminum powder is routinely used as an additive to solid-rocket "grain" (fuel) to raise the temperature of the combustion. It's a component of the Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters' propellant, and it's the main reason the exhaust is so luminous.
I'd have to think that if aluminum had been burning as a significant fraction of the WTC fireball, that the fireball would similarly have been much brighter than it was. It looked, to me, like burning jet fuel, kinda reddish-orange. If there'd been more aluminum burning, I'd have expected the fireball to be more whitish in color from the additional heat.
That isn't to say that it couldn't have played any role in the phenomenology of the disaster, maybe it could help explain why the debris-fire continued to burn as hot and as long as it did, even after the collapse, but, again, chemistry isn't an area that I can claim any expertise in, so I can't add much value to the discussion.
That said, one should probably examine the destruction of the British warship (I forget its name) that was destroyed in the Falklands war by an Exocet missile. IIRC, the Exocet was fired at sufficiently close range that most of the missile's propellant was still in the missile, and the report on the ship's destruction said that the propellant started the ship's aluminum structure burning, which was cited as the main reason the Exocet was more destructive than expected.
Aluminum powder is routinely used as an additive to solid-rocket "grain" (fuel) to raise the temperature of the combustion. It's a component of the Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters' propellant, and it's the main reason the exhaust is so luminous.
I'd have to think that if aluminum had been burning as a significant fraction of the WTC fireball, that the fireball would similarly have been much brighter than it was. It looked, to me, like burning jet fuel, kinda reddish-orange. If there'd been more aluminum burning, I'd have expected the fireball to be more whitish in color from the additional heat.
That isn't to say that it couldn't have played any role in the phenomenology of the disaster, maybe it could help explain why the debris-fire continued to burn as hot and as long as it did, even after the collapse, but, again, chemistry isn't an area that I can claim any expertise in, so I can't add much value to the discussion.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 15 2007, 07:20 PM)
Well most SCIENTISTS would refrain from making these kind of statements until one HAS worked through quantifing the data.
Personally, I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you will come up with anywhere NEAR the over 2,500 Gigajoules of energy that you claim NIST missed.
Since you have as yet produced NO QUANTIFIABLE DATA AT ALL, I find it hard to accept your "rough" estimates.
As for
NOPE, as the Purdue and NIST studies show, the impact damage was pretty much what their models showed and the combination of the impact and NIST fire models were a bit hotter than actual, so NO, there does NOT appear to be any MISSING energy, CERTAINLY not anywhere near the amount that you claim they missed.
The fact is, while the impacts into the towers were a fairly unique event, high speed aircraft crashes are not, and so one would think that if what you claim is true, then one would be able to find SOME DATA that supports your contention of what occurs during a crash.
I've looked and I've come up empty.
Why do you think that is?
Arthur
Those are just rough estimates based on the availiable oxygen, for the reactions.
Those are just rough estimates based on the availiable oxygen, for the reactions.
The fact is, while the impacts into the towers were a fairly unique event, high speed aircraft crashes are not, and so one would think that if what you claim is true, then one would be able to find SOME DATA that supports your contention of what occurs during a crash.
OH really oxidizing Aluminum does not happen in plane crashes, are you so sure?
http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/flash.html
The more energy present in the crash and the more fragmentation the more Oxidation of Aluminum.
I must point out that the energy value is high because a lot of the energy goes into actualy melting the Aluminum oxide. Which happens at above 2054c.
The Purdue data that I have looked at works from the NIST data so DA of course they match.
Can you give me and instance where a plane has hit a building like the twin towers before? This was a totally unque event.
I think there could be a quibble regarding the use of the term "significant", here.
Even if the chemical processes did as suggested, it seems that they'd be attacking structural members that would've been destined to fail anyway under the circumstances.
That's the thing that the CDiots never seem to grasp (not that I'm accusing anyone involved in this discussion of being a CDiot), is that the damage was sufficiently grave to have been mortal regardless of the details. This wasn't a "threading-the-needle" sort of situation, there were many concurrent processes going forth, all potentially fatal.
It reminds me of what was told to me as a true story where a couple of guys working for an offshore oil resupply company landed a pontoon helicopter on the end of a pier while they bought hardware at a marine hardware store on the pier, and coming back, finding it was gone. They went to the end of the pier and looked down, and saw that the helicopter had fallen off the end of the pier into the ocean. It was there bobbing in the surf, hanging from the pontoons. They realized immediately that they were fired, so they spent the rest of the day getting drunk at a bar. Around 5pm, they figured they owed their boss at least an explanation of what happened, so they drew straws, loser making the call.
"Hello, boss, it's me."
"WHERE THE #%$* HAVE YOU BEEN?!?"
"Bob and I are at the pier, we couldn't get the helicopter started."
"WHY NOT?"
"Well, we've been trying to figure that out all day. I think it's because it's underwater, but Bob thinks it because it's upside-down."
Click.
Once the planes hit, the towers were like that upside-down, underwater helicopter. Screwed.
I think there could be a quibble regarding the use of the term "significant", here.
Even if the chemical processes did as suggested, it seems that they'd be attacking structural members that would've been destined to fail anyway under the circumstances.
That's the thing that the CDiots never seem to grasp (not that I'm accusing anyone involved in this discussion of being a CDiot), is that the damage was sufficiently grave to have been mortal regardless of the details. This wasn't a "threading-the-needle" sort of situation, there were many concurrent processes going forth, all potentially fatal.
It reminds me of what was told to me as a true story where a couple of guys working for an offshore oil resupply company landed a pontoon helicopter on the end of a pier while they bought hardware at a marine hardware store on the pier, and coming back, finding it was gone. They went to the end of the pier and looked down, and saw that the helicopter had fallen off the end of the pier into the ocean. It was there bobbing in the surf, hanging from the pontoons. They realized immediately that they were fired, so they spent the rest of the day getting drunk at a bar. Around 5pm, they figured they owed their boss at least an explanation of what happened, so they drew straws, loser making the call.
"Hello, boss, it's me."
"WHERE THE #%$* HAVE YOU BEEN?!?"
"Bob and I are at the pier, we couldn't get the helicopter started."
"WHY NOT?"
"Well, we've been trying to figure that out all day. I think it's because it's underwater, but Bob thinks it because it's upside-down."
Click.
Once the planes hit, the towers were like that upside-down, underwater helicopter. Screwed.
Hahaha! Good one, wcelliot! hehehe.
Anyhow, as to that 'quibble'...you are right insofar as any such LOCALISED 'peri-impact' high-energy processes may only have 'hastened' the INEVITABLE....but that does not necessarily mean they were 'insignificant' or 'inconsiderable'. They might have done 'localised/critical' damage/compromising of both structure and fire-proof/fighting capacities.
But of course, to what extent these processes did that; and as to how much later the inevitable would have occurred without them as described by Chainsaw/NF and others, who can tell?
The INEVITABLE did happen...the rest is 'details', as they say! (but nevertheless 'interesting' details for those interested in such things, hehehe).
Cheers mate, everyone!
RC.
.
I'm not sure that a number would determine the matter.
In the case of the floor trusses, for example, they would've been compromised equally if a small amount of fireproofing material was removed or a large amount. It's like a chain being only as strong as the weakest link, so wherever the insulation was removed, by whatever means ("shotgun-like blast" or caustic chemicals), the truss would've been compromised. Heat would've made that uncovered section stretch to the breaking point, whether it was six inches or six feet. Either way, same result.
So I don't really see that numbers would help much in the consideration of its significance, nor do I feel that it makes a difference whether the fireproofing was removed by the mechanical "shotgun" effect or the chemical erosion effect. Either way, same result.
Upside-down, underwater helicopters can't take off.
Hi adoucette!
True....as far as that goes.
I think their point was that highly 'vulnerable' CONNECTIONS/WELDS/FIREPROOFING/SURFACES 'nano-scale achilles heels' at the MICROSCOPIC/MOLECULAR LEVEL would have suffered ALMOST IMMEDIATE CAUSTIC/ACIDIC/EXOTHERMIC chemical-reaction damage and reaction-heat surface-layer damage DIFFERENT FROM AND IN ADDITION TO the straight IMPACT DYNAMICS MASS EFFECT. And that these nano-scale' surface 'ingress/damage' would COMPROMISE many STRAIGHT IMPACT 'CRACKED', 'WRINKLED' and MINUTELY 'separated' welds/bolts/connection-surfaces.
That is what they are getting at, I think. The damage done would have been exacerbated to 'significant' degrees at the MICROSTRUCTURE/MICROCRACKS level.
And that any LOCALISED extreme effects from any ONE or more such effects might be the STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMELS BACK 'sooner' rather than later in the overall failure/collapse process duration observed.
Anyhow, the overall effect WOULD have been the SAME 'in time', even IF there were NO contribution to hastening of same by these highly corrosive/exothermic reactions being positied TO SOME EXTENT yet to be established by anyone interested in doing so.
For myself, it is enough to say that some of that was going on as posited/discussed, but I will not pursue the DETAILED situatyion because as you say, there is really little actual direct information IN SITU to arrive at any conclusion much different from NIST...except perhaps in the question of a FEW MINUTE's either way to Global collapse..
PLUS: These impact shredding and initiated processes involving aluminium and other hihly exothermic/corrosive reactiion would be MORE WIDESPREAD and MORE 'significant' than any 'planted' so-called thermite/thermate charges.....simply because the alleged 'conspirators' would have to know exactly which levels the planes would hit, whereas the CHAOTIC ones were LOCALLY PRODUCED by the impact events themselves at THOSE AFFECTED LOCATIONS where the damage effects would be more directly 'coupled' with initial impact processes. And besides, the damage done by 'planted' thermite/thermate would be QUITE DISTINCT and DIFFERENT both in TIME, TYPE and LOCATION/DISTRIBUTION PATTERN of effects....and those 'planted' patterns were NOT observed.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Exactly it shows why Nist had to use the more sever impact model even though the data did not require it.
Tell me why did the second tower struck fall first, was it just the impact damage or something else?
I'm not sure that a number would determine the matter.
In the case of the floor trusses, for example, they would've been compromised equally if a small amount of fireproofing material was removed or a large amount. It's like a chain being only as strong as the weakest link, so wherever the insulation was removed, by whatever means ("shotgun-like blast" or caustic chemicals), the truss would've been compromised. Heat would've made that uncovered section stretch to the breaking point, whether it was six inches or six feet. Either way, same result.
So I don't really see that numbers would help much in the consideration of its significance, nor do I feel that it makes a difference whether the fireproofing was removed by the mechanical "shotgun" effect or the chemical erosion effect. Either way, same result.
Upside-down, underwater helicopters can't take off.
what your saying looks good on paper, until we realise that the floor pans are integral with the trusses, and the pans(and perpendicular trusses!) are able to bear load, and provide an alternative pathway for loading.
einsteen, why does the 'bullet' slow down when it breaks the 'spaghetti'? i thought newton's laws were moot post-911?
do you think a piece of spaghetti could have broken the spaghetti like that?
Personally, I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you will come up with anywhere NEAR the over 2,500 Gigajoules of energy that you claim NIST missed.
Since you have as yet produced NO QUANTIFIABLE DATA AT ALL, I find it hard to accept your "rough" estimates.
As for
NOPE, as the Purdue and NIST studies show, the impact damage was pretty much what their models showed and the combination of the impact and NIST fire models were a bit hotter than actual, so NO, there does NOT appear to be any MISSING energy, CERTAINLY not anywhere near the amount that you claim they missed.
The fact is, while the impacts into the towers were a fairly unique event, high speed aircraft crashes are not, and so one would think that if what you claim is true, then one would be able to find SOME DATA that supports your contention of what occurs during a crash.
I've looked and I've come up empty.
Why do you think that is?
Arthur
QUOTE
Well most SCIENTISTS would refrain from making these kind of statements until one HAS worked through quantifing the data.
Those are just rough estimates based on the availiable oxygen, for the reactions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well most SCIENTISTS would refrain from making these kind of statements until one HAS worked through quantifing the data. |
Those are just rough estimates based on the availiable oxygen, for the reactions.
The fact is, while the impacts into the towers were a fairly unique event, high speed aircraft crashes are not, and so one would think that if what you claim is true, then one would be able to find SOME DATA that supports your contention of what occurs during a crash.
OH really oxidizing Aluminum does not happen in plane crashes, are you so sure?
http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/flash.html
The more energy present in the crash and the more fragmentation the more Oxidation of Aluminum.
I must point out that the energy value is high because a lot of the energy goes into actualy melting the Aluminum oxide. Which happens at above 2054c.
The Purdue data that I have looked at works from the NIST data so DA of course they match.
Can you give me and instance where a plane has hit a building like the twin towers before? This was a totally unque event.
Well, the NIST crew did not, it seems, include any chemists. Despite the fact they have been doing building fire safety studies since 1923. I wonder why that is? 
NIST did run two levels of damage due to aircraft and two levels of damage due to fires. In both cases and both towers they consistently chose the more severe. I suppose I should wonder why that is, as well.
NIST did run two levels of damage due to aircraft and two levels of damage due to fires. In both cases and both towers they consistently chose the more severe. I suppose I should wonder why that is, as well.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 15 2007, 07:45 PM)
I think it'd be worth factoring-in the energy it would take to melt/atomize the aluminum into the energy equation. Impacts don't generally have enough energy to do more than just rip an aircraft's aluminum into shreds.
That said, one should probably examine the destruction of the British warship (I forget its name) that was destroyed in the Falklands war by an Excite missile. IIRC, the Exocet was fired at sufficiently close range that most of the missile's propellant was still in the missile, and the report on the ship's destruction said that the propellant started the ship's aluminum structure burning, which was cited as the main reason the Exocet was more destructive than expected.
Aluminum powder is routinely used as an additive to solid-rocket "grain" (fuel) to raise the temperature of the combustion. It's a component of the Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters' propellant, and it's the main reason the exhaust is so luminous.
I'd have to think that if aluminum had been burning as a significant fraction of the WTC fireball, that the fireball would similarly have been much brighter than it was. It looked, to me, like burning jet fuel, kinda reddish-orange. If there'd been more aluminum burning, I'd have expected the fireball to be more whitish in color from the additional heat.
That isn't to say that it couldn't have played any role in the phenomenology of the disaster, maybe it could help explain why the debris-fire continued to burn as hot and as long as it did, even after the collapse, but, again, chemistry isn't an area that I can claim any expertise in, so I can't add much value to the discussion.
I looked at that very thing then I discovered that the burning jet fuel produced tons of carbon black, that absorbs the white light and retransmits it as orange red black body radiation.
That said, one should probably examine the destruction of the British warship (I forget its name) that was destroyed in the Falklands war by an Excite missile. IIRC, the Exocet was fired at sufficiently close range that most of the missile's propellant was still in the missile, and the report on the ship's destruction said that the propellant started the ship's aluminum structure burning, which was cited as the main reason the Exocet was more destructive than expected.
Aluminum powder is routinely used as an additive to solid-rocket "grain" (fuel) to raise the temperature of the combustion. It's a component of the Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters' propellant, and it's the main reason the exhaust is so luminous.
I'd have to think that if aluminum had been burning as a significant fraction of the WTC fireball, that the fireball would similarly have been much brighter than it was. It looked, to me, like burning jet fuel, kinda reddish-orange. If there'd been more aluminum burning, I'd have expected the fireball to be more whitish in color from the additional heat.
That isn't to say that it couldn't have played any role in the phenomenology of the disaster, maybe it could help explain why the debris-fire continued to burn as hot and as long as it did, even after the collapse, but, again, chemistry isn't an area that I can claim any expertise in, so I can't add much value to the discussion.
QUOTE
I'd have to think that if aluminum had been burning as a significant fraction of the WTC fireball, that the fireball would similarly have been much brighter than it was. It looked, to me, like burning jet fuel, kinda reddish-orange. If there'd been more aluminum burning, I'd have expected the fireball to be more whitish in color from the additional heat.
I looked at that very thing then I discovered that the burning jet fuel produced tons of carbon black, that absorbs the white light and retransmits it as orange red black body radiation.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 15 2007, 07:52 PM)
Well, the NIST crew did not, it seems, include any chemists. Despite the fact they have been doing building fire safety studies since 1923. I wonder why that is?
NIST did run two levels of damage due to aircraft and two levels of damage due to fires. In both cases and both towers they consistently chose the more severe. I suppose I should wonder why that is, as well.
I actually talked to an Engineer the other night on that he said that was because only the most severe case lead to Global Collapse.
They fit the result of the test to the observed occurrence, I was just trying to see if they missed something.
NIST did run two levels of damage due to aircraft and two levels of damage due to fires. In both cases and both towers they consistently chose the more severe. I suppose I should wonder why that is, as well.
I actually talked to an Engineer the other night on that he said that was because only the most severe case lead to Global Collapse.
They fit the result of the test to the observed occurrence, I was just trying to see if they missed something.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 15 2007, 01:00 PM)
I actually talked to an Engineer the other night on that he said that was because only the most severe case lead to Global Collapse.
They fit the result of the test to the observed occurrence, I was just trying to see if they missed something.
Well, somehow they missed something, IMO.
If there had been more time to run more cases, perhaps less would appear to be missed. But with a limited budget, one does what one can.
They fit the result of the test to the observed occurrence, I was just trying to see if they missed something.
Well, somehow they missed something, IMO.
If there had been more time to run more cases, perhaps less would appear to be missed. But with a limited budget, one does what one can.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 15 2007, 02:34 PM)
Now this may look small alongside Arthur's 3000 GJ of TOTAL heat from, for example the WTC 1 fires, but this is not a fair or meaningful comparison. The NIST number is derived from the burning of jet fuel and office furniture that was on the FLOORS in the building.
The 50 GJ I am referring to would be released at the CEILINGS in the fire effected zones and go directly into the floor truss assemblies because it would be coming from HCl/Cl/SO2 attack on the iron and zinc in the floor pans and truss rods.
But heat rises and so regardless of where the heat is released the highest temps are at the ceilings.
Thus it is HARD to believe that the ONE PERCENT of energy you are adding, even if at the ceiling is an issue.
The ONE PERCENT is EASILY within the error bands of their estimates for available fuel model calculation, Remember that NIST varied increased the fuel load by 25% between Case A&C and B&D and the results weren't THAT different.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Chapter 6.
So while the work that both you and Chainsaw are doing is interesting, unless you can come up with a lot more than a 1% variation in energy I don't think it particularly matters to the overall conclusions that NIST came up with.
Arthur
The 50 GJ I am referring to would be released at the CEILINGS in the fire effected zones and go directly into the floor truss assemblies because it would be coming from HCl/Cl/SO2 attack on the iron and zinc in the floor pans and truss rods.
But heat rises and so regardless of where the heat is released the highest temps are at the ceilings.
Thus it is HARD to believe that the ONE PERCENT of energy you are adding, even if at the ceiling is an issue.
The ONE PERCENT is EASILY within the error bands of their estimates for available fuel model calculation, Remember that NIST varied increased the fuel load by 25% between Case A&C and B&D and the results weren't THAT different.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Chapter 6.
So while the work that both you and Chainsaw are doing is interesting, unless you can come up with a lot more than a 1% variation in energy I don't think it particularly matters to the overall conclusions that NIST came up with.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 15 2007, 09:22 PM)
But heat rises and so regardless of where the heat is released the highest temps are at the ceilings.
Thus it is HARD to believe that the ONE PERCENT of energy you are adding, even if at the ceiling is an issue.
The ONE PERCENT is EASILY within the error bands of their estimates for available fuel model calculation, Remember that NIST varied increased the fuel load by 25% between Case A&C and B&D and the results weren't THAT different.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Chapter 6.
So while the work that both you and Chainsaw are doing is interesting, unless you can come up with a lot more than a 1% variation in energy I don't think it particularly matters to the overall conclusions that NIST came up with.
Arthur
Heat spreads in a spherical from the source, hot gasses rise but can also vent so heat is lost to the surroundings-environment, any heat at a specific point can be critical if that point could induce Collapse.
Really this is a physics forum.
Thus it is HARD to believe that the ONE PERCENT of energy you are adding, even if at the ceiling is an issue.
The ONE PERCENT is EASILY within the error bands of their estimates for available fuel model calculation, Remember that NIST varied increased the fuel load by 25% between Case A&C and B&D and the results weren't THAT different.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Chapter 6.
So while the work that both you and Chainsaw are doing is interesting, unless you can come up with a lot more than a 1% variation in energy I don't think it particularly matters to the overall conclusions that NIST came up with.
Arthur
Heat spreads in a spherical from the source, hot gasses rise but can also vent so heat is lost to the surroundings-environment, any heat at a specific point can be critical if that point could induce Collapse.
Really this is a physics forum.
Arthur PLEASE!
The heat I am referring to is DIRECT CHEMICAL HEAT OF REACTION!
Energy that is deposited DIRECTLY into the truss assembly's steel....
Meanwhile, you are talking about heat carried by COMBUSTION GASES.
The energy DENSITIES in your case are orders of magnitude lower.
And, pardon me for saying this, you are thinking like a typical ENGINEER!
Your 1 % calculation is, to be frank, SILLY!
And David, please have a look at the CHEMICAL ENERGIES, such as the heats of combustion involved in the fires and compare their magnitudes to the magnitudes of the MECHANICAL (potential and kinetic) ENERGIES involved in the collapse of the towers and tell me which type of energy "wins"!
The heat I am referring to is DIRECT CHEMICAL HEAT OF REACTION!
Energy that is deposited DIRECTLY into the truss assembly's steel....
Meanwhile, you are talking about heat carried by COMBUSTION GASES.
The energy DENSITIES in your case are orders of magnitude lower.
And, pardon me for saying this, you are thinking like a typical ENGINEER!
Your 1 % calculation is, to be frank, SILLY!
And David, please have a look at the CHEMICAL ENERGIES, such as the heats of combustion involved in the fires and compare their magnitudes to the magnitudes of the MECHANICAL (potential and kinetic) ENERGIES involved in the collapse of the towers and tell me which type of energy "wins"!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 15 2007, 11:48 PM)
Arthur PLEASE!
The heat I am referring to is DIRECT CHEMICAL HEAT OF REACTION!
Energy that is deposited DIRECTLY into the truss assembly's steel....
Meanwhile, you are talking about heat carried by COMBUSTION GASES.
The energy DENSITIES in your case are orders of magnitude lower.
And, pardon me for saying this, you are thinking like a typical ENGINEER!
Your 1 % calculation is, to be frank, SILLY!
And David, please have a look at the CHEMICAL ENERGIES, such as the heats of combustion involved in the fires and compare their magnitudes to the magnitudes of the MECHANICAL (potential and kinetic) ENERGIES involved in the collapse of the towers and tell me which type of energy "wins"!
It is the exactly same with the hot aluminum oxide I was referring to it directly contacts the steel it delivers a significant amount of the heat to the steel as it impacts it. While the jet fuels combustion loses heat rapidly to air and gasses.
The heat I am referring to is DIRECT CHEMICAL HEAT OF REACTION!
Energy that is deposited DIRECTLY into the truss assembly's steel....
Meanwhile, you are talking about heat carried by COMBUSTION GASES.
The energy DENSITIES in your case are orders of magnitude lower.
And, pardon me for saying this, you are thinking like a typical ENGINEER!
Your 1 % calculation is, to be frank, SILLY!
And David, please have a look at the CHEMICAL ENERGIES, such as the heats of combustion involved in the fires and compare their magnitudes to the magnitudes of the MECHANICAL (potential and kinetic) ENERGIES involved in the collapse of the towers and tell me which type of energy "wins"!
It is the exactly same with the hot aluminum oxide I was referring to it directly contacts the steel it delivers a significant amount of the heat to the steel as it impacts it. While the jet fuels combustion loses heat rapidly to air and gasses.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 15 2007, 07:01 PM)
Heat spreads in a spherical from the source, hot gasses rise but can also vent so heat is lost to the surroundings-environment, any heat at a specific point can be critical if that point could induce Collapse.
Really this is a physics forum.
Sorry, my bad, I should have said TEMPERATURES rise.
So you pick at the use of TERMS but not the INTENT.
Unless you are saying the highest temps aren't at the ceiling?
Gosh lets look at a NIST house experiment where they modeled temps vs height above the floor:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire00/PDF/f00136.pdf
See page 11
Note the Ceiling temps peak at 700 C then level off to 600 C, while the 3.5 ft temps reach ~ 500 C, the 2.5 ft reach ~ 400 and the 1.5 ft are generally half the ceiling temps.
As to heat at a particular point, the way the structure was built there was no single critical part of the structure, so no its NOT particularly important if ONE (or two or three) pieces of the structure got HOTTER than the NIST model.
More importantly, there is NO WAY, you or NIST or anyone can model what went on in the towers to that degree of accuracy.
Arthur
Really this is a physics forum.
Sorry, my bad, I should have said TEMPERATURES rise.
So you pick at the use of TERMS but not the INTENT.
Unless you are saying the highest temps aren't at the ceiling?
Gosh lets look at a NIST house experiment where they modeled temps vs height above the floor:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire00/PDF/f00136.pdf
See page 11
Note the Ceiling temps peak at 700 C then level off to 600 C, while the 3.5 ft temps reach ~ 500 C, the 2.5 ft reach ~ 400 and the 1.5 ft are generally half the ceiling temps.
As to heat at a particular point, the way the structure was built there was no single critical part of the structure, so no its NOT particularly important if ONE (or two or three) pieces of the structure got HOTTER than the NIST model.
More importantly, there is NO WAY, you or NIST or anyone can model what went on in the towers to that degree of accuracy.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 15 2007, 07:48 PM)
Arthur PLEASE!
The heat I am referring to is DIRECT CHEMICAL HEAT OF REACTION!
Energy that is deposited DIRECTLY into the truss assembly's steel....
Meanwhile, you are talking about heat carried by COMBUSTION GASES.
The energy DENSITIES in your case are orders of magnitude lower.
And, pardon me for saying this, you are thinking like a typical ENGINEER!
Your 1 % calculation is, to be frank, SILLY!
And David, please have a look at the CHEMICAL ENERGIES, such as the heats of combustion involved in the fires and compare their magnitudes to the magnitudes of the MECHANICAL (potential and kinetic) ENERGIES involved in the collapse of the towers and tell me which type of energy "wins"!
So there is some special NEU FONZE form of ENERGY?
I always thought that the E in Energy equations was UNIVERSAL.
So, Neu, when are you going to write your paper showing how the Towers were downed by CHEMICAL REACTIONS (other than fire).
I CAN'T WAIT.
Arthur
PS the ONLY "frank" that is SILLY is YOU.
The heat I am referring to is DIRECT CHEMICAL HEAT OF REACTION!
Energy that is deposited DIRECTLY into the truss assembly's steel....
Meanwhile, you are talking about heat carried by COMBUSTION GASES.
The energy DENSITIES in your case are orders of magnitude lower.
And, pardon me for saying this, you are thinking like a typical ENGINEER!
Your 1 % calculation is, to be frank, SILLY!
And David, please have a look at the CHEMICAL ENERGIES, such as the heats of combustion involved in the fires and compare their magnitudes to the magnitudes of the MECHANICAL (potential and kinetic) ENERGIES involved in the collapse of the towers and tell me which type of energy "wins"!
So there is some special NEU FONZE form of ENERGY?
I always thought that the E in Energy equations was UNIVERSAL.
So, Neu, when are you going to write your paper showing how the Towers were downed by CHEMICAL REACTIONS (other than fire).
I CAN'T WAIT.
Arthur
PS the ONLY "frank" that is SILLY is YOU.
.
Hi guys!
Consider also:
- The 'shredding' of the aluminium (plane, building facia etc) would have exposed a LARGE TOTAL surface area of UN-protected ALUMINIUM material that would immediately oxidise' and provide uncountable IGNITION source 'heat/sparks' for the jet fuel 'atomised' by the same impact processes that 'shredded' the aluminium 'fuel'. Hence the almost instantaneous 'fireball'....with hardly any 'delay' like that which is usually observed in simple 'ground-impact' plane crash scenarios, because in those cases the fuel is usually NOT as 'atomised' or the plane aluminium usually NOT so 'shredded'. So much for the widespread entrainment of most of the plane/fuel in the initial fireball; now...
- Whatever 'molten/shredded' aluminium that was not consumed initially was then even 'smaller pieces/particles' and hence even more 'surface-to-volume' area for REACTION WITH ANYTHING GOING. Since ALUMINIUM is a 'getter' material that will IMMEDIATELY combine with MOST 'comparatively electronegative' elements (such as Nitrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, Chlorine, Sulphur) to form immediate 'oxides' and/or 'intermediate' Nitrides, Carbides, Sulphides, Chlorides etc which also are exothermic, they themselves will ALL eventually end up OXIDISED quick smart in that scenario....adding the REST of their reaction 'heat energy' as the exothermic reactions proceed quickly to the 'highest oxidation state' (Al2O3). The interior 'atmosphere' in that impact area was 'awash' with Oxides (H2O vapour and CO/CO2 gas from jet fuel-air combustion) from which the REMAINING 'shredded/unprotected/reactive-intermediates' ALUMINIUM (including the vast volume of 'particulates of partial/non-oxide 'getter' compounds already mentioned) would have been READILY 'ROBBED' by the straight/part-reacted aluminium to proceed to highest oxidation state. So much for the possible total energy contribution to the INITIAL 'fireball'; now....
- As the Chlorides/sulphides/Nitrides/Carbides proceed to rob the 'oxigen' from the ample non-air sorces present, the aluminium Nitrides, Carbides and Chlorides would be converted to aluminium OXIDES and RELEASE the Chlorine (as OxyChlorides?), Nitrogen (as Nitrogen X Oxides?), Carbon as straight carbon (for later re-combustion as more air enters the aftermath sites?) and the Aluminium Sulphides would be FURTHER OXIDISED to SULPHATES. All with EXOTHERMIC SPEED/VIGOUR and HEAT of these further reactions. So much for the 'complete' ALUMINIUM REACTIONS PATH/SPEED; now
- The HOT Chlorine, HOT Nitrogen X Oxides, the Incandescently HOT Carbon and Aluminium Sulphide and Oxide in 'that 'char-like' FINE PARTICULATE FORM from all that thermoo-dynamic processes would 'get into everything and every surface, like a 'sandblasting' with HOT and REACTIVE 'sand' (due to fineness of particles and reactivuity of MIXTURES of OxyChlorides, Nitrogen X Oxides and suplhates with THE STRUCTURAL, FIREPROOFING and OFFICE materials. So much for the 'secondary' PHYSICAL/THERMAL/CHEMICAL 'spedd/reactions' possible; now...
- All that chaotic and widepread CAULDRON OF REACTIONS AND PHYSICAL 'reactive-sandblasting' IMPACTS etc. would be DRIVEN OUT/DOWN/UP and INTO any 'voids/shafts' and even material-openings (like unused/worn-gap bolt-holes, weak/cracked welds, loose panels etc) by the initial GLOBAL and 'many secondary' LOCALISED/DELAYED fuel-air etc DETONATIONS)....as would also ANY UNBURNT/UNREACTED 'multi-fuel' MIXTURES that would LATER detonate as MORE air/mixing occurred. Hence the downshaft/upshaft/outwindow further pressure/fuel-explosion FRONTS observeved at various parts/times. So much for the 'dying echoes' of the Kero/Alum 'fuel' 'fireballs'; finally, and most importantly....
- Let's not forget the UNCO-ORDINATED HEAT/CHEMICAL/IMPACT effects of BOTH the initial processes and the 'partial/continuing' effects from FIRE-HEATING (tempering changes and weakening) and COOLING (un-recoverable) of the NECESSARY INTEGRATED 'geometry/connection' strength/stability factors/characteristics/parameters which the ORIGINAL STRUCTURE was DESIGNED to have if it was not to collapse EVEN AS IT WAS BEING CONTRUCTED.
Oh, and let's not forget to DISTINGUISH between the AFTER FIRES and the INITIAL HIGHLY DYNAMIC/FORCEFUL REACTIONS/OXIDATIONS/PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL EFFECTS DURING THE INITIAL SPATE of plane IMPACT and PERI-IMPACT 'FIREBALLS.
Gotta rush off now, guys!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Hi guys!
Consider also:
- The 'shredding' of the aluminium (plane, building facia etc) would have exposed a LARGE TOTAL surface area of UN-protected ALUMINIUM material that would immediately oxidise' and provide uncountable IGNITION source 'heat/sparks' for the jet fuel 'atomised' by the same impact processes that 'shredded' the aluminium 'fuel'. Hence the almost instantaneous 'fireball'....with hardly any 'delay' like that which is usually observed in simple 'ground-impact' plane crash scenarios, because in those cases the fuel is usually NOT as 'atomised' or the plane aluminium usually NOT so 'shredded'. So much for the widespread entrainment of most of the plane/fuel in the initial fireball; now...
- Whatever 'molten/shredded' aluminium that was not consumed initially was then even 'smaller pieces/particles' and hence even more 'surface-to-volume' area for REACTION WITH ANYTHING GOING. Since ALUMINIUM is a 'getter' material that will IMMEDIATELY combine with MOST 'comparatively electronegative' elements (such as Nitrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, Chlorine, Sulphur) to form immediate 'oxides' and/or 'intermediate' Nitrides, Carbides, Sulphides, Chlorides etc which also are exothermic, they themselves will ALL eventually end up OXIDISED quick smart in that scenario....adding the REST of their reaction 'heat energy' as the exothermic reactions proceed quickly to the 'highest oxidation state' (Al2O3). The interior 'atmosphere' in that impact area was 'awash' with Oxides (H2O vapour and CO/CO2 gas from jet fuel-air combustion) from which the REMAINING 'shredded/unprotected/reactive-intermediates' ALUMINIUM (including the vast volume of 'particulates of partial/non-oxide 'getter' compounds already mentioned) would have been READILY 'ROBBED' by the straight/part-reacted aluminium to proceed to highest oxidation state. So much for the possible total energy contribution to the INITIAL 'fireball'; now....
- As the Chlorides/sulphides/Nitrides/Carbides proceed to rob the 'oxigen' from the ample non-air sorces present, the aluminium Nitrides, Carbides and Chlorides would be converted to aluminium OXIDES and RELEASE the Chlorine (as OxyChlorides?), Nitrogen (as Nitrogen X Oxides?), Carbon as straight carbon (for later re-combustion as more air enters the aftermath sites?) and the Aluminium Sulphides would be FURTHER OXIDISED to SULPHATES. All with EXOTHERMIC SPEED/VIGOUR and HEAT of these further reactions. So much for the 'complete' ALUMINIUM REACTIONS PATH/SPEED; now
- The HOT Chlorine, HOT Nitrogen X Oxides, the Incandescently HOT Carbon and Aluminium Sulphide and Oxide in 'that 'char-like' FINE PARTICULATE FORM from all that thermoo-dynamic processes would 'get into everything and every surface, like a 'sandblasting' with HOT and REACTIVE 'sand' (due to fineness of particles and reactivuity of MIXTURES of OxyChlorides, Nitrogen X Oxides and suplhates with THE STRUCTURAL, FIREPROOFING and OFFICE materials. So much for the 'secondary' PHYSICAL/THERMAL/CHEMICAL 'spedd/reactions' possible; now...
- All that chaotic and widepread CAULDRON OF REACTIONS AND PHYSICAL 'reactive-sandblasting' IMPACTS etc. would be DRIVEN OUT/DOWN/UP and INTO any 'voids/shafts' and even material-openings (like unused/worn-gap bolt-holes, weak/cracked welds, loose panels etc) by the initial GLOBAL and 'many secondary' LOCALISED/DELAYED fuel-air etc DETONATIONS)....as would also ANY UNBURNT/UNREACTED 'multi-fuel' MIXTURES that would LATER detonate as MORE air/mixing occurred. Hence the downshaft/upshaft/outwindow further pressure/fuel-explosion FRONTS observeved at various parts/times. So much for the 'dying echoes' of the Kero/Alum 'fuel' 'fireballs'; finally, and most importantly....
- Let's not forget the UNCO-ORDINATED HEAT/CHEMICAL/IMPACT effects of BOTH the initial processes and the 'partial/continuing' effects from FIRE-HEATING (tempering changes and weakening) and COOLING (un-recoverable) of the NECESSARY INTEGRATED 'geometry/connection' strength/stability factors/characteristics/parameters which the ORIGINAL STRUCTURE was DESIGNED to have if it was not to collapse EVEN AS IT WAS BEING CONTRUCTED.
Oh, and let's not forget to DISTINGUISH between the AFTER FIRES and the INITIAL HIGHLY DYNAMIC/FORCEFUL REACTIONS/OXIDATIONS/PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL EFFECTS DURING THE INITIAL SPATE of plane IMPACT and PERI-IMPACT 'FIREBALLS.
Gotta rush off now, guys!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 15 2007, 04:48 PM)
And David, please have a look at the CHEMICAL ENERGIES, such as the heats of combustion involved in the fires and compare their magnitudes to the magnitudes of the MECHANICAL (potential and kinetic) ENERGIES involved in the collapse of the towers and tell me which type of energy "wins"!
I guess I don't understand what is being asked.
(1) Aircraft impact. Mechanical predominates.
(2) Fires. Chemical predominates, but so what? Fires weaken steel.
(3) Actual collapse. Mechanical predominates.
(4) Ground Zero. Chemical predominates.
I guess I don't understand what is being asked.
(1) Aircraft impact. Mechanical predominates.
(2) Fires. Chemical predominates, but so what? Fires weaken steel.
(3) Actual collapse. Mechanical predominates.
(4) Ground Zero. Chemical predominates.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 16 2007, 12:45 AM)
I guess I don't understand what is being asked.
(1) Aircraft impact. Mechanical predominates.
(2) Fires. Chemical predominates, but so what? Fires weaken steel.
(3) Actual collapse. Mechanical predominates.
(4) Ground Zero. Chemical predominates.
Hi DBB!
I think what Chainsaw/NF are getting at is that your 'item (1)' should contain TWO 'subclauses'; like...
(1) Aircraft Impact
- mechanical predominates;
- with 'significant enhancement/contribution' TO/FROM IMMEDIATE/PERI-IMPACT effects from ALUMINIUM/OTHER REACTIVE chemicals processes that LOCALLY ENHANCE initial 'fireball' heat/chemical/dynamic degradation of vulnerable structure SURFACES and INTERSTITIAL 'geometries/protection'.
And that these 'occurred' particularly 'effectively' in the processes/period BETWEEN (1) and (2) in your list.
That's how I read their stances/posts, mate!
RC.
.
(1) Aircraft impact. Mechanical predominates.
(2) Fires. Chemical predominates, but so what? Fires weaken steel.
(3) Actual collapse. Mechanical predominates.
(4) Ground Zero. Chemical predominates.
Hi DBB!
I think what Chainsaw/NF are getting at is that your 'item (1)' should contain TWO 'subclauses'; like...
(1) Aircraft Impact
- mechanical predominates;
- with 'significant enhancement/contribution' TO/FROM IMMEDIATE/PERI-IMPACT effects from ALUMINIUM/OTHER REACTIVE chemicals processes that LOCALLY ENHANCE initial 'fireball' heat/chemical/dynamic degradation of vulnerable structure SURFACES and INTERSTITIAL 'geometries/protection'.
And that these 'occurred' particularly 'effectively' in the processes/period BETWEEN (1) and (2) in your list.
That's how I read their stances/posts, mate!
RC.
.
QUOTE
- with 'significant enhancement/contribution' TO/FROM IMMEDIATE/PERI-IMPACT effects from ALUMINIUM/OTHER REACTIVE chemicals processes that LOCALLY ENHANCE initial 'fireball' heat/chemical/dynamic degradation of vulnerable structure SURFACES and INTERSTITIAL 'geometries/protection'.
I think there could be a quibble regarding the use of the term "significant", here.
Even if the chemical processes did as suggested, it seems that they'd be attacking structural members that would've been destined to fail anyway under the circumstances.
That's the thing that the CDiots never seem to grasp (not that I'm accusing anyone involved in this discussion of being a CDiot), is that the damage was sufficiently grave to have been mortal regardless of the details. This wasn't a "threading-the-needle" sort of situation, there were many concurrent processes going forth, all potentially fatal.
It reminds me of what was told to me as a true story where a couple of guys working for an offshore oil resupply company landed a pontoon helicopter on the end of a pier while they bought hardware at a marine hardware store on the pier, and coming back, finding it was gone. They went to the end of the pier and looked down, and saw that the helicopter had fallen off the end of the pier into the ocean. It was there bobbing in the surf, hanging from the pontoons. They realized immediately that they were fired, so they spent the rest of the day getting drunk at a bar. Around 5pm, they figured they owed their boss at least an explanation of what happened, so they drew straws, loser making the call.
"Hello, boss, it's me."
"WHERE THE #%$* HAVE YOU BEEN?!?"
"Bob and I are at the pier, we couldn't get the helicopter started."
"WHY NOT?"
"Well, we've been trying to figure that out all day. I think it's because it's underwater, but Bob thinks it because it's upside-down."
Click.
Once the planes hit, the towers were like that upside-down, underwater helicopter. Screwed.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 16 2007, 04:11 AM)
I think there could be a quibble regarding the use of the term "significant", here.
Even if the chemical processes did as suggested, it seems that they'd be attacking structural members that would've been destined to fail anyway under the circumstances.
That's the thing that the CDiots never seem to grasp (not that I'm accusing anyone involved in this discussion of being a CDiot), is that the damage was sufficiently grave to have been mortal regardless of the details. This wasn't a "threading-the-needle" sort of situation, there were many concurrent processes going forth, all potentially fatal.
It reminds me of what was told to me as a true story where a couple of guys working for an offshore oil resupply company landed a pontoon helicopter on the end of a pier while they bought hardware at a marine hardware store on the pier, and coming back, finding it was gone. They went to the end of the pier and looked down, and saw that the helicopter had fallen off the end of the pier into the ocean. It was there bobbing in the surf, hanging from the pontoons. They realized immediately that they were fired, so they spent the rest of the day getting drunk at a bar. Around 5pm, they figured they owed their boss at least an explanation of what happened, so they drew straws, loser making the call.
"Hello, boss, it's me."
"WHERE THE #%$* HAVE YOU BEEN?!?"
"Bob and I are at the pier, we couldn't get the helicopter started."
"WHY NOT?"
"Well, we've been trying to figure that out all day. I think it's because it's underwater, but Bob thinks it because it's upside-down."
Click.
Once the planes hit, the towers were like that upside-down, underwater helicopter. Screwed.
Hahaha! Good one, wcelliot! hehehe.
Anyhow, as to that 'quibble'...you are right insofar as any such LOCALISED 'peri-impact' high-energy processes may only have 'hastened' the INEVITABLE....but that does not necessarily mean they were 'insignificant' or 'inconsiderable'. They might have done 'localised/critical' damage/compromising of both structure and fire-proof/fighting capacities.
But of course, to what extent these processes did that; and as to how much later the inevitable would have occurred without them as described by Chainsaw/NF and others, who can tell?
The INEVITABLE did happen...the rest is 'details', as they say! (but nevertheless 'interesting' details for those interested in such things, hehehe).
Cheers mate, everyone!
RC.
.
Until someone can put a NUMBER on the amount of energy, one can't say it WAS significant.
The fact is the MAJOR impact forces resulted in the destruction of a LOT of exterior columns and then a much smaller number of Core Columns. NIST tracked these with the impact model and there weren't that many core columns that were moderately damaged. (i.e in WTC 2 Case C there was ONLY 1 core column that was moderately damaged)
Its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that core columns that weren't at least MODERATELY damaged would have suffered from the effects that CS/NF are describing.
One extra column more or less simply is NOT that big of a deal.
Again, making claims that NIST missed 1/3 the amount of energy or that Neu's supposed 50 GJ of CHEMICAL energy made a big difference in the outcome is NOT SUPPORTED by any evidence so far presented.
Arthur
The fact is the MAJOR impact forces resulted in the destruction of a LOT of exterior columns and then a much smaller number of Core Columns. NIST tracked these with the impact model and there weren't that many core columns that were moderately damaged. (i.e in WTC 2 Case C there was ONLY 1 core column that was moderately damaged)
Its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that core columns that weren't at least MODERATELY damaged would have suffered from the effects that CS/NF are describing.
One extra column more or less simply is NOT that big of a deal.
Again, making claims that NIST missed 1/3 the amount of energy or that Neu's supposed 50 GJ of CHEMICAL energy made a big difference in the outcome is NOT SUPPORTED by any evidence so far presented.
Arthur
QUOTE
Until someone can put a NUMBER on the amount of energy, one can't say it WAS significant
I'm not sure that a number would determine the matter.
In the case of the floor trusses, for example, they would've been compromised equally if a small amount of fireproofing material was removed or a large amount. It's like a chain being only as strong as the weakest link, so wherever the insulation was removed, by whatever means ("shotgun-like blast" or caustic chemicals), the truss would've been compromised. Heat would've made that uncovered section stretch to the breaking point, whether it was six inches or six feet. Either way, same result.
So I don't really see that numbers would help much in the consideration of its significance, nor do I feel that it makes a difference whether the fireproofing was removed by the mechanical "shotgun" effect or the chemical erosion effect. Either way, same result.
Upside-down, underwater helicopters can't take off.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 16 2007, 04:43 AM)
Until someone can put a NUMBER on the amount of energy, one can't say it WAS significant.
The fact is the MAJOR impact forces resulted in the destruction of a LOT of exterior columns and then a much smaller number of Core Columns. NIST tracked these with the impact model and there weren't that many core columns that were moderately damaged. (i.e in WTC 2 Case C there was ONLY 1 core column that was moderately damaged)
Its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that core columns that weren't at least MODERATELY damaged would have suffered from the effects that CS/NF are describing.
One extra column more or less simply is NOT that big of a deal.
Again, making claims that NIST missed 1/3 the amount of energy or that Neu's supposed 50 GJ of CHEMICAL energy made a big difference in the outcome is NOT SUPPORTED by any evidence so far presented.
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
True....as far as that goes.
I think their point was that highly 'vulnerable' CONNECTIONS/WELDS/FIREPROOFING/SURFACES 'nano-scale achilles heels' at the MICROSCOPIC/MOLECULAR LEVEL would have suffered ALMOST IMMEDIATE CAUSTIC/ACIDIC/EXOTHERMIC chemical-reaction damage and reaction-heat surface-layer damage DIFFERENT FROM AND IN ADDITION TO the straight IMPACT DYNAMICS MASS EFFECT. And that these nano-scale' surface 'ingress/damage' would COMPROMISE many STRAIGHT IMPACT 'CRACKED', 'WRINKLED' and MINUTELY 'separated' welds/bolts/connection-surfaces.
That is what they are getting at, I think. The damage done would have been exacerbated to 'significant' degrees at the MICROSTRUCTURE/MICROCRACKS level.
And that any LOCALISED extreme effects from any ONE or more such effects might be the STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMELS BACK 'sooner' rather than later in the overall failure/collapse process duration observed.
Anyhow, the overall effect WOULD have been the SAME 'in time', even IF there were NO contribution to hastening of same by these highly corrosive/exothermic reactions being positied TO SOME EXTENT yet to be established by anyone interested in doing so.
For myself, it is enough to say that some of that was going on as posited/discussed, but I will not pursue the DETAILED situatyion because as you say, there is really little actual direct information IN SITU to arrive at any conclusion much different from NIST...except perhaps in the question of a FEW MINUTE's either way to Global collapse..
PLUS: These impact shredding and initiated processes involving aluminium and other hihly exothermic/corrosive reactiion would be MORE WIDESPREAD and MORE 'significant' than any 'planted' so-called thermite/thermate charges.....simply because the alleged 'conspirators' would have to know exactly which levels the planes would hit, whereas the CHAOTIC ones were LOCALLY PRODUCED by the impact events themselves at THOSE AFFECTED LOCATIONS where the damage effects would be more directly 'coupled' with initial impact processes. And besides, the damage done by 'planted' thermite/thermate would be QUITE DISTINCT and DIFFERENT both in TIME, TYPE and LOCATION/DISTRIBUTION PATTERN of effects....and those 'planted' patterns were NOT observed.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
The fact is the MAJOR impact forces resulted in the destruction of a LOT of exterior columns and then a much smaller number of Core Columns. NIST tracked these with the impact model and there weren't that many core columns that were moderately damaged. (i.e in WTC 2 Case C there was ONLY 1 core column that was moderately damaged)
Its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that core columns that weren't at least MODERATELY damaged would have suffered from the effects that CS/NF are describing.
One extra column more or less simply is NOT that big of a deal.
Again, making claims that NIST missed 1/3 the amount of energy or that Neu's supposed 50 GJ of CHEMICAL energy made a big difference in the outcome is NOT SUPPORTED by any evidence so far presented.
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
True....as far as that goes.
I think their point was that highly 'vulnerable' CONNECTIONS/WELDS/FIREPROOFING/SURFACES 'nano-scale achilles heels' at the MICROSCOPIC/MOLECULAR LEVEL would have suffered ALMOST IMMEDIATE CAUSTIC/ACIDIC/EXOTHERMIC chemical-reaction damage and reaction-heat surface-layer damage DIFFERENT FROM AND IN ADDITION TO the straight IMPACT DYNAMICS MASS EFFECT. And that these nano-scale' surface 'ingress/damage' would COMPROMISE many STRAIGHT IMPACT 'CRACKED', 'WRINKLED' and MINUTELY 'separated' welds/bolts/connection-surfaces.
That is what they are getting at, I think. The damage done would have been exacerbated to 'significant' degrees at the MICROSTRUCTURE/MICROCRACKS level.
And that any LOCALISED extreme effects from any ONE or more such effects might be the STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMELS BACK 'sooner' rather than later in the overall failure/collapse process duration observed.
Anyhow, the overall effect WOULD have been the SAME 'in time', even IF there were NO contribution to hastening of same by these highly corrosive/exothermic reactions being positied TO SOME EXTENT yet to be established by anyone interested in doing so.
For myself, it is enough to say that some of that was going on as posited/discussed, but I will not pursue the DETAILED situatyion because as you say, there is really little actual direct information IN SITU to arrive at any conclusion much different from NIST...except perhaps in the question of a FEW MINUTE's either way to Global collapse..
PLUS: These impact shredding and initiated processes involving aluminium and other hihly exothermic/corrosive reactiion would be MORE WIDESPREAD and MORE 'significant' than any 'planted' so-called thermite/thermate charges.....simply because the alleged 'conspirators' would have to know exactly which levels the planes would hit, whereas the CHAOTIC ones were LOCALLY PRODUCED by the impact events themselves at THOSE AFFECTED LOCATIONS where the damage effects would be more directly 'coupled' with initial impact processes. And besides, the damage done by 'planted' thermite/thermate would be QUITE DISTINCT and DIFFERENT both in TIME, TYPE and LOCATION/DISTRIBUTION PATTERN of effects....and those 'planted' patterns were NOT observed.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 16 2007, 05:53 AM)
Hi adoucette!
True....as far as that goes.
I think their point was that highly 'vulnerable' CONNECTIONS/WELDS/FIREPROOFING/SURFACES 'nano-scale achilles heels' at the MICROSCOPIC/MOLECULAR LEVEL would have suffered ALMOST IMMEDIATE CAUSTIC/ACIDIC/EXOTHERMIC chemical-reaction damage and reaction-heat surface-layer damage DIFFERENT FROM AND IN ADDITION TO the straight IMPACT DYNAMICS MASS EFFECT. And that these nano-scale' surface 'ingress/damage' would COMPROMISE many STRAIGHT IMPACT 'CRACKED', 'WRINKLED' and MINUTELY 'separated' welds/bolts/connection-surfaces.
That is what they are getting at, I think. The damage done would have been exacerbated to 'significant' degrees at the MICROSTRUCTURE/MICROCRACKS level.
And that any LOCALISED extreme effects from any ONE or more such effects might be the STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMELS BACK 'sooner' rather than later in the overall failure/collapse process duration observed.
Anyhow, the overall effect WOULD have been the SAME 'in time', even IF there were NO contribution to hastening of same by these highly corrosive/exothermic reactions being positied TO SOME EXTENT yet to be established by anyone interested in doing so.
For myself, it is enough to say that some of that was going on as posited/discussed, but I will not pursue the DETAILED situatyion because as you say, there is really little actual direct information IN SITU to arrive at any conclusion much different from NIST...except perhaps in the question of a FEW MINUTE's either way to Global collapse..
PLUS: These impact shredding and initiated processes involving aluminium and other hihly exothermic/corrosive reactiion would be MORE WIDESPREAD and MORE 'significant' than any 'planted' so-called thermite/thermate charges.....simply because the alleged 'conspirators' would have to know exactly which levels the planes would hit, whereas the CHAOTIC ones were LOCALLY PRODUCED by the impact events themselves at THOSE AFFECTED LOCATIONS where the damage effects would be more directly 'coupled' with initial impact processes. And besides, the damage done by 'planted' thermite/thermate would be QUITE DISTINCT and DIFFERENT both in TIME, TYPE and LOCATION/DISTRIBUTION PATTERN of effects....and those 'planted' patterns were NOT observed.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Exactly it shows why Nist had to use the more sever impact model even though the data did not require it.
Tell me why did the second tower struck fall first, was it just the impact damage or something else?
Nice crush down animation
http://www.math.psu.edu/belmonte/sg9.gif
wait a few seconds to load the animated gif
http://www.math.psu.edu/belmonte/sg9.gif
wait a few seconds to load the animated gif
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 16 2007, 07:39 AM)
Exactly it shows why Nist had to use the more sever impact model even though the data did not require it.
Tell me why did the second tower struck fall first, was it just the impact damage or something else?
The difference between the impact model cases was actually quite small, for instance in WTC 2 they varied the aircraft weight by +/- 5%, the impact speed by +/- 4% (See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Table E-7)
Why did WTC 2 fall first?
A number of reasons (Chainsaw, this is BASIC stuff, please tell me that you HAVE read the NIST report?)
The plane's speed was ~ 100 mph faster than the plane that hit the WTC 1 tower, thus carrying significantly more kinetic energy.
Unlike in WTC 1, the plane hit on the "short" floor side of the tower, so not only was it going faster when it hit, but it carried significantly more energy when it arrived at the core.
Unlike in WTC 1, the plane hit WTC 2 more asymetrically, but still it damaged more core columns including severing the much larger core corner column and so created greater strain on the structure.
Unlike the moving fire in WTC 1, the debris pattern caused the fires to also heat the towers more asymetrically and for much longer on the same side causing an earlier failure to that wall.
Arthur
Tell me why did the second tower struck fall first, was it just the impact damage or something else?
The difference between the impact model cases was actually quite small, for instance in WTC 2 they varied the aircraft weight by +/- 5%, the impact speed by +/- 4% (See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Table E-7)
Why did WTC 2 fall first?
A number of reasons (Chainsaw, this is BASIC stuff, please tell me that you HAVE read the NIST report?)
The plane's speed was ~ 100 mph faster than the plane that hit the WTC 1 tower, thus carrying significantly more kinetic energy.
Unlike in WTC 1, the plane hit on the "short" floor side of the tower, so not only was it going faster when it hit, but it carried significantly more energy when it arrived at the core.
Unlike in WTC 1, the plane hit WTC 2 more asymetrically, but still it damaged more core columns including severing the much larger core corner column and so created greater strain on the structure.
Unlike the moving fire in WTC 1, the debris pattern caused the fires to also heat the towers more asymetrically and for much longer on the same side causing an earlier failure to that wall.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 16 2007, 01:43 PM)
The difference between the impact model cases was actually quite small, for instance in WTC 2 they varied the aircraft weight by +/- 5%, the impact speed by +/- 4% (See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Table E-7)
Why did WTC 2 fall first?
A number of reasons (Chainsaw, this is BASIC stuff, please tell me that you HAVE read the NIST report?)
The plane's speed was ~ 100 mph faster than the plane that hit the WTC 1 tower, thus carrying significantly more kinetic energy.
Unlike in WTC 1, the plane hit on the "short" floor side of the tower, so not only was it going faster when it hit, but it carried significantly more energy when it arrived at the core.
Unlike in WTC 1, the plane hit WTC 2 more asymetrically, but still it damaged more core columns including severing the much larger core corner column and so created greater strain on the structure.
Unlike the moving fire in WTC 1, the debris pattern caused the fires to also heat the towers more asymetrically and for much longer on the same side causing an earlier failure to that wall.
Arthur
Yes I read the Nist reports, I have it here in my hardrive for easy access, and I understand what your saying, however you left out one very important factor The planes impact at that angle caused more damage and more shredding of the aluminum and plane super structure, so theoretically the plane should have done less damage to the core.
So theoretically as less severe impact into the core should have taken place so why did Nist take the more severe Impact model?
The reason is because only the most severe impact model leads to the observed occurrence of global collapse.
However if the plane was shredded, by a more asymmetrical Impact as it should have been then the Core damage model they propose is inaccurate something else has to be damaging the core more than the Nist reports indicate.
The physics of the impact and fires do not lead to a more rapid collapse without additional energy that is always what puzzled me because it takes time for the steel to build to temperature in the NIST model.
There is either thermal energy added or Damage not accounted for in Nist subtracts strength to resist gravity from the core.
That is why I am so interested in this there seems to be an energy deficit that Nist Accounted for by fudging the model.
I do not want to throw out NIST Author, just trying to refine it further.
Also after doing impact experiment and seeing the results namely steel made swiss cheese by hot fragmented aluminum oxidation in a kerosene fire and then hitting an 2 inch armored steel plate and going right though it something tells me either the some one forgot something or the laws of the universe have been compromised. I would like to believe the former, Because I depend on the laws of the universe being constant I do not even think that DBB has been able to bend them so far. At least I have not seen evidence of that here.
Why did WTC 2 fall first?
A number of reasons (Chainsaw, this is BASIC stuff, please tell me that you HAVE read the NIST report?)
The plane's speed was ~ 100 mph faster than the plane that hit the WTC 1 tower, thus carrying significantly more kinetic energy.
Unlike in WTC 1, the plane hit on the "short" floor side of the tower, so not only was it going faster when it hit, but it carried significantly more energy when it arrived at the core.
Unlike in WTC 1, the plane hit WTC 2 more asymetrically, but still it damaged more core columns including severing the much larger core corner column and so created greater strain on the structure.
Unlike the moving fire in WTC 1, the debris pattern caused the fires to also heat the towers more asymetrically and for much longer on the same side causing an earlier failure to that wall.
Arthur
Yes I read the Nist reports, I have it here in my hardrive for easy access, and I understand what your saying, however you left out one very important factor The planes impact at that angle caused more damage and more shredding of the aluminum and plane super structure, so theoretically the plane should have done less damage to the core.
So theoretically as less severe impact into the core should have taken place so why did Nist take the more severe Impact model?
The reason is because only the most severe impact model leads to the observed occurrence of global collapse.
However if the plane was shredded, by a more asymmetrical Impact as it should have been then the Core damage model they propose is inaccurate something else has to be damaging the core more than the Nist reports indicate.
The physics of the impact and fires do not lead to a more rapid collapse without additional energy that is always what puzzled me because it takes time for the steel to build to temperature in the NIST model.
There is either thermal energy added or Damage not accounted for in Nist subtracts strength to resist gravity from the core.
That is why I am so interested in this there seems to be an energy deficit that Nist Accounted for by fudging the model.
I do not want to throw out NIST Author, just trying to refine it further.
Also after doing impact experiment and seeing the results namely steel made swiss cheese by hot fragmented aluminum oxidation in a kerosene fire and then hitting an 2 inch armored steel plate and going right though it something tells me either the some one forgot something or the laws of the universe have been compromised. I would like to believe the former, Because I depend on the laws of the universe being constant I do not even think that DBB has been able to bend them so far. At least I have not seen evidence of that here.
Arthur:
I am sorry to say that it is very clear you are simply flogging the NIST report and dismissing real chemical effects out of arrogance, appeal to authority, and/or lack of knowledge of chemistry!
Anyone can say what you are saying, but I see no TECHNICAL basis for your position, just stubborn recalcitrance to even TRY to think outside of the NIST BOX!
Do you not understand that HCl/Cl2 EATS iron and zinc in an EXOTHERMIC reaction - one in which the heat of reaction is absorbed by the materials. I have given a direct quantitative estimate of the energy involved based on the known masses of the floor materials and heats of reaction. So please do not be so condescending with your suggestion that I am invoking some new form of energy even if chemical energy is apparently new to you.
I am sorry to say that it is very clear you are simply flogging the NIST report and dismissing real chemical effects out of arrogance, appeal to authority, and/or lack of knowledge of chemistry!
Anyone can say what you are saying, but I see no TECHNICAL basis for your position, just stubborn recalcitrance to even TRY to think outside of the NIST BOX!
Do you not understand that HCl/Cl2 EATS iron and zinc in an EXOTHERMIC reaction - one in which the heat of reaction is absorbed by the materials. I have given a direct quantitative estimate of the energy involved based on the known masses of the floor materials and heats of reaction. So please do not be so condescending with your suggestion that I am invoking some new form of energy even if chemical energy is apparently new to you.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 16 2007, 10:53 AM)
Yes I read the Nist reports, I have it here in my hardrive for easy access, and I understand what your saying, however you left out one very important factor The planes impact at that angle caused more damage and more shredding of the aluminum and plane super structure, so theoretically the plane should have done less damage to the core.
So theoretically as less severe impact into the core should have taken place so why did Nist take the more severe Impact model?
The reason is because only the most severe impact model leads to the observed occurrence of global collapse.
However if the plane was shredded, by a more asymmetrical Impact as it should have been then the Core damage model they propose is inaccurate something else has to be damaging the core more than the Nist reports indicate.
The physics of the impact and fires do not lead to a more rapid collapse without additional energy that is always what puzzled me because it takes time for the steel to build to temperature in the NIST model.
There is either thermal energy added or Damage not accounted for in Nist subtracts strength to resist gravity from the core.
That is why I am so interested in this there seems to be an energy deficit that Nist Accounted for by fudging the model.
I do not want to throw out NIST Author, just trying to refine it further.
Also after doing impact experiment and seeing the results namely steel made swiss cheese by hot fragmented aluminum oxidation in a kerosene fire and then hitting an 2 inch armored steel plate and going right though it something tells me either the some one forgot something or the laws of the universe have been compromised. I would like to believe the former, Because I depend on the laws of the universe being constant I do not even think that DBB has been able to bend them so far. At least I have not seen evidence of that here.
Actually the approach angles of both planes were fairly similar.
After EXTENSIVE visual analysis, NIST determined that the WTC 1 jet impacted on a downward trajectory of 7.6 to 13.6 degrees below horizontal.
For the WTC 2 jet, it also hit on a downward trajectory of from 4 to 8 degrees below horizontal.
But for the more severe cases the total difference between the impact angles was only 2.6 degrees.
But the key here is you are disputing the NIST impact model but doing it ONLY based on your INTUITION.
Not good enough.
What really hurts your hypothesis however is the several pictures of exterior columns that were hit by the plane and DO NOT SHOW the type of aluminum oxide damage that you claim should have happened.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 2-16 and Fig 5-3
In fact, AFAIK, NO COLUMNS recovered show the kind of damage you claim should have occurred.
Arthur
So theoretically as less severe impact into the core should have taken place so why did Nist take the more severe Impact model?
The reason is because only the most severe impact model leads to the observed occurrence of global collapse.
However if the plane was shredded, by a more asymmetrical Impact as it should have been then the Core damage model they propose is inaccurate something else has to be damaging the core more than the Nist reports indicate.
The physics of the impact and fires do not lead to a more rapid collapse without additional energy that is always what puzzled me because it takes time for the steel to build to temperature in the NIST model.
There is either thermal energy added or Damage not accounted for in Nist subtracts strength to resist gravity from the core.
That is why I am so interested in this there seems to be an energy deficit that Nist Accounted for by fudging the model.
I do not want to throw out NIST Author, just trying to refine it further.
Also after doing impact experiment and seeing the results namely steel made swiss cheese by hot fragmented aluminum oxidation in a kerosene fire and then hitting an 2 inch armored steel plate and going right though it something tells me either the some one forgot something or the laws of the universe have been compromised. I would like to believe the former, Because I depend on the laws of the universe being constant I do not even think that DBB has been able to bend them so far. At least I have not seen evidence of that here.
Actually the approach angles of both planes were fairly similar.
After EXTENSIVE visual analysis, NIST determined that the WTC 1 jet impacted on a downward trajectory of 7.6 to 13.6 degrees below horizontal.
For the WTC 2 jet, it also hit on a downward trajectory of from 4 to 8 degrees below horizontal.
But for the more severe cases the total difference between the impact angles was only 2.6 degrees.
But the key here is you are disputing the NIST impact model but doing it ONLY based on your INTUITION.
Not good enough.
What really hurts your hypothesis however is the several pictures of exterior columns that were hit by the plane and DO NOT SHOW the type of aluminum oxide damage that you claim should have happened.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 2-16 and Fig 5-3
In fact, AFAIK, NO COLUMNS recovered show the kind of damage you claim should have occurred.
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 16 2007, 05:41 AM)
I'm not sure that a number would determine the matter.
In the case of the floor trusses, for example, they would've been compromised equally if a small amount of fireproofing material was removed or a large amount. It's like a chain being only as strong as the weakest link, so wherever the insulation was removed, by whatever means ("shotgun-like blast" or caustic chemicals), the truss would've been compromised. Heat would've made that uncovered section stretch to the breaking point, whether it was six inches or six feet. Either way, same result.
So I don't really see that numbers would help much in the consideration of its significance, nor do I feel that it makes a difference whether the fireproofing was removed by the mechanical "shotgun" effect or the chemical erosion effect. Either way, same result.
Upside-down, underwater helicopters can't take off.
what your saying looks good on paper, until we realise that the floor pans are integral with the trusses, and the pans(and perpendicular trusses!) are able to bear load, and provide an alternative pathway for loading.
einsteen, why does the 'bullet' slow down when it breaks the 'spaghetti'? i thought newton's laws were moot post-911?
do you think a piece of spaghetti could have broken the spaghetti like that?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 16 2007, 11:50 AM)
Arthur:
I am sorry to say that it is very clear you are simply flogging the NIST report and dismissing real chemical effects out of arrogance, appeal to authority, and/or lack of knowledge of chemistry!
Anyone can say what you are saying, but I see no TECHNICAL basis for your position, just stubborn recalcitrance to even TRY to think outside of the NIST BOX!
Do you not understand that HCl/Cl2 EATS iron and zinc in an EXOTHERMIC reaction - one in which the heat of reaction is absorbed by the materials. I have given a direct quantitative estimate of the energy involved based on the known masses of the floor materials and heats of reaction. So please do not be so condescending with your suggestion that I am invoking some new form of energy even if chemical energy is apparently new to you.
Neu, its YOU who are condescending.
Particularly with quotes like:
I am sorry to say that it is very clear you are simply flogging the NIST report and dismissing real chemical effects out of arrogance, appeal to authority, and/or lack of knowledge of chemistry!
Anyone can say what you are saying, but I see no TECHNICAL basis for your position, just stubborn recalcitrance to even TRY to think outside of the NIST BOX!
Do you not understand that HCl/Cl2 EATS iron and zinc in an EXOTHERMIC reaction - one in which the heat of reaction is absorbed by the materials. I have given a direct quantitative estimate of the energy involved based on the known masses of the floor materials and heats of reaction. So please do not be so condescending with your suggestion that I am invoking some new form of energy even if chemical energy is apparently new to you.
Neu, its YOU who are condescending.
Particularly with quotes like:
QUOTE (Neu-Fonze+)
And, pardon me for saying this, you are thinking like a typical ENGINEER
While you obviously think that is a PUT DOWN, I assure you it is NOT and says MUCH more about YOUR objectivity than mine.
I'm quite aware that energy can be released in chemical reactions.
And I'm also quite aware that HCL reacts with Iron and Zinc, but I also know that it doesn't seek out critical structural members/locations. In fact HCL is an equal opportunity corrosive and is JUST AS LIKELY to react with the metal in a workstation as with a beam. I also realize that chemical reactions are LIMITED to the mass of the various chemicals available, and I don't recall you showing that the MASS of HCL generated COULD cause a SIGNIFICANT weakening of the structure, EVEN ASSUMING that ALL the HCL reacted with ONLY the structural steel.
But, NEU, go ahead, make my day, actually POST some FACTS & FIGURES to support your arguement.
And you can argue all you want, but still 50 GJ is 50 GJ is 50 GJ is ONE percent of the heat energy released by the fire, and so NO, you have provided NO EVIDENCE at all that these UNQUANTIFIED chemical reactions did (or even COULD) have made a SIGNIFICANT contribution to the cause of the tower's collapse.
Arthur
While you obviously think that is a PUT DOWN, I assure you it is NOT and says MUCH more about YOUR objectivity than mine.
I'm quite aware that energy can be released in chemical reactions.
And I'm also quite aware that HCL reacts with Iron and Zinc, but I also know that it doesn't seek out critical structural members/locations. In fact HCL is an equal opportunity corrosive and is JUST AS LIKELY to react with the metal in a workstation as with a beam. I also realize that chemical reactions are LIMITED to the mass of the various chemicals available, and I don't recall you showing that the MASS of HCL generated COULD cause a SIGNIFICANT weakening of the structure, EVEN ASSUMING that ALL the HCL reacted with ONLY the structural steel.
But, NEU, go ahead, make my day, actually POST some FACTS & FIGURES to support your arguement.
And you can argue all you want, but still 50 GJ is 50 GJ is 50 GJ is ONE percent of the heat energy released by the fire, and so NO, you have provided NO EVIDENCE at all that these UNQUANTIFIED chemical reactions did (or even COULD) have made a SIGNIFICANT contribution to the cause of the tower's collapse.
Arthur
Well, just because you say so Arthur, that is it?
And, by the way, my comment about engineers was not intended as a put down; it was intended as a statement of fact. Sorry you see it otherwise!
So, you want EVIDENCE of Cl attack?
Why do you think so much of the recovered truss rods were eaten away? Consider samples C-115 and C-131 discussed in NCSTAR 1-3C. NIST could not explain the SEVERE wastage/corrosion of this type of material. NIST do not even talk about the fact that EDX analysis of so many recovered samples of this type showed attack by species containing Cl as much as by S. That's pretty weak of NIST don't you think?
NIST do suggest (without proof) that some corrosion occurred in the rubble pile, but FAMA think that corrosion in the buildings, PRE-COLLAPSE, was quite possible.
So, Arthur, I have now given you (again!) evidence and quantitative estimates of heating effects due to Cl attack. Over to you Arthur and let's see what you do with it..... By the way, try taking the 50 GJ of heat energy I came up with, you know the heat you laugh at, and calculate the temperature rise it implies for one truss assembly. Still think it's insignificant?
And, by the way, my comment about engineers was not intended as a put down; it was intended as a statement of fact. Sorry you see it otherwise!
So, you want EVIDENCE of Cl attack?
Why do you think so much of the recovered truss rods were eaten away? Consider samples C-115 and C-131 discussed in NCSTAR 1-3C. NIST could not explain the SEVERE wastage/corrosion of this type of material. NIST do not even talk about the fact that EDX analysis of so many recovered samples of this type showed attack by species containing Cl as much as by S. That's pretty weak of NIST don't you think?
NIST do suggest (without proof) that some corrosion occurred in the rubble pile, but FAMA think that corrosion in the buildings, PRE-COLLAPSE, was quite possible.
So, Arthur, I have now given you (again!) evidence and quantitative estimates of heating effects due to Cl attack. Over to you Arthur and let's see what you do with it..... By the way, try taking the 50 GJ of heat energy I came up with, you know the heat you laugh at, and calculate the temperature rise it implies for one truss assembly. Still think it's insignificant?
and speaking of communition, how about watching the OCT excuses break into tiny pieces?
optopyrotechnic patent
funny thing about patents. they exist for the first guy with the idea. before he came along, people kept saying "you can't do that. it's impossible. here, have a tinfoil hat and a straightjacket."
and, after the wright brothers got off the treadbelt, suddenly flight wasn't just for the birds.
oct opus in a box.
there is, incidentally, or incendiarydentally, a patent for a horizontal thermite cutter, as well.
IMPOSSIBLE!!!??
THAT'S INCREDIBLE!!!
optopyrotechnic patent
funny thing about patents. they exist for the first guy with the idea. before he came along, people kept saying "you can't do that. it's impossible. here, have a tinfoil hat and a straightjacket."
and, after the wright brothers got off the treadbelt, suddenly flight wasn't just for the birds.
oct opus in a box.
there is, incidentally, or incendiarydentally, a patent for a horizontal thermite cutter, as well.
IMPOSSIBLE!!!??
THAT'S INCREDIBLE!!!
I don't know much about chemistry and didn't follow the discussion but a half year ago I googled a thermite cutter charge in a minute. See youtube
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 16 2007, 03:59 PM)
Actually the approach angles of both planes were fairly similar.
After EXTENSIVE visual analysis, NIST determined that the WTC 1 jet impacted on a downward trajectory of 7.6 to 13.6 degrees below horizontal.
For the WTC 2 jet, it also hit on a downward trajectory of from 4 to 8 degrees below horizontal.
But for the more severe cases the total difference between the impact angles was only 2.6 degrees.
But the key here is you are disputing the NIST impact model but doing it ONLY based on your INTUITION.
Not good enough.
What really hurts your hypothesis however is the several pictures of exterior columns that were hit by the plane and DO NOT SHOW the type of aluminum oxide damage that you claim should have happened.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 2-16 and Fig 5-3
In fact, AFAIK, NO COLUMNS recovered show the kind of damage you claim should have occurred.
Arthur
Hey are you nuts I thought I was the crazy one here, I base it on observation of how the material actually act when placed in a similar environment.
IN other words there should be no deviation in the physical constants that govern the universe.
What I have found out Dear Author is that hot Aluminum oxide is created in plane crashes, by any oxidation of Aluminum.
That super heated steam is a product of combustion of Jet fuel, that the combination of super heated steam the the penetration of Aluminum oxide into Fe inside a fire ball results in the formation of Fe304 and the release of hydrogen that then results in more H2O when that hydrogen is oxidized or it embrittle the steel resulting in hydrogen Imbrittlement.
I did this by doing real world tests in the real world as constant with the given known laws of Physics, Chemistry and several other known Sciences.
PS, I remind you also Author you made the comment about heat rising since the HCl is a gas it would rise to the top and be trapped against the floor pans DA.
If you do not understand something just ask.
PS. all this means that Controlled Demolition is physically impossible it was a stretch to believe that explosives survived in the first place with this information it is a physical impossibility.
The use of explosives is ruled out, no way they survive in that environment.
After EXTENSIVE visual analysis, NIST determined that the WTC 1 jet impacted on a downward trajectory of 7.6 to 13.6 degrees below horizontal.
For the WTC 2 jet, it also hit on a downward trajectory of from 4 to 8 degrees below horizontal.
But for the more severe cases the total difference between the impact angles was only 2.6 degrees.
But the key here is you are disputing the NIST impact model but doing it ONLY based on your INTUITION.
Not good enough.
What really hurts your hypothesis however is the several pictures of exterior columns that were hit by the plane and DO NOT SHOW the type of aluminum oxide damage that you claim should have happened.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 2-16 and Fig 5-3
In fact, AFAIK, NO COLUMNS recovered show the kind of damage you claim should have occurred.
Arthur
QUOTE
INTUITION
Hey are you nuts I thought I was the crazy one here, I base it on observation of how the material actually act when placed in a similar environment.
IN other words there should be no deviation in the physical constants that govern the universe.
What I have found out Dear Author is that hot Aluminum oxide is created in plane crashes, by any oxidation of Aluminum.
That super heated steam is a product of combustion of Jet fuel, that the combination of super heated steam the the penetration of Aluminum oxide into Fe inside a fire ball results in the formation of Fe304 and the release of hydrogen that then results in more H2O when that hydrogen is oxidized or it embrittle the steel resulting in hydrogen Imbrittlement.
I did this by doing real world tests in the real world as constant with the given known laws of Physics, Chemistry and several other known Sciences.
PS, I remind you also Author you made the comment about heat rising since the HCl is a gas it would rise to the top and be trapped against the floor pans DA.
If you do not understand something just ask.
PS. all this means that Controlled Demolition is physically impossible it was a stretch to believe that explosives survived in the first place with this information it is a physical impossibility.
The use of explosives is ruled out, no way they survive in that environment.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+)
Hey are you nuts I thought I was the crazy one here, I base it on observation of how the material actually act when placed in a similar environment.
IN other words there should be no deviation in the physical constants that govern the universe.
I'm not nuts and I'm not the one claiming that NIST is wrong without FIRST posting some (ANY) evidence to back up those claims.
For instance you have given us NOTHING to back up this statement:
IN other words there should be no deviation in the physical constants that govern the universe.
I'm not nuts and I'm not the one claiming that NIST is wrong without FIRST posting some (ANY) evidence to back up those claims.
For instance you have given us NOTHING to back up this statement:
QUOTE (Chainsaw+)
However if the plane was shredded, by a more asymmetrical Impact as it should have been then the Core damage model they propose is inaccurate something else has to be damaging the core more than the Nist reports indicate.
As far as this goes:
As far as this goes:
As far as this goes:
QUOTE (Chainsaw+)
What I have found out Dear Author is that hot Aluminum oxide is created in plane crashes, by any oxidation of Aluminum.
That super heated steam is a product of combustion of Jet fuel, that the combination of super heated steam the the penetration of Aluminum oxide into Fe inside a fire ball results in the formation of Fe304 and the release of hydrogen that then results in more H2O when that hydrogen is oxidized or it embrittle the steel resulting in hydrogen Imbrittlement.
I did this by doing real world tests in the real world as constant with the given known laws of Physics, Chemistry and several other known Sciences.
Ok, H20 is a byproduct of burning ANY hydrocarbon, including Celluose, so this PHENOMENA you describe has in fact been occurring in virtually ALL building fires, so it seems reasonable that you should be able to find articles about hydrogen embrittlement as an ISSUE with STRUCTURAL STEEL in fires.
Can you?
Finally, See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 2-16 and Fig 5-3
Explain why what you claim is not visible in these columns that were impacted by the plane.
Arthur
That super heated steam is a product of combustion of Jet fuel, that the combination of super heated steam the the penetration of Aluminum oxide into Fe inside a fire ball results in the formation of Fe304 and the release of hydrogen that then results in more H2O when that hydrogen is oxidized or it embrittle the steel resulting in hydrogen Imbrittlement.
I did this by doing real world tests in the real world as constant with the given known laws of Physics, Chemistry and several other known Sciences.
Ok, H20 is a byproduct of burning ANY hydrocarbon, including Celluose, so this PHENOMENA you describe has in fact been occurring in virtually ALL building fires, so it seems reasonable that you should be able to find articles about hydrogen embrittlement as an ISSUE with STRUCTURAL STEEL in fires.
Can you?
Finally, See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 2-16 and Fig 5-3
Explain why what you claim is not visible in these columns that were impacted by the plane.
Arthur
Not to change the subject, but something occurred to me recently which I think might be worthy of discussion.
Those aircraft impacts created a transverse wave that propagated through the towers, and there's nothing obvious in the towers' structures that would've dampened the energy of the impacts. It's been mentioned that the towers swayed a few inches, felt by all those in the towers, and since the amplitude of the transverse wave was just a few inches, its effect was assumed to be minimal.
However, I'm visualizing what a few inches' worth of sway would do when those steel columns met the concrete foundations, and I'd have to guess that there'd be significant forces generated at the interface. If you assume that most of the energy of the impact was coupled to the steel columns supporting the tower, then the entire remaining impact energy (some large fraction of the aircraft's kinetic energy) would've been concentrated where the steel joins the concrete. I'd expect there'd have been significant damage to the concrete immediately in-contact with the supporting steel.
This could explain damage done at basement levels seconds after the impact.
Comments?
Those aircraft impacts created a transverse wave that propagated through the towers, and there's nothing obvious in the towers' structures that would've dampened the energy of the impacts. It's been mentioned that the towers swayed a few inches, felt by all those in the towers, and since the amplitude of the transverse wave was just a few inches, its effect was assumed to be minimal.
However, I'm visualizing what a few inches' worth of sway would do when those steel columns met the concrete foundations, and I'd have to guess that there'd be significant forces generated at the interface. If you assume that most of the energy of the impact was coupled to the steel columns supporting the tower, then the entire remaining impact energy (some large fraction of the aircraft's kinetic energy) would've been concentrated where the steel joins the concrete. I'd expect there'd have been significant damage to the concrete immediately in-contact with the supporting steel.
This could explain damage done at basement levels seconds after the impact.
Comments?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 16 2007, 07:48 PM)
As far as this goes:
QUOTE (Chainsaw+)
What I have found out Dear Author is that hot Aluminum oxide is created in plane crashes, by any oxidation of Aluminum.
That super heated steam is a product of combustion of Jet fuel, that the combination of super heated steam the the penetration of Aluminum oxide into Fe inside a fire ball results in the formation of Fe304 and the release of hydrogen that then results in more H2O when that hydrogen is oxidized or it embrittle the steel resulting in hydrogen Imbrittlement.
I did this by doing real world tests in the real world as constant with the given known laws of Physics, Chemistry and several other known Sciences.
Ok, H20 is a byproduct of burning ANY hydrocarbon, including Celluose, so this PHENOMENA you describe has in fact been occurring in virtually ALL building fires, so it seems reasonable that you should be able to find articles about hydrogen embrittlement as an ISSUE with STRUCTURAL STEEL in fires.
Can you?
Finally, See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 2-16 and Fig 5-3
Explain why what you claim is not visible in these columns that were impacted by the plane.
Arthur
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci...392004000100015
I am looking right now, I know there are several articles governing just this mainly in the petroleum industry with refinery and off shore Oil well fires, also with oil tank fires.
There is not that much literature on such fires in buildings so I hope you do not mind if I point you to articles and environment that are similar to the early fire balls where the reaction that initiated what Neu and I are referring to would have existed!
Any one notice the nice shiny Aluminum oxide on this column and the highly shinny surface similar to Fe 3O4 shouldn't these beams have a lot of Fe 203 and carbonized steel from the fire?
Are there any more pictures of the beams where the plane struck, I would like to see more of this damage.
That super heated steam is a product of combustion of Jet fuel, that the combination of super heated steam the the penetration of Aluminum oxide into Fe inside a fire ball results in the formation of Fe304 and the release of hydrogen that then results in more H2O when that hydrogen is oxidized or it embrittle the steel resulting in hydrogen Imbrittlement.
I did this by doing real world tests in the real world as constant with the given known laws of Physics, Chemistry and several other known Sciences.
Ok, H20 is a byproduct of burning ANY hydrocarbon, including Celluose, so this PHENOMENA you describe has in fact been occurring in virtually ALL building fires, so it seems reasonable that you should be able to find articles about hydrogen embrittlement as an ISSUE with STRUCTURAL STEEL in fires.
Can you?
Finally, See NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Fig 2-16 and Fig 5-3
Explain why what you claim is not visible in these columns that were impacted by the plane.
Arthur
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci...392004000100015
I am looking right now, I know there are several articles governing just this mainly in the petroleum industry with refinery and off shore Oil well fires, also with oil tank fires.
There is not that much literature on such fires in buildings so I hope you do not mind if I point you to articles and environment that are similar to the early fire balls where the reaction that initiated what Neu and I are referring to would have existed!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 16 2007, 02:34 PM)
So, you want EVIDENCE of Cl attack?
Why do you think so much of the recovered truss rods were eaten away? Consider samples C-115 and C-131 discussed in NCSTAR 1-3C. NIST could not explain the SEVERE wastage/corrosion of this type of material. NIST do not even talk about the fact that EDX analysis of so many recovered samples of this type showed attack by species containing Cl as much as by S. That's pretty weak of NIST don't you think?
NIST do suggest (without proof) that some corrosion occurred in the rubble pile, but FAMA think that corrosion in the buildings, PRE-COLLAPSE, was quite possible.
Actually they DO give a reason.
See page 3C - pg 234
They claim that HIGH temperatures caused the thinning (and explain why they think so)
The also claim that the CORROSION was LIKELY from the debris pile (and explain why they think so (also pg 234)).
Note the EDS analysis, unlike your obtuse claim, shows NO evidence of Chlorine. (3C- pg 277)
Arthur
Why do you think so much of the recovered truss rods were eaten away? Consider samples C-115 and C-131 discussed in NCSTAR 1-3C. NIST could not explain the SEVERE wastage/corrosion of this type of material. NIST do not even talk about the fact that EDX analysis of so many recovered samples of this type showed attack by species containing Cl as much as by S. That's pretty weak of NIST don't you think?
NIST do suggest (without proof) that some corrosion occurred in the rubble pile, but FAMA think that corrosion in the buildings, PRE-COLLAPSE, was quite possible.
Actually they DO give a reason.
See page 3C - pg 234
They claim that HIGH temperatures caused the thinning (and explain why they think so)
The also claim that the CORROSION was LIKELY from the debris pile (and explain why they think so (also pg 234)).
Note the EDS analysis, unlike your obtuse claim, shows NO evidence of Chlorine. (3C- pg 277)
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 16 2007, 02:34 PM)
So, Arthur, I have now given you (again!) evidence and quantitative estimates of heating effects due to Cl attack. Over to you Arthur and let's see what you do with it..... By the way, try taking the 50 GJ of heat energy I came up with, you know the heat you laugh at, and calculate the temperature rise it implies for one truss assembly. Still think it's insignificant?
You haven't backed ANY estimates with ANY SUPPORTING DATA and your strawman about concentrating your 50 GJ of HEAT energy ( ) on one Truss is LUDICROUS.
Arthur
You haven't backed ANY estimates with ANY SUPPORTING DATA and your strawman about concentrating your 50 GJ of HEAT energy (
) on one Truss is LUDICROUS.Arthur
Any one notice the nice shiny Aluminum oxide on this column and the highly shinny surface similar to Fe 3O4 shouldn't these beams have a lot of Fe 203 and carbonized steel from the fire?
Are there any more pictures of the beams where the plane struck, I would like to see more of this damage.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 16 2007, 08:54 PM)
Actually they DO give a reason.
See page 3C - pg 234
They claim that HIGH temperatures caused the thinning (and explain why they think so)
The also claim that the CORROSION was LIKELY from the debris pile (and explain why they think so (also pg 234)).
Note the EDS analysis, unlike your obtuse claim, shows NO evidence of Chlorine. (3C- pg 277)
Arthur
You expect the EDS to show evidence of Chloride?
Are you one hundred percent sure of NIST guess on what caused the thinning?
I agree Corrosion is likely in the rubble pile and I know why but they did not rule it out in the buildings only said it was likely in the rubble pile!
Nist did not test these Ideas with experimental data, so are you sure they were right?
See page 3C - pg 234
They claim that HIGH temperatures caused the thinning (and explain why they think so)
The also claim that the CORROSION was LIKELY from the debris pile (and explain why they think so (also pg 234)).
Note the EDS analysis, unlike your obtuse claim, shows NO evidence of Chlorine. (3C- pg 277)
Arthur
You expect the EDS to show evidence of Chloride?
Are you one hundred percent sure of NIST guess on what caused the thinning?
I agree Corrosion is likely in the rubble pile and I know why but they did not rule it out in the buildings only said it was likely in the rubble pile!
Nist did not test these Ideas with experimental data, so are you sure they were right?
QUOTE (carterelliott+Jul 16 2007, 08:42 PM)
...and there's nothing obvious in the towers' structures that would've dampened the energy of the impacts.
Um... in fact I am the first person to figure it out... but it was relly a huge damping system. A state-of-the-art damping system
"Robertson and Skilling knew they would still be flexible in high winds. Indeed, they designed them to be so. But they realized the swaying effect, especially in strong gusts, might bother tenants high in the building. So they fashioned yet another innovation, a state-of-the-art damping system. Like door closers or car shocks, the dampers absorbed the wind's punch, easing the towers one way or the other so smoothly that office workers hardly noticed the movement"
www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON001E.htm
Now, all the expert simply ignor this key fact...but I (and I am just an ordinary construction worker) figured it out !
So, it was designed to eat up the impact energy. Eat it up.
Um... in fact I am the first person to figure it out... but it was relly a huge damping system. A state-of-the-art damping system
"Robertson and Skilling knew they would still be flexible in high winds. Indeed, they designed them to be so. But they realized the swaying effect, especially in strong gusts, might bother tenants high in the building. So they fashioned yet another innovation, a state-of-the-art damping system. Like door closers or car shocks, the dampers absorbed the wind's punch, easing the towers one way or the other so smoothly that office workers hardly noticed the movement"
www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON001E.htm
Now, all the expert simply ignor this key fact...but I (and I am just an ordinary construction worker) figured it out !
So, it was designed to eat up the impact energy. Eat it up.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 16 2007, 07:53 AM)
Because I depend on the laws of the universe being constant I do not even think that DBB has been able to bend them so far.
QUOTE (Daru+Jul 16 2007, 09:50 PM)
Um... in fact I am the first person to figure it out... but it was relly a huge damping system. A state-of-the-art damping system
"Robertson and Skilling knew they would still be flexible in high winds. Indeed, they designed them to be so. But they realized the swaying effect, especially in strong gusts, might bother tenants high in the building. So they fashioned yet another innovation, a state-of-the-art damping system. Like door closers or car shocks, the dampers absorbed the wind's punch, easing the towers one way or the other so smoothly that office workers hardly noticed the movement"
www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON001E.htm
Now, all the expert simply ignor this key fact...but I (and I am just an ordinary construction worker) figured it out !
So, it was designed to eat up the impact energy. Eat it up.
NO you were not, the system is similar to the John Hancock building.
The world trade center used a load transfer system, not a damping system.
"Robertson and Skilling knew they would still be flexible in high winds. Indeed, they designed them to be so. But they realized the swaying effect, especially in strong gusts, might bother tenants high in the building. So they fashioned yet another innovation, a state-of-the-art damping system. Like door closers or car shocks, the dampers absorbed the wind's punch, easing the towers one way or the other so smoothly that office workers hardly noticed the movement"
www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/GON001E.htm
Now, all the expert simply ignor this key fact...but I (and I am just an ordinary construction worker) figured it out !
So, it was designed to eat up the impact energy. Eat it up.
NO you were not, the system is similar to the John Hancock building.
The world trade center used a load transfer system, not a damping system.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 16 2007, 02:00 PM)
Are there any more pictures of the beams where the plane struck, I would like to see more of this damage.
NCSTAR1-3B, Steel Inventory and Identification.
NCSTAR1-3B, Steel Inventory and Identification.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 16 2007, 05:00 PM)
Any one notice the nice shiny Aluminum oxide on this column and the highly shinny surface similar to Fe 3O4 shouldn't these beams have a lot of Fe 203 and carbonized steel from the fire?
No, there wasn't an extended fire at EITHER of the impact locations.
What IS clear is there is NO EXTENSIVE damage to the structural steel from the Aluminum Oxide that you claimed there should be.
And this is a piece that took the most energetic impact.
Arthur
No, there wasn't an extended fire at EITHER of the impact locations.
What IS clear is there is NO EXTENSIVE damage to the structural steel from the Aluminum Oxide that you claimed there should be.
And this is a piece that took the most energetic impact.
Arthur
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 16 2007, 05:06 PM)
You expect the EDS to show evidence of Chloride?
It did on Sample K-16, so yourself.
Arthur
It did on Sample K-16, so
yourself.Arthur
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 16 2007, 05:06 PM)
Are you one hundred percent sure of NIST guess on what caused the thinning?
No, Frank, but that's mainly because you put a HIGH bar at 100% sure.
I will say though that they didn't just GUESS, as you imply.
They EXAMINED the piece, did various tests on it and CAME TO A REASONABLE CONCLUSION about it.
So their explanation makes sense, and in the ABSENCE of a BETTER explanation, it will do.
Arthur
No, Frank, but that's mainly because you put a HIGH bar at 100% sure.
I will say though that they didn't just GUESS, as you imply.
They EXAMINED the piece, did various tests on it and CAME TO A REASONABLE CONCLUSION about it.
So their explanation makes sense, and in the ABSENCE of a BETTER explanation, it will do.
Arthur
.Hi guys!
Some further observations.
(1) Any 'aluminium/corrosion' on 'plane impacted' columns would have been 'stripped' as the rest of the plane body shredded past at reduced velocity (due to the decelerative effects of the main leading sections of the plane). So no real quantitative information about this aspect can be guaranteed there.....especially if it was then masked to any degree in the later rubble pile fires/reactions.
(2) Any PARTICULAR 'corrosive' atom/molecule (like Chlorine, ChlorinsOxyChloride, Sulphides/sulphates etc) may have been corrosively effective REPEATEDLY and not just the once-off reaction. That is, FIRST 'reacted' ORGANICS and THEN 'stolen/reacted' by/into IRON/STEEL/and THEN 'stolen/reacted' by/into ZINC and THEN 'stolen and reacted' into MAGNESIUM and THEN FINALLY 'stolen and reacted' by/into ALUMINIUM.
(3) And of course we should not forget that these reactions were ON THE FLOORS HIGHER IN THE IMPACT LEVELS were being fed with PRE-HEATED AIR/CHEMICALS/FUELS/REACTANTS which came UP through the lower PRE-BURNER-LIKE infernos below them.
So the whole region was a pre-heated, multi-chamber furnace-like 'reaction vessel' with STRONG/FAST/HIGH-TEMP 'streams' and 'pools' and 'stagnant combustion' zones where almost anything could happen CHEMICALLY given those ingredients.
And since any 'microstructure/crack' INGRESS of such CORROSIVE and LOCALLY HIGH-HEAT gases/reactions would compromise 'minute cracks already existing from normal wear and tear, as well as from plane impact and further load-shifting stresses.
These MINUTE but WIDESPREAD INSIDIOUS MARGINAL DAMAGE may NOT be noticeable given their similarities to what happened in the later/ground fires....and of course, the actual COLLAPSE process would be SEVERELY breaking bolts/welds and other 'joint-contact surfaces STARTING AT THE 'cleavage weakness sites' provided in abundance by MORE than just wear and tear...but by peri-impact chemical 'pitting and 'scaling' of bolts and welds etc.
BUT ALAS, there is no way all that CAN be 'quantified' because while it may have been MARGINALLY IMPORTANT to allow 'more' failure'earlier', there is no way to distinguish these from the rest of similar cracks/compromising at the micro level done by the impact itself and further load-shifting and later/ground fires etc.
Good luck anyhow, chaps!
RC.
.
Some further observations.
(1) Any 'aluminium/corrosion' on 'plane impacted' columns would have been 'stripped' as the rest of the plane body shredded past at reduced velocity (due to the decelerative effects of the main leading sections of the plane). So no real quantitative information about this aspect can be guaranteed there.....especially if it was then masked to any degree in the later rubble pile fires/reactions.
(2) Any PARTICULAR 'corrosive' atom/molecule (like Chlorine, ChlorinsOxyChloride, Sulphides/sulphates etc) may have been corrosively effective REPEATEDLY and not just the once-off reaction. That is, FIRST 'reacted' ORGANICS and THEN 'stolen/reacted' by/into IRON/STEEL/and THEN 'stolen/reacted' by/into ZINC and THEN 'stolen and reacted' into MAGNESIUM and THEN FINALLY 'stolen and reacted' by/into ALUMINIUM.
(3) And of course we should not forget that these reactions were ON THE FLOORS HIGHER IN THE IMPACT LEVELS were being fed with PRE-HEATED AIR/CHEMICALS/FUELS/REACTANTS which came UP through the lower PRE-BURNER-LIKE infernos below them.
So the whole region was a pre-heated, multi-chamber furnace-like 'reaction vessel' with STRONG/FAST/HIGH-TEMP 'streams' and 'pools' and 'stagnant combustion' zones where almost anything could happen CHEMICALLY given those ingredients.
And since any 'microstructure/crack' INGRESS of such CORROSIVE and LOCALLY HIGH-HEAT gases/reactions would compromise 'minute cracks already existing from normal wear and tear, as well as from plane impact and further load-shifting stresses.
These MINUTE but WIDESPREAD INSIDIOUS MARGINAL DAMAGE may NOT be noticeable given their similarities to what happened in the later/ground fires....and of course, the actual COLLAPSE process would be SEVERELY breaking bolts/welds and other 'joint-contact surfaces STARTING AT THE 'cleavage weakness sites' provided in abundance by MORE than just wear and tear...but by peri-impact chemical 'pitting and 'scaling' of bolts and welds etc.
BUT ALAS, there is no way all that CAN be 'quantified' because while it may have been MARGINALLY IMPORTANT to allow 'more' failure'earlier', there is no way to distinguish these from the rest of similar cracks/compromising at the micro level done by the impact itself and further load-shifting and later/ground fires etc.
Good luck anyhow, chaps!
RC.
.
Arthur:
Please pay attention to whose post you are referring to!
I am NOT Chainsaw.....
But Art, from your recent posts it is obvious you do not understand the chemistry of Cl/O/Fe reactions in the WTC.
Chainsaw, it appears that sometimes you see Cl - as a lot of the NIST EDX spectra show - but if it is absent, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T PRESENT!
That's the amazing thing with Cl + metals in a fire.....
Try reading the papers by H. H. Krause, he lists all kinds of important reactions
such as:
K2O + 2HCl = 2KCl + H2O
2KCl + SO2 + O2 = K2SO4 + Cl2
Fe + 2HCl = FeCl2 + H2
2HCl + 1/2O2 = H2O + Cl2
Fe + Cl2 = FeCl2
Now here is the important one for you to consider Arthur:
4FeCl2 + 3O2 = 2Fe2O3 + 4Cl2
This equation shows the "catalytic" thing with CHLORINE,
NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T!
Please pay attention to whose post you are referring to!
I am NOT Chainsaw.....
But Art, from your recent posts it is obvious you do not understand the chemistry of Cl/O/Fe reactions in the WTC.
Chainsaw, it appears that sometimes you see Cl - as a lot of the NIST EDX spectra show - but if it is absent, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T PRESENT!
That's the amazing thing with Cl + metals in a fire.....
Try reading the papers by H. H. Krause, he lists all kinds of important reactions
such as:
K2O + 2HCl = 2KCl + H2O
2KCl + SO2 + O2 = K2SO4 + Cl2
Fe + 2HCl = FeCl2 + H2
2HCl + 1/2O2 = H2O + Cl2
Fe + Cl2 = FeCl2
Now here is the important one for you to consider Arthur:
4FeCl2 + 3O2 = 2Fe2O3 + 4Cl2
This equation shows the "catalytic" thing with CHLORINE,
NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE to adoucette+Jul 17 2007, 12:14 AM)
Arthur:
Please pay attention to whose post you are referring to!
I am NOT Chainsaw.....
But Art, from your recent posts it is obvious you do not understand the chemistry of Cl/O/Fe reactions in the WTC.
Chainsaw, it appears that sometimes you see Cl - as a lot of the NIST EDX spectra show - but if it is absent, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T PRESENT!
That's the amazing thing with Cl + metals in a fire.....
Try reading the papers by H. H. Krause, he lists all kinds of important reactions
such as:
K2O + 2HCl = 2KCl + H2O
2KCl + SO2 + O2 = K2SO4 + Cl2
Fe + 2HCl = FeCl2 + H2
2HCl + 1/2O2 = H2O + Cl2
Fe + Cl2 = FeCl2
Now here is the important one for you to consider Arthur:
4FeCl2 + 3O2 = 2Fe2O3 + 4Cl2
This equation shows the "catalytic" thing with CHLORINE,
NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T!
Hi NF!
I KNEW I forgot to mention in my hurried post that even more important route to re-use of limited Chlorine!....especially in an ever-changing heat/airflow/reactants scenario in what was effectively an arerated multi-level 'reaction vessel', hehehe.
Good point. Thanks for reminding me of that!
I have now remembered that ALUMINIUM CHLORIDE IS A GAS at those temps (and even much lower temps), so INFILTRATION' into rusty cracks would exchange chlorine for oxygen INSIDE THOSE CRACKS....and the high heat of that exchange reaction would produce much 'pinpoint' high temps and produce Al2O3 AND Ferrous Chloride(s)...which latter would again prvide a Chlorine for aluminium/magnesium etc and start the fast local cycle all over again.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Please pay attention to whose post you are referring to!
I am NOT Chainsaw.....
But Art, from your recent posts it is obvious you do not understand the chemistry of Cl/O/Fe reactions in the WTC.
Chainsaw, it appears that sometimes you see Cl - as a lot of the NIST EDX spectra show - but if it is absent, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T PRESENT!
That's the amazing thing with Cl + metals in a fire.....
Try reading the papers by H. H. Krause, he lists all kinds of important reactions
such as:
K2O + 2HCl = 2KCl + H2O
2KCl + SO2 + O2 = K2SO4 + Cl2
Fe + 2HCl = FeCl2 + H2
2HCl + 1/2O2 = H2O + Cl2
Fe + Cl2 = FeCl2
Now here is the important one for you to consider Arthur:
4FeCl2 + 3O2 = 2Fe2O3 + 4Cl2
This equation shows the "catalytic" thing with CHLORINE,
NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T!
Hi NF!
I KNEW I forgot to mention in my hurried post that even more important route to re-use of limited Chlorine!....especially in an ever-changing heat/airflow/reactants scenario in what was effectively an arerated multi-level 'reaction vessel', hehehe.
Good point. Thanks for reminding me of that!
I have now remembered that ALUMINIUM CHLORIDE IS A GAS at those temps (and even much lower temps), so INFILTRATION' into rusty cracks would exchange chlorine for oxygen INSIDE THOSE CRACKS....and the high heat of that exchange reaction would produce much 'pinpoint' high temps and produce Al2O3 AND Ferrous Chloride(s)...which latter would again prvide a Chlorine for aluminium/magnesium etc and start the fast local cycle all over again.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Arthur:
The important additional information you need to consider is this:
Melting Point of Iron Oxide, Fe2O3 = 1457 deg C
Melting Point of Iron Chloride, FeCl2 = 677 deg C
Melting Point of Iron Chloride, FeCl3 = 304 deg C
And, as I am sure Chainsaw will confirm, you get similar behavior with aluminum:
Melting Point of aluminum oxide, Al2O3 = 2040 deg C
Melting Point of aluminum chloride, AlCl3 = 180 deg C
Wow, RC:
I can see you are already "on the same page"
The important additional information you need to consider is this:
Melting Point of Iron Oxide, Fe2O3 = 1457 deg C
Melting Point of Iron Chloride, FeCl2 = 677 deg C
Melting Point of Iron Chloride, FeCl3 = 304 deg C
And, as I am sure Chainsaw will confirm, you get similar behavior with aluminum:
Melting Point of aluminum oxide, Al2O3 = 2040 deg C
Melting Point of aluminum chloride, AlCl3 = 180 deg C
Wow, RC:
I can see you are already "on the same page"
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 17 2007, 12:14 AM)
Arthur:
Please pay attention to whose post you are referring to!
I am NOT Chainsaw.....
But Art, from your recent posts it is obvious you do not understand the chemistry of Cl/O/Fe reactions in the WTC.
Chainsaw, it appears that sometimes you see Cl - as a lot of the NIST EDX spectra show - but if it is absent, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T PRESENT!
That's the amazing thing with Cl + metals in a fire.....
Try reading the papers by H. H. Krause, he lists all kinds of important reactions
such as:
K2O + 2HCl = 2KCl + H2O
2KCl + SO2 + O2 = K2SO4 + Cl2
Fe + 2HCl = FeCl2 + H2
2HCl + 1/2O2 = H2O + Cl2
Fe + Cl2 = FeCl2
Now here is the important one for you to consider Arthur:
4FeCl2 + 3O2 = 2Fe2O3 + 4Cl2
This equation shows the "catalytic" thing with CHLORINE,
NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T!
Frank that is what I was getting at Arthur does not appear to understand the chemistry of Chlorides at all.
Chloride is listed as an oxidizing agent, It can cause a reaction and then skip out and leave without even a good bye.
It may or may not appear on the EDX.
AS far as the damage goes I do not expect to see as much damage as I have obtained in experiment I realize that my experiment more than likely have a higher energy value than the impacts in the World Trade Center did, and the Damage may not be as apparent as I have seen here but I know there will be some damage, and it does not occur on the main impact beams but in secondary impacts. DA with other beams and Columns. The first impact carries a lot of kinetic energy, the secondaries have more thermal energy.
Arthur please tell me how the Spheres that Dr. Steven Jones found were formed?
I am working on sending him a new sample of spheres ASAP, But I would like your opinion first.
Please pay attention to whose post you are referring to!
I am NOT Chainsaw.....
But Art, from your recent posts it is obvious you do not understand the chemistry of Cl/O/Fe reactions in the WTC.
Chainsaw, it appears that sometimes you see Cl - as a lot of the NIST EDX spectra show - but if it is absent, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T PRESENT!
That's the amazing thing with Cl + metals in a fire.....
Try reading the papers by H. H. Krause, he lists all kinds of important reactions
such as:
K2O + 2HCl = 2KCl + H2O
2KCl + SO2 + O2 = K2SO4 + Cl2
Fe + 2HCl = FeCl2 + H2
2HCl + 1/2O2 = H2O + Cl2
Fe + Cl2 = FeCl2
Now here is the important one for you to consider Arthur:
4FeCl2 + 3O2 = 2Fe2O3 + 4Cl2
This equation shows the "catalytic" thing with CHLORINE,
NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T!
Frank that is what I was getting at Arthur does not appear to understand the chemistry of Chlorides at all.
Chloride is listed as an oxidizing agent, It can cause a reaction and then skip out and leave without even a good bye.
It may or may not appear on the EDX.
AS far as the damage goes I do not expect to see as much damage as I have obtained in experiment I realize that my experiment more than likely have a higher energy value than the impacts in the World Trade Center did, and the Damage may not be as apparent as I have seen here but I know there will be some damage, and it does not occur on the main impact beams but in secondary impacts. DA with other beams and Columns. The first impact carries a lot of kinetic energy, the secondaries have more thermal energy.
Arthur please tell me how the Spheres that Dr. Steven Jones found were formed?
I am working on sending him a new sample of spheres ASAP, But I would like your opinion first.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 17 2007, 12:28 AM)
Arthur:
The important additional information you need to consider is this:
Melting Point of Iron Oxide, Fe2O3 = 1457 deg C
Melting Point of Iron Chloride, FeCl2 = 677 deg C
Melting Point of Iron Chloride, FeCl3 = 304 deg C
And, as I am sure Chainsaw will confirm, you get similar behavior with aluminum:
Melting Point of aluminum oxide, Al2O3 = 2040 deg C
Melting Point of aluminum chloride, AlCl3 = 180 deg C
Wow, RC:
I can see you are already "on the same page"
Exactly.
The important additional information you need to consider is this:
Melting Point of Iron Oxide, Fe2O3 = 1457 deg C
Melting Point of Iron Chloride, FeCl2 = 677 deg C
Melting Point of Iron Chloride, FeCl3 = 304 deg C
And, as I am sure Chainsaw will confirm, you get similar behavior with aluminum:
Melting Point of aluminum oxide, Al2O3 = 2040 deg C
Melting Point of aluminum chloride, AlCl3 = 180 deg C
Wow, RC:
I can see you are already "on the same page"
Exactly.
Two points:
First point. HAs anyone addressed the genesis of the CHlorine that's been referred to?
Second point. Order of reactivity Magnesium > Aluminium > Zinc > Iron
Third point (an I may try to look this up when I get the chance): The ability of chlorine to 'catalyze' (as I have seen it referred to) these reactions depends on he strength of the equilibrium constants for these reactions. Has anyone in this thread stopped to look these up?
First point. HAs anyone addressed the genesis of the CHlorine that's been referred to?
Second point. Order of reactivity Magnesium > Aluminium > Zinc > Iron
Third point (an I may try to look this up when I get the chance): The ability of chlorine to 'catalyze' (as I have seen it referred to) these reactions depends on he strength of the equilibrium constants for these reactions. Has anyone in this thread stopped to look these up?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 16 2007, 09:42 PM)
Has anyone in this thread stopped to look these up?
They are all too busy patting themselves on the back.
I'd prefer it if they would ACTUALLY back up ANYTHING with SCIENCE.
I'm fully aware of these chemical reactions, but, except for the excess aluminum from the plane, the WTC fires were essentially little different from any other office fire.
The predominate fuel was NORMAL OFFICE COMBUSTIBLES.
If these chemical reactions are THAT important over just an HOUR period of time, then I think you would find the in relevant ASTM tests some ISSUE with testing with various chemicals in the fire.
But AFAIK, you don't.
You would find in the literature, discussions of the HAVOC that these various chemical reactions have with structural Steel (which would have SEVERE implications on post fire reconstruction)
I've looked and come up with zilch.
Of course they both admit that they are still working on the DETAILS supporting any of these claims, but apparently that lack of completion of effort does not preclude them from prematurely stating their conclusions.
Arthur
They are all too busy patting themselves on the back.
I'd prefer it if they would ACTUALLY back up ANYTHING with SCIENCE.
I'm fully aware of these chemical reactions, but, except for the excess aluminum from the plane, the WTC fires were essentially little different from any other office fire.
The predominate fuel was NORMAL OFFICE COMBUSTIBLES.
If these chemical reactions are THAT important over just an HOUR period of time, then I think you would find the in relevant ASTM tests some ISSUE with testing with various chemicals in the fire.
But AFAIK, you don't.
You would find in the literature, discussions of the HAVOC that these various chemical reactions have with structural Steel (which would have SEVERE implications on post fire reconstruction)
I've looked and come up with zilch.
Of course they both admit that they are still working on the DETAILS supporting any of these claims, but apparently that lack of completion of effort does not preclude them from prematurely stating their conclusions.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 17 2007, 02:13 AM)
They are all too busy patting themselves on the back.
I'd prefer it if they would ACTUALLY back up ANYTHING with SCIENCE.
I'm fully aware of these chemical reactions, but, except for the excess aluminum from the plane, the WTC fires were essentially little different from any other office fire.
The predominate fuel was NORMAL OFFICE COMBUSTIBLES.
If these chemical reactions are THAT important over just an HOUR period of time, then I think you would find the in relevant ASTM tests some ISSUE with testing with various chemicals in the fire.
But AFAIK, you don't.
You would find in the literature, discussions of the HAVOC that these various chemical reactions have with structural Steel (which would have SEVERE implications on post fire reconstruction)
I've looked and come up with zilch.
Of course they both admit that they are still working on the DETAILS supporting any of these claims, but apparently that lack of completion of effort does not preclude them from prematurely stating their conclusions.
Arthur
When has an ASTM test duplicated these conditions?
That is one of the things that I looked at, I also looked at the so called normal office combustibles but when have thousand of gallons of hydrocarbons ignited an office building before?
9/11/2001 was a unique event, it has not been even closely duplicated by any other even.
Your asking for data on test that have never been done.
Some limited data does exist however.
http://jfs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/149
http://www.arepa.co.uk/fileadmin/filer/pdf...Spring_2006.pdf
I will try to find more imformation for you When I have the time.
PS. I am not patting myself on the back.
Actually Arthur your wrong here,
Name another office fire with so much wide spread ignition in such a short time, can you? Fire retardants are the key rapid wide ignition over whelms them.
I'd prefer it if they would ACTUALLY back up ANYTHING with SCIENCE.
I'm fully aware of these chemical reactions, but, except for the excess aluminum from the plane, the WTC fires were essentially little different from any other office fire.
The predominate fuel was NORMAL OFFICE COMBUSTIBLES.
If these chemical reactions are THAT important over just an HOUR period of time, then I think you would find the in relevant ASTM tests some ISSUE with testing with various chemicals in the fire.
But AFAIK, you don't.
You would find in the literature, discussions of the HAVOC that these various chemical reactions have with structural Steel (which would have SEVERE implications on post fire reconstruction)
I've looked and come up with zilch.
Of course they both admit that they are still working on the DETAILS supporting any of these claims, but apparently that lack of completion of effort does not preclude them from prematurely stating their conclusions.
Arthur
When has an ASTM test duplicated these conditions?
That is one of the things that I looked at, I also looked at the so called normal office combustibles but when have thousand of gallons of hydrocarbons ignited an office building before?
9/11/2001 was a unique event, it has not been even closely duplicated by any other even.
Your asking for data on test that have never been done.
Some limited data does exist however.
http://jfs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/149
http://www.arepa.co.uk/fileadmin/filer/pdf...Spring_2006.pdf
I will try to find more imformation for you When I have the time.
PS. I am not patting myself on the back.
Actually Arthur your wrong here,
QUOTE
I'm fully aware of these chemical reactions, but, except for the excess aluminum from the plane, the WTC fires were essentially little different from any other office fire.
The predominate fuel was NORMAL OFFICE COMBUSTIBLES
.The predominate fuel was NORMAL OFFICE COMBUSTIBLES
Name another office fire with so much wide spread ignition in such a short time, can you? Fire retardants are the key rapid wide ignition over whelms them.
AFAIK the only source of Chlorine that should have been around would have been the pyrolysis of PVC's, but I don't recall if there's a mechanism for liberating the Chlorine from it (and at this point i'm not prepared to comment one way or the other, due to a lack of data).
I know that the... I'm not sure what the word i'm looking for here is, but the way the floors were built have a notorious reputation among firefighters for buckling and collapsing easily. Maybe there is nothing more to it then that, after all, the hotest part of a flame is above it, not beneath it.
I keep picturing the combination of the hole in the side of the building, conbined with the shape and design of the building forcing the flame to behave much like it does in a bunsen burner, then when the top parts of the building starts to collapse...
I know that the... I'm not sure what the word i'm looking for here is, but the way the floors were built have a notorious reputation among firefighters for buckling and collapsing easily. Maybe there is nothing more to it then that, after all, the hotest part of a flame is above it, not beneath it.
I keep picturing the combination of the hole in the side of the building, conbined with the shape and design of the building forcing the flame to behave much like it does in a bunsen burner, then when the top parts of the building starts to collapse...
And then as I dig, I discover a couple of abstracts, that make some things clear.
1. The pyrolysis of PVC releases HCL, and there are three stages of mass loss in the pyrolysis.
2. In the presence of metal chlorides (including Ferric Chloride) the Pyrolysis of PVC leads to the formation of PAH's and, more specifically Coke. The proportion of Coke formed is dependant upon the amount of metal chloride present.
Anybody here (aside from me) remember what Coke is used for?
One of the objections I have though is that this mechanism should be present in ordinary office fires as well (ordinary offices use PVC as well, and they also acheive the temps required for the pyrolysis of PVC), but then, scale may simply be a factor.
1. The pyrolysis of PVC releases HCL, and there are three stages of mass loss in the pyrolysis.
2. In the presence of metal chlorides (including Ferric Chloride) the Pyrolysis of PVC leads to the formation of PAH's and, more specifically Coke. The proportion of Coke formed is dependant upon the amount of metal chloride present.
Anybody here (aside from me) remember what Coke is used for?
One of the objections I have though is that this mechanism should be present in ordinary office fires as well (ordinary offices use PVC as well, and they also acheive the temps required for the pyrolysis of PVC), but then, scale may simply be a factor.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 02:55 AM)
AFAIK the only source of Chlorine that should have been around would have been the pyrolysis of PVC's, but I don't recall if there's a mechanism for liberating the Chlorine from it (and at this point i'm not prepared to comment one way or the other, due to a lack of data).
I know that the... I'm not sure what the word i'm looking for here is, but the way the floors were built have a notorious reputation among firefighters for buckling and collapsing easily. Maybe there is nothing more to it then that, after all, the hotest part of a flame is above it, not beneath it.
I keep picturing the combination of the hole in the side of the building, conbined with the shape and design of the building forcing the flame to behave much like it does in a bunsen burner, then when the top parts of the building starts to collapse...
Trusses and Chimney effect are what your looking for, a chimney effect would cause sono chemical reactions and increase the likely hood of burning Aluminum Nist said that did not occur.
I know that the... I'm not sure what the word i'm looking for here is, but the way the floors were built have a notorious reputation among firefighters for buckling and collapsing easily. Maybe there is nothing more to it then that, after all, the hotest part of a flame is above it, not beneath it.
I keep picturing the combination of the hole in the side of the building, conbined with the shape and design of the building forcing the flame to behave much like it does in a bunsen burner, then when the top parts of the building starts to collapse...
Trusses and Chimney effect are what your looking for, a chimney effect would cause sono chemical reactions and increase the likely hood of burning Aluminum Nist said that did not occur.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 03:12 AM)
And then as I dig, I discover a couple of abstracts, that make some things clear.
1. The pyrolysis of PVC releases HCL, and there are three stages of mass loss in the pyrolysis.
2. In the presence of metal chlorides (including Ferric Chloride) the Pyrolysis of PVC leads to the formation of PAH's and, more specifically Coke. The proportion of Coke formed is dependant upon the amount of metal chloride present.
Anybody here (aside from me) remember what Coke is used for?
One of the objections I have though is that this mechanism should be present in ordinary office fires as well (ordinary offices use PVC as well, and they also acheive the temps required for the pyrolysis of PVC), but then, scale may simply be a factor.
Fire retardants prevent ordinary office from igniting enough PVC fast enough the PVC is manufactured with fire retardant included. However wide scale, rapid ignition over comes that problem.
The only way to ignite enough PVC in a short enough time is to ignite PVC with a large fire of very hot burning hydrocarbon.
Your just discovering what I found out by accident in experiments on this subject!
1. The pyrolysis of PVC releases HCL, and there are three stages of mass loss in the pyrolysis.
2. In the presence of metal chlorides (including Ferric Chloride) the Pyrolysis of PVC leads to the formation of PAH's and, more specifically Coke. The proportion of Coke formed is dependant upon the amount of metal chloride present.
Anybody here (aside from me) remember what Coke is used for?
One of the objections I have though is that this mechanism should be present in ordinary office fires as well (ordinary offices use PVC as well, and they also acheive the temps required for the pyrolysis of PVC), but then, scale may simply be a factor.
Fire retardants prevent ordinary office from igniting enough PVC fast enough the PVC is manufactured with fire retardant included. However wide scale, rapid ignition over comes that problem.
The only way to ignite enough PVC in a short enough time is to ignite PVC with a large fire of very hot burning hydrocarbon.
Your just discovering what I found out by accident in experiments on this subject!
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 17 2007, 03:38 PM)
Fire retardants prevent ordinary office from igniting enough PVC fast enough the PVC is manufactured with fire retardant included. However wide scale, rapid ignition over comes that problem.
The only way to ignite enough PVC in a short enough time is to ignite PVC with a large fire of very hot burning hydrocarbon.
Your just discovering what I found out by accident in experiments on this subject!
You realize of course that Pyrolysis does not imply combustion don't you? The materials do not have to combust to undergo pyrolysis, they simply have to be heated (in the case of PVC to between 200 and 520°C depending on which stage of mass loss you're talking about).
You also realize, of course, that the pyrolysis of PVC also leads to cracking of the PVC , which produces Alkanes, which provide further fuel for the fire.
So, in short, invoking fire retardants and wide spread rapid ignition is a non effective argument, because heat is the only important factor.
The only way to ignite enough PVC in a short enough time is to ignite PVC with a large fire of very hot burning hydrocarbon.
Your just discovering what I found out by accident in experiments on this subject!
You realize of course that Pyrolysis does not imply combustion don't you? The materials do not have to combust to undergo pyrolysis, they simply have to be heated (in the case of PVC to between 200 and 520°C depending on which stage of mass loss you're talking about).
You also realize, of course, that the pyrolysis of PVC also leads to cracking of the PVC , which produces Alkanes, which provide further fuel for the fire.
So, in short, invoking fire retardants and wide spread rapid ignition is a non effective argument, because heat is the only important factor.
I should also point out that your statement ignores house or office fires that are started by the ignition of LPG (or something analgous) where it is possible to fill the entire room with flammable gas, and then ignite it (Much the same mechanism you're invoking for the WTC events - dispersion and vapourization of Av-Gas through the volume of the building followed by ignition).
OH forgot, The other plastics such as vinyl chloride, also produce PVC and sulfates have been building up in the concrete for year, and there is also that high sulfur diesel fuel that was stored in the buildings.
We have Three building and only three building with the exact same chemical conditions in each, I wonder if there is something to that?
We have Three building and only three building with the exact same chemical conditions in each, I wonder if there is something to that?
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 17 2007, 04:01 PM)
OH forgot, The other plastics such as vinyl chloride, also produce PVC and sulfates have been building up in the concrete for year, and there is also that high sulfur diesel fuel that was stored in the buildings.
We have Three building and only three building with the exact same chemical conditions in each, I wonder if there is something to that?
I'm not sure I follow the thrust of this post?
We have Three building and only three building with the exact same chemical conditions in each, I wonder if there is something to that?
I'm not sure I follow the thrust of this post?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 03:57 AM)
I should also point out that your statement ignores house or office fires that are started by the ignition of LPG (or something analgous) where it is possible to fill the entire room with flammable gas, and then ignite it (Much the same mechanism you're invoking for the WTC events - dispersion and vapourization of Av-Gas through the volume of the building followed by ignition).
No I tested LPG the rapid expansion of the hot gasses from LPG usually cause venting of the HCl, and steam.
The over pressures are significantly higher for LPG That for a petroleum product that is liquid at room temperature and standard atmospheric pressure.
LPG usually causes more initial damage and venting upward that does Kerosene or Jet fuel.
Sorry other Plastics produce HCl such as vinyl Chlorides, there are also sulfates to consider that also effect the metals.
Sorry for my mistakes in my previous posts I was on the phone.
No I tested LPG the rapid expansion of the hot gasses from LPG usually cause venting of the HCl, and steam.
The over pressures are significantly higher for LPG That for a petroleum product that is liquid at room temperature and standard atmospheric pressure.
LPG usually causes more initial damage and venting upward that does Kerosene or Jet fuel.
Sorry other Plastics produce HCl such as vinyl Chlorides, there are also sulfates to consider that also effect the metals.
Sorry for my mistakes in my previous posts I was on the phone.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 16 2007, 10:44 PM)
Actually Arthur your wrong here,
I'm fully aware of these chemical reactions, but, except for the excess aluminum from the plane, the WTC fires were essentially little different from any other office fire.
The predominate fuel was NORMAL OFFICE COMBUSTIBLES
Name another office fire with so much wide spread ignition in such a short time, can you? Fire retardants are the key rapid wide ignition over whelms them.
If you will notice I'm talking about the fuels.
If you read the NIST report you will find that the majority of the fuel from the plane burned up in the first few minutes.
The fires however burnt for an hour or more, so for the most part the fires (and the temps reached within the towers) were VERY MUCH LIKE NORMAL office fires.
The PREDOMINATE Fuel was the 4lbs - 5lbs per square ft of NORMAL office material (mostly cubicles, paper, flooring, carpets etc).
The floors were ~ 40,000 sq ft. The office space was ~ 32,000 of that resulting in a fuel load of well over 128,000 lbs per floor. The fires, burning in WTC 1 for instance released ~ 8000 GJ of energy, again, mainly from NORMAL OFFICE MATERIALS.
You are correct in that the WIDESPREAD nature of the fire (and then mainly the simultaneous large fires on MULTIPLE floors was a fairly unique aspect of the WTC fires, but you have not shown how that aspect makes this fire that different CHEMICALLY from any normal office fire.
NET NET
We could go on like this for days.
Why don't YOU or NEU actually FINISH some work and POST/PUBLISH the results?
YOU both claim to have found IMPORTANT INFORMATION that the NIST scientists (indeed the ENTIRE FRIGGIN ENGINEERING COMMUNITY) have MISSED.
All because of YOUR VAST CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE along with YOUR WILLINGNESS to TERRORIZE YOUR NEIGHBORS with half-assed experiments that have nearly killed/maimed/blinded you.
So why keep your "light under a barrel"
LET IT SHINE.
So, please, no more silly WAR of WORDS.
DEEDS ONLY PLEASE.
Arthur
Hi Trip!
haven't much time. briefly...
Yes the electromotive series has Magnesium above aluminium. No argument.
What I was pointing to was that when (magnesium atom for aluminium atom) ALUMINIUM is oxidised to AL2O3, it will release much greater amount of energy when oxidised to its highest oxidation state AND form the crystalline bonds as well.
And as to the 'contact/protective' function between them as you described, it is important to note that most of the DAMAGING reactions were taking place DYNAMICALLY (as Chainsaw has often pointed out), and so the 'behaviour' IN STATIC STRUCTURAL ALLOY situations is different from their 'reagent mixes' behaviour under those VIOLENT MIXING/IMPACTING and VAPOURISING conditions...especially where the CHLORINE comes into the picture as intermediates/catalysts (apart from many other possible catalysts/intermediates likely to have affected the direction of reactions from place to pace in that hades of a DYNAMIC INERNO.
Gotta go now, mate. Goodnight all!
RC.
.
Heh, it's both more complicated, and more simple then that.
That's the simple way of putting it. Heh.
The short answer is that, the main thrust of my point was that there was/is no fundamental difference, aside from the volume of material being combusted, and the size of the initial ignition.
And no, it wont release more energy - at least when allowed to happen at stp, it's a solid phase reaction, it's electronegativity is only 1.6, as opposed to Magnesium which has an electronegativity of 1.3 (pauling scale).
AFAIK, the reason why the oxide layer is so tightly bound is because of the structure of the oxide, rather then anything else.
Name another office fire with so much wide spread ignition in such a short time, can you? Fire retardants are the key rapid wide ignition over whelms them. [/QUOTE]
If you will notice I'm talking about the fuels.
If you read the NIST report you will find that the majority of the fuel from the plane burned up in the first few minutes.
The fires however burnt for an hour or more, so for the most part the fires (and the temps reached within the towers) were VERY MUCH LIKE NORMAL office fires.
The PREDOMINATE Fuel was the 4lbs - 5lbs per square ft of NORMAL office material (mostly cubicles, paper, flooring, carpets etc).
The floors were ~ 40,000 sq ft. The office space was ~ 32,000 of that resulting in a fuel load of well over 128,000 lbs per floor. The fires, burning in WTC 1 for instance released ~ 8000 GJ of energy, again, mainly from NORMAL OFFICE MATERIALS.
You are correct in that the WIDESPREAD nature of the fire (and then mainly the simultaneous large fires on MULTIPLE floors was a fairly unique aspect of the WTC fires, but you have not shown how that aspect makes this fire that different CHEMICALLY from any normal office fire.
NET NET
We could go on like this for days.
Why don't YOU or NEU actually FINISH some work and POST/PUBLISH the results?
YOU both claim to have found IMPORTANT INFORMATION that the NIST scientists (indeed the ENTIRE FRIGGIN ENGINEERING COMMUNITY) have MISSED.
All because of YOUR VAST CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE along with YOUR WILLINGNESS to TERRORIZE YOUR NEIGHBORS with half-assed experiments that have nearly killed/maimed/blinded you.
So why keep your "light under a barrel"
LET IT SHINE.
So, please, no more silly WAR of WORDS.
DEEDS ONLY PLEASE.
Arthur
Arthur do you have any Idea how the spheres found By Dr. Steven E Jones were Created, even an educated Guess?
QUOTE (adoucette+)
I'm fully aware of these chemical reactions, but, except for the excess aluminum from the plane, the WTC fires were essentially little different from any other office fire.
The predominate fuel was NORMAL OFFICE COMBUSTIBLES
Name another office fire with so much wide spread ignition in such a short time, can you? Fire retardants are the key rapid wide ignition over whelms them.
If you will notice I'm talking about the fuels.
If you read the NIST report you will find that the majority of the fuel from the plane burned up in the first few minutes.
The fires however burnt for an hour or more, so for the most part the fires (and the temps reached within the towers) were VERY MUCH LIKE NORMAL office fires.
The PREDOMINATE Fuel was the 4lbs - 5lbs per square ft of NORMAL office material (mostly cubicles, paper, flooring, carpets etc).
The floors were ~ 40,000 sq ft. The office space was ~ 32,000 of that resulting in a fuel load of well over 128,000 lbs per floor. The fires, burning in WTC 1 for instance released ~ 8000 GJ of energy, again, mainly from NORMAL OFFICE MATERIALS.
You are correct in that the WIDESPREAD nature of the fire (and then mainly the simultaneous large fires on MULTIPLE floors was a fairly unique aspect of the WTC fires, but you have not shown how that aspect makes this fire that different CHEMICALLY from any normal office fire.
NET NET
We could go on like this for days.
Why don't YOU or NEU actually FINISH some work and POST/PUBLISH the results?
YOU both claim to have found IMPORTANT INFORMATION that the NIST scientists (indeed the ENTIRE FRIGGIN ENGINEERING COMMUNITY) have MISSED.
All because of YOUR VAST CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE along with YOUR WILLINGNESS to TERRORIZE YOUR NEIGHBORS with half-assed experiments that have nearly killed/maimed/blinded you.
So why keep your "light under a barrel"
LET IT SHINE.
So, please, no more silly WAR of WORDS.
DEEDS ONLY PLEASE.
Arthur
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 01:42 AM)
Two points:
First point. HAs anyone addressed the genesis of the CHlorine that's been referred to?
Second point. Order of reactivity Magnesium > Aluminium > Zinc > Iron
Third point (an I may try to look this up when I get the chance): The ability of chlorine to 'catalyze' (as I have seen it referred to) these reactions depends on he strength of the equilibrium constants for these reactions. Has anyone in this thread stopped to look these up?
Hi Trippy!
Good stuff.
About that order of reactivity.
If I remember correctly, in the case of ALUMINIUM, there is also the LATTICE ENERGY/BONDS to consider with the Al2O3. That Aluminium Oxide CRYSTAL has IONIC BONDS and not just COVALENT BONDS involved.
So the reaction products and the reaction order may be affected during 'intermediate' stages/mixes' where ALL these metals are all present 'in intimate contact' with each other....where ALUMINO-MAGNESIUM OXIDES/CHLORIDES intermediate products can form that later dissociate during further reactions CATALYSED by various other elements/reagents as the chaotic processes proceed to lowest energy states.
Anyhow, you are quite right. The OVERT plane-fuel impact-fires damage doomed such obviously 'vulnerable' (under the circumstances) piecemeal constructions so crucially dependent on ALL PARTS of the design/structure for their integrity/stability even under normal circumstances.
Any chemical 'micro-damage' to critical connections/welds/bolts/fireproofing etc, while probably occurring to some extent, cannot really be quantified NOW. I think.
Inevitable collapse was perhaps helped along by a mmater of minutes.
My opinion only, of course.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
First point. HAs anyone addressed the genesis of the CHlorine that's been referred to?
Second point. Order of reactivity Magnesium > Aluminium > Zinc > Iron
Third point (an I may try to look this up when I get the chance): The ability of chlorine to 'catalyze' (as I have seen it referred to) these reactions depends on he strength of the equilibrium constants for these reactions. Has anyone in this thread stopped to look these up?
Hi Trippy!
Good stuff.
About that order of reactivity.
If I remember correctly, in the case of ALUMINIUM, there is also the LATTICE ENERGY/BONDS to consider with the Al2O3. That Aluminium Oxide CRYSTAL has IONIC BONDS and not just COVALENT BONDS involved.
So the reaction products and the reaction order may be affected during 'intermediate' stages/mixes' where ALL these metals are all present 'in intimate contact' with each other....where ALUMINO-MAGNESIUM OXIDES/CHLORIDES intermediate products can form that later dissociate during further reactions CATALYSED by various other elements/reagents as the chaotic processes proceed to lowest energy states.
Anyhow, you are quite right. The OVERT plane-fuel impact-fires damage doomed such obviously 'vulnerable' (under the circumstances) piecemeal constructions so crucially dependent on ALL PARTS of the design/structure for their integrity/stability even under normal circumstances.
Any chemical 'micro-damage' to critical connections/welds/bolts/fireproofing etc, while probably occurring to some extent, cannot really be quantified NOW. I think.
Inevitable collapse was perhaps helped along by a mmater of minutes.
My opinion only, of course.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 17 2007, 04:12 PM)
No I tested LPG the rapid expansion of the hot gasses from LPG usually cause venting of the HCl, and steam.
The over pressures are significantly higher for LPG That for a petroleum product that is liquid at room temperature and standard atmospheric pressure.
LPG usually causes more initial damage and venting upward that does Kerosene or Jet fuel.
Sorry other Plastics produce HCl such as vinyl Chlorides, there are also sulfates to consider that also effect the metals.
Sorry for my mistakes in my previous posts I was on the phone.
But it's not the ingnition that causes the relase of chlorine, it's the pyrolysis.
The pyrolysis would have occured in the fire that followed the ignition.
The precise physics of the fireball that caused the widespread ignition are irrelevant, from a chemical point of view.
Also, three hours of Pyrolysis at 350 celsius is enough to liberate 90% of the Chlorine (as HCl)
Another point i'm going to raise is that one of your own links that you provided disagrees with you and explicitly states that HCl is present after normal office fires which brings us back full circle as to why you think that the WTC should be so different in that respect?
Arthur's right in this case.
The over pressures are significantly higher for LPG That for a petroleum product that is liquid at room temperature and standard atmospheric pressure.
LPG usually causes more initial damage and venting upward that does Kerosene or Jet fuel.
Sorry other Plastics produce HCl such as vinyl Chlorides, there are also sulfates to consider that also effect the metals.
Sorry for my mistakes in my previous posts I was on the phone.
But it's not the ingnition that causes the relase of chlorine, it's the pyrolysis.
The pyrolysis would have occured in the fire that followed the ignition.
The precise physics of the fireball that caused the widespread ignition are irrelevant, from a chemical point of view.
Also, three hours of Pyrolysis at 350 celsius is enough to liberate 90% of the Chlorine (as HCl)
Another point i'm going to raise is that one of your own links that you provided disagrees with you and explicitly states that HCl is present after normal office fires which brings us back full circle as to why you think that the WTC should be so different in that respect?
Arthur's right in this case.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 17 2007, 04:40 PM)
Hi Trippy!
Good stuff.
About that order of reactivity.
If I remember correctly, in the case of ALUMINIUM, there is also the LATTICE ENERGY/BONDS to consider with the Al2O3. That Aluminium Oxide CRYSTAL has IONIC BONDS and not just COVALENT BONDS involved.
So the reaction products and the reaction order may be affected during 'intermediate' stages/mixes' where ALL these metals are all present 'in intimate contact' with each other....where ALUMINO-MAGNESIUM OXIDES/CHLORIDES intermediate products can form that later dissociate during further reactions CATALYSED by various other elements/reagents as the chaotic processes proceed to lowest energy states.
Anyhow, you are quite right. The OVERT plane-fuel impact-fires damage doomed such obviously 'vulnerable' (under the circumstances) piecemeal constructions so crucially dependent on ALL PARTS of the design/structure for their integrity/stability even under normal circumstances.
Any chemical 'micro-damage' to critical connections/welds/bolts/fireproofing etc, while probably occurring to some extent, cannot really be quantified NOW. I think.
Inevitable collapse was perhaps helped along by a mmater of minutes.
My opinion only, of course.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Li > K > Na > Ca > Mg > Al > Zn > Fe > Sn > Pb > H > Cu.
I've been able to remember that since I was 15.
Sorta yes, sorta no.
It's more like the opposite, the normally ionic metal oxide bonds have a partial covalent nature, it's a function of the difference in electronegativity between the atoms sharing the bonds. In some respects it's reasonable to argue that all chemical bonds have a partially covalent and partially ionic nature. In a sense this is what results in polar bonds. It's complicated to explain, but there is a rational explanation, and it has to do with the effective nuclear charge experienced by the valence electrons. We see compounds such as NaCl as being 'purely ionic' because of the large differences between their electronegativities, and we see O2 as having a purely covalent nature (almost) because there is no difference in electronegativities. Needless to say, there are further complicating factors.
Anyway, I digress.
The reason why Aluminium seems so chemically stable at stp is because it has a thin, tightly bound oxide coating. The oxide coating doesn't flake or powder like Iron Oxide does, it behaves more like glass, which shouldn't be surprising given that Aluminium is right beside Silicon on the periodic table.
But if you can remove that oxide coating, which can be done chemicaly at least, Aluminium will burn as well as Magnesium.
As far as metals being in contact with one another, the more reactive metals, for example Magnesium would oxidize before Aluminium, more over, Magnesium would 'sacrifice' electrons to protect the Aluminium. This is why we use Magnesium and Zinc as sacrificial metals to protect boats from rusting.
Good stuff.
About that order of reactivity.
If I remember correctly, in the case of ALUMINIUM, there is also the LATTICE ENERGY/BONDS to consider with the Al2O3. That Aluminium Oxide CRYSTAL has IONIC BONDS and not just COVALENT BONDS involved.
So the reaction products and the reaction order may be affected during 'intermediate' stages/mixes' where ALL these metals are all present 'in intimate contact' with each other....where ALUMINO-MAGNESIUM OXIDES/CHLORIDES intermediate products can form that later dissociate during further reactions CATALYSED by various other elements/reagents as the chaotic processes proceed to lowest energy states.
Anyhow, you are quite right. The OVERT plane-fuel impact-fires damage doomed such obviously 'vulnerable' (under the circumstances) piecemeal constructions so crucially dependent on ALL PARTS of the design/structure for their integrity/stability even under normal circumstances.
Any chemical 'micro-damage' to critical connections/welds/bolts/fireproofing etc, while probably occurring to some extent, cannot really be quantified NOW. I think.
Inevitable collapse was perhaps helped along by a mmater of minutes.
My opinion only, of course.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Li > K > Na > Ca > Mg > Al > Zn > Fe > Sn > Pb > H > Cu.
I've been able to remember that since I was 15.
Sorta yes, sorta no.
It's more like the opposite, the normally ionic metal oxide bonds have a partial covalent nature, it's a function of the difference in electronegativity between the atoms sharing the bonds. In some respects it's reasonable to argue that all chemical bonds have a partially covalent and partially ionic nature. In a sense this is what results in polar bonds. It's complicated to explain, but there is a rational explanation, and it has to do with the effective nuclear charge experienced by the valence electrons. We see compounds such as NaCl as being 'purely ionic' because of the large differences between their electronegativities, and we see O2 as having a purely covalent nature (almost) because there is no difference in electronegativities. Needless to say, there are further complicating factors.
Anyway, I digress.
The reason why Aluminium seems so chemically stable at stp is because it has a thin, tightly bound oxide coating. The oxide coating doesn't flake or powder like Iron Oxide does, it behaves more like glass, which shouldn't be surprising given that Aluminium is right beside Silicon on the periodic table.
But if you can remove that oxide coating, which can be done chemicaly at least, Aluminium will burn as well as Magnesium.
As far as metals being in contact with one another, the more reactive metals, for example Magnesium would oxidize before Aluminium, more over, Magnesium would 'sacrifice' electrons to protect the Aluminium. This is why we use Magnesium and Zinc as sacrificial metals to protect boats from rusting.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 05:01 AM)
Li > K > Na > Ca > Mg > Al > Zn > Fe > Sn > Pb > H > Cu.
I've been able to remember that since I was 15.
Sorta yes, sorta no.
It's more like the opposite, the normally ionic metal oxide bonds have a partial covalent nature, it's a function of the difference in electronegativity between the atoms sharing the bonds. In some respects it's reasonable to argue that all chemical bonds have a partially covalent and partially ionic nature. In a sense this is what results in polar bonds. It's complicated to explain, but there is a rational explanation, and it has to do with the effective nuclear charge experienced by the valence electrons. We see compounds such as NaCl as being 'purely ionic' because of the large differences between their electronegativities, and we see O2 as having a purely covalent nature (almost) because there is no difference in electronegativities. Needless to say, there are further complicating factors.
Anyway, I digress.
The reason why Aluminium seems so chemically stable at stp is because it has a thin, tightly bound oxide coating. The oxide coating doesn't flake or powder like Iron Oxide does, it behaves more like glass, which shouldn't be surprising given that Aluminium is right beside Silicon on the periodic table.
But if you can remove that oxide coating, which can be done chemicaly at least, Aluminium will burn as well as Magnesium.
As far as metals being in contact with one another, the more reactive metals, for example Magnesium would oxidize before Aluminium, more over, Magnesium would 'sacrifice' electrons to protect the Aluminium. This is why we use Magnesium and Zinc as sacrificial metals to protect boats from rusting.
Hi Trip!
haven't much time. briefly...
Yes the electromotive series has Magnesium above aluminium. No argument.
What I was pointing to was that when (magnesium atom for aluminium atom) ALUMINIUM is oxidised to AL2O3, it will release much greater amount of energy when oxidised to its highest oxidation state AND form the crystalline bonds as well.
And as to the 'contact/protective' function between them as you described, it is important to note that most of the DAMAGING reactions were taking place DYNAMICALLY (as Chainsaw has often pointed out), and so the 'behaviour' IN STATIC STRUCTURAL ALLOY situations is different from their 'reagent mixes' behaviour under those VIOLENT MIXING/IMPACTING and VAPOURISING conditions...especially where the CHLORINE comes into the picture as intermediates/catalysts (apart from many other possible catalysts/intermediates likely to have affected the direction of reactions from place to pace in that hades of a DYNAMIC INERNO.
Gotta go now, mate. Goodnight all!
RC.
.
I've been able to remember that since I was 15.
Sorta yes, sorta no.
It's more like the opposite, the normally ionic metal oxide bonds have a partial covalent nature, it's a function of the difference in electronegativity between the atoms sharing the bonds. In some respects it's reasonable to argue that all chemical bonds have a partially covalent and partially ionic nature. In a sense this is what results in polar bonds. It's complicated to explain, but there is a rational explanation, and it has to do with the effective nuclear charge experienced by the valence electrons. We see compounds such as NaCl as being 'purely ionic' because of the large differences between their electronegativities, and we see O2 as having a purely covalent nature (almost) because there is no difference in electronegativities. Needless to say, there are further complicating factors.
Anyway, I digress.
The reason why Aluminium seems so chemically stable at stp is because it has a thin, tightly bound oxide coating. The oxide coating doesn't flake or powder like Iron Oxide does, it behaves more like glass, which shouldn't be surprising given that Aluminium is right beside Silicon on the periodic table.
But if you can remove that oxide coating, which can be done chemicaly at least, Aluminium will burn as well as Magnesium.
As far as metals being in contact with one another, the more reactive metals, for example Magnesium would oxidize before Aluminium, more over, Magnesium would 'sacrifice' electrons to protect the Aluminium. This is why we use Magnesium and Zinc as sacrificial metals to protect boats from rusting.
Hi Trip!
haven't much time. briefly...
Yes the electromotive series has Magnesium above aluminium. No argument.
What I was pointing to was that when (magnesium atom for aluminium atom) ALUMINIUM is oxidised to AL2O3, it will release much greater amount of energy when oxidised to its highest oxidation state AND form the crystalline bonds as well.
And as to the 'contact/protective' function between them as you described, it is important to note that most of the DAMAGING reactions were taking place DYNAMICALLY (as Chainsaw has often pointed out), and so the 'behaviour' IN STATIC STRUCTURAL ALLOY situations is different from their 'reagent mixes' behaviour under those VIOLENT MIXING/IMPACTING and VAPOURISING conditions...especially where the CHLORINE comes into the picture as intermediates/catalysts (apart from many other possible catalysts/intermediates likely to have affected the direction of reactions from place to pace in that hades of a DYNAMIC INERNO.
Gotta go now, mate. Goodnight all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 17 2007, 06:11 PM)
Hi Trip!
haven't much time. briefly...
Yes the electromotive series has Magnesium above aluminium. No argument.
What I was pointing to was that when (magnesium atom for aluminium atom) ALUMINIUM is oxidised to AL2O3, it will release much greater amount of energy when oxidised to its highest oxidation state AND form the crystalline bonds as well.
And as to the 'contact/protective' function between them as you described, it is important to note that most of the DAMAGING reactions were taking place DYNAMICALLY (as Chainsaw has often pointed out), and so the 'behaviour' IN STATIC STRUCTURAL ALLOY situations is different from their 'reagent mixes' behaviour under those VIOLENT MIXING/IMPACTING and VAPOURISING conditions...especially where the CHLORINE comes into the picture as intermediates/catalysts (apart from many other possible catalysts/intermediates likely to have affected the direction of reactions from place to pace in that hades of a DYNAMIC INERNO.
Gotta go now, mate. Goodnight all!
RC.
.
Heh, it's both more complicated, and more simple then that.
That's the simple way of putting it. Heh.
The short answer is that, the main thrust of my point was that there was/is no fundamental difference, aside from the volume of material being combusted, and the size of the initial ignition.
And no, it wont release more energy - at least when allowed to happen at stp, it's a solid phase reaction, it's electronegativity is only 1.6, as opposed to Magnesium which has an electronegativity of 1.3 (pauling scale).
AFAIK, the reason why the oxide layer is so tightly bound is because of the structure of the oxide, rather then anything else.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 04:46 AM)
But it's not the ingnition that causes the relase of chlorine, it's the pyrolysis.
The pyrolysis would have occured in the fire that followed the ignition.
The precise physics of the fireball that caused the widespread ignition are irrelevant, from a chemical point of view.
Also, three hours of Pyrolysis at 350 celsius is enough to liberate 90% of the Chlorine (as HCl)
Another point i'm going to raise is that one of your own links that you provided disagrees with you and explicitly states that HCl is present after normal office fires which brings us back full circle as to why you think that the WTC should be so different in that respect?
Arthur's right in this case.
Because the fire spread in a normal office fire is not usually as involved or as hot as a fire spread by hydrocarbons over multi stories in a limited amount of time.
The concrete also helps entrap the HCl but in doing so makes a reaction with the floor pans more likely.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13972453
Also the fact that these buildings were exposed to sulfates from air pollution and the high sulfur diesel fuels stored in them for years.
Add to that the energy of Oxidizing aluminum in the initial fireball and you have a very aggressive environment for reactions.
Also I have done the experiments and I have seen what is possible.
If a more detailed model could be made of the initial fireball, and resulting fires we might learn of phenomena never before observed on a noticeable scale.
The Chemistry in these buildings I agree is very complex but to simply ignore it with hand waving Brings us no knowledge at all.
PS. I to like Arthur Ignored the chemistry, I however have learned though actually doing experiments that it might have been the most important factor in the collapse.
Have you notice the Arthur did not answer my question on the origin of the Spheres that Dr. Jones found?
I know now how they were created and what they are direct evidence of.
The pyrolysis would have occured in the fire that followed the ignition.
The precise physics of the fireball that caused the widespread ignition are irrelevant, from a chemical point of view.
Also, three hours of Pyrolysis at 350 celsius is enough to liberate 90% of the Chlorine (as HCl)
Another point i'm going to raise is that one of your own links that you provided disagrees with you and explicitly states that HCl is present after normal office fires which brings us back full circle as to why you think that the WTC should be so different in that respect?
Arthur's right in this case.
Because the fire spread in a normal office fire is not usually as involved or as hot as a fire spread by hydrocarbons over multi stories in a limited amount of time.
The concrete also helps entrap the HCl but in doing so makes a reaction with the floor pans more likely.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13972453
Also the fact that these buildings were exposed to sulfates from air pollution and the high sulfur diesel fuels stored in them for years.
Add to that the energy of Oxidizing aluminum in the initial fireball and you have a very aggressive environment for reactions.
Also I have done the experiments and I have seen what is possible.
If a more detailed model could be made of the initial fireball, and resulting fires we might learn of phenomena never before observed on a noticeable scale.
The Chemistry in these buildings I agree is very complex but to simply ignore it with hand waving Brings us no knowledge at all.
PS. I to like Arthur Ignored the chemistry, I however have learned though actually doing experiments that it might have been the most important factor in the collapse.
Have you notice the Arthur did not answer my question on the origin of the Spheres that Dr. Jones found?
I know now how they were created and what they are direct evidence of.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 17 2007, 04:16 AM)
Name another office fire with so much wide spread ignition in such a short time, can you? Fire retardants are the key rapid wide ignition over whelms them. [/QUOTE]
If you will notice I'm talking about the fuels.
If you read the NIST report you will find that the majority of the fuel from the plane burned up in the first few minutes.
The fires however burnt for an hour or more, so for the most part the fires (and the temps reached within the towers) were VERY MUCH LIKE NORMAL office fires.
The PREDOMINATE Fuel was the 4lbs - 5lbs per square ft of NORMAL office material (mostly cubicles, paper, flooring, carpets etc).
The floors were ~ 40,000 sq ft. The office space was ~ 32,000 of that resulting in a fuel load of well over 128,000 lbs per floor. The fires, burning in WTC 1 for instance released ~ 8000 GJ of energy, again, mainly from NORMAL OFFICE MATERIALS.
You are correct in that the WIDESPREAD nature of the fire (and then mainly the simultaneous large fires on MULTIPLE floors was a fairly unique aspect of the WTC fires, but you have not shown how that aspect makes this fire that different CHEMICALLY from any normal office fire.
NET NET
We could go on like this for days.
Why don't YOU or NEU actually FINISH some work and POST/PUBLISH the results?
YOU both claim to have found IMPORTANT INFORMATION that the NIST scientists (indeed the ENTIRE FRIGGIN ENGINEERING COMMUNITY) have MISSED.
All because of YOUR VAST CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE along with YOUR WILLINGNESS to TERRORIZE YOUR NEIGHBORS with half-assed experiments that have nearly killed/maimed/blinded you.
So why keep your "light under a barrel"
LET IT SHINE.
So, please, no more silly WAR of WORDS.
DEEDS ONLY PLEASE.
Arthur
Arthur do you have any Idea how the spheres found By Dr. Steven E Jones were Created, even an educated Guess?
I see you want to stick to the war on words.
BY MELTING OF COURSE
While a fire reaches an average temperature which is below the melting point of steel, heat is simply a form of energy, so given an ENERGETIC enough reaction, PHYSICAL or CHEMICAL, particularly when that energy is released in a small area, and particularly when the temp of the steel has already been raised many hundreds of degrees in the fire, its logical to assume it can raise the LOCAL Temperatures in small areas to the melting point of steel.
So, no considering the the amount of energy released by the impact of the plane and the many times LARGER amount of kinetic energy released in the collapse, the presense of iron spericals does not surprise me.
Interestingly it did NOT surprise the scientist who found them (Dr R J Lee (not Jones))
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liber...ology.Final.pdf
Also note that RJ Lee (who has quite a bit of experience in this) states:
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Now since Dr R J Lee, who has years of experience in this field, believes these spheres WOULD BE EXPECTED, before you run around and claim that you have found that NIST missed the most important factor in the collapse. , you just MIGHT want to drop the good Doctor a line and ask him WHY these spheres WERE EXPECTED.
Arthur
BY MELTING OF COURSE
While a fire reaches an average temperature which is below the melting point of steel, heat is simply a form of energy, so given an ENERGETIC enough reaction, PHYSICAL or CHEMICAL, particularly when that energy is released in a small area, and particularly when the temp of the steel has already been raised many hundreds of degrees in the fire, its logical to assume it can raise the LOCAL Temperatures in small areas to the melting point of steel.
So, no considering the the amount of energy released by the impact of the plane and the many times LARGER amount of kinetic energy released in the collapse, the presense of iron spericals does not surprise me.
Interestingly it did NOT surprise the scientist who found them (Dr R J Lee (not Jones))
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liber...ology.Final.pdf
Also note that RJ Lee (who has quite a bit of experience in this) states:
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Now since Dr R J Lee, who has years of experience in this field, believes these spheres WOULD BE EXPECTED, before you run around and claim that you have found that NIST missed the most important factor in the collapse. , you just MIGHT want to drop the good Doctor a line and ask him WHY these spheres WERE EXPECTED.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 17 2007, 01:28 PM)
I see you want to stick to the war on words.
BY MELTING OF COURSE
While a fire reaches an average temperature which is below the melting point of steel, heat is simply a form of energy, so given an ENERGETIC enough reaction, PHYSICAL or CHEMICAL, particularly when that energy is released in a small area, and particularly when the temp of the steel has already been raised many hundreds of degrees in the fire, its logical to assume it can raise the LOCAL Temperatures in small areas to the melting point of steel.
So, no considering the the amount of energy released by the impact of the plane and the many times LARGER amount of kinetic energy released in the collapse, the presense of iron spericals does not surprise me.
Interestingly it did NOT surprise the scientist who found them (Dr R J Lee (not Jones))
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liber...ology.Final.pdf
Also note that RJ Lee (who has quite a bit of experience in this) states:
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Now since Dr R J Lee, who has years of experience in this field, believes these spheres WOULD BE EXPECTED, before you run around and claim that you have found that NIST missed the most important factor in the collapse. , you just MIGHT want to drop the good Doctor a line and ask him WHY these spheres WERE EXPECTED.
Arthur
Incorrect Dr. Jones also recovered Iron spheres as did Dr. Lee, with a unique chemical signature, that I have been trying for some time to duplicate.
Al, S, K, Fe.
Neu's new book I think includes work by Dr. Lee, and the spheres were expected when Dr. Lee found them because it was believe that the fires alone lead to the high temperature 2800c combustion of Aluminum creating molten steel.
So please cut out the bull, you do not know what your refering to.
Nist and the Society of Engineers both found evidence of Aluminum oxidation at the twin towers, Nist dismissed it.
Nist fuel estimates and tests are based only on availiable carbon based fuels. Remember I have read the NIST reports and I am not a Cter.
Would you not agree that half assed experiment are better than no experiments at all, or flawed experiment in a Lab done though Peuoscience masked as real science?
I will give you a clue on the spheres, Although I do not know why I am doing it!
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85323&page=7
BY MELTING OF COURSE
While a fire reaches an average temperature which is below the melting point of steel, heat is simply a form of energy, so given an ENERGETIC enough reaction, PHYSICAL or CHEMICAL, particularly when that energy is released in a small area, and particularly when the temp of the steel has already been raised many hundreds of degrees in the fire, its logical to assume it can raise the LOCAL Temperatures in small areas to the melting point of steel.
So, no considering the the amount of energy released by the impact of the plane and the many times LARGER amount of kinetic energy released in the collapse, the presense of iron spericals does not surprise me.
Interestingly it did NOT surprise the scientist who found them (Dr R J Lee (not Jones))
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liber...ology.Final.pdf
Also note that RJ Lee (who has quite a bit of experience in this) states:
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Now since Dr R J Lee, who has years of experience in this field, believes these spheres WOULD BE EXPECTED, before you run around and claim that you have found that NIST missed the most important factor in the collapse. , you just MIGHT want to drop the good Doctor a line and ask him WHY these spheres WERE EXPECTED.
Arthur
Incorrect Dr. Jones also recovered Iron spheres as did Dr. Lee, with a unique chemical signature, that I have been trying for some time to duplicate.
Al, S, K, Fe.
Neu's new book I think includes work by Dr. Lee, and the spheres were expected when Dr. Lee found them because it was believe that the fires alone lead to the high temperature 2800c combustion of Aluminum creating molten steel.
So please cut out the bull, you do not know what your refering to.
Nist and the Society of Engineers both found evidence of Aluminum oxidation at the twin towers, Nist dismissed it.
Nist fuel estimates and tests are based only on availiable carbon based fuels. Remember I have read the NIST reports and I am not a Cter.
Would you not agree that half assed experiment are better than no experiments at all, or flawed experiment in a Lab done though Peuoscience masked as real science?
I will give you a clue on the spheres, Although I do not know why I am doing it!
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85323&page=7
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 17 2007, 08:18 AM)
Because the fire spread in a normal office fire is not usually as involved or as hot as a fire spread by hydrocarbons over multi stories in a limited amount of time.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Section E-8 FINDINGS (E.8.2).
Note there is NO FINDING that the fires were HOTTER than normal.
What they DO say:
The PRINCIPAL COMBUSTIBLES were WORKSTATIONS.
MOST of the JET FUEL was consumed in the first few minutes.
The fires in WTC 1 were VENTILATION LIMITED
The fires in WTC 2 however were not ventilation limited and burned at a rate determined by the combustibles.
Or see section 3.2.1 NATURE OF COMBUSTIBLES
While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes. By contrast, typical office furnishings can sustain intense fires of at least an hours duration on a given floor.
Please note that the combustible load from the aircraft was a significant secondary load on the floors where the fuselage impacted (and a load that NIST accounted for in its fire simulations) the total combustibles were still less than 10% of the already existing combustibles on the fire floors in each tower.
Arthur
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Section E-8 FINDINGS (E.8.2).
Note there is NO FINDING that the fires were HOTTER than normal.
What they DO say:
The PRINCIPAL COMBUSTIBLES were WORKSTATIONS.
MOST of the JET FUEL was consumed in the first few minutes.
The fires in WTC 1 were VENTILATION LIMITED
The fires in WTC 2 however were not ventilation limited and burned at a rate determined by the combustibles.
Or see section 3.2.1 NATURE OF COMBUSTIBLES
While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes. By contrast, typical office furnishings can sustain intense fires of at least an hours duration on a given floor.
Please note that the combustible load from the aircraft was a significant secondary load on the floors where the fuselage impacted (and a load that NIST accounted for in its fire simulations) the total combustibles were still less than 10% of the already existing combustibles on the fire floors in each tower.
Arthur
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 17 2007, 09:51 AM)
Incorrect Dr. Jones also recovered Iron spheres as did Dr. Lee, with a unique chemical signature, that I have been trying for some time to duplicate.
Al, S, K, Fe.
Neu's new book I think includes work by Dr. Lee, and the spheres were expected when Dr. Lee found them because it was believe that the fires alone lead to the high temperature 2800c combustion of Aluminum creating molten steel.
So please cut out the bull, you do not know what your refering to.
Excuse me?
WHO at NIST or RJ Lee and Assoc EVER EVER EVER claimed that temps in the buildings reached 2,800 C or resulted in ANY significant quantity of MOLTEN STEEL?
REFERENCES PLEASE.
NO BULL.
Arthur
Al, S, K, Fe.
Neu's new book I think includes work by Dr. Lee, and the spheres were expected when Dr. Lee found them because it was believe that the fires alone lead to the high temperature 2800c combustion of Aluminum creating molten steel.
So please cut out the bull, you do not know what your refering to.
Excuse me?
WHO at NIST or RJ Lee and Assoc EVER EVER EVER claimed that temps in the buildings reached 2,800 C or resulted in ANY significant quantity of MOLTEN STEEL?
REFERENCES PLEASE.
NO BULL.
Arthur
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 17 2007, 09:51 AM)
Would you not agree that half assed experiment are better than no experiments at all, or flawed experiment in a Lab done though Peuoscience masked as real science?
I will give you a clue on the spheres, Although I do not know why I am doing it!
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85323&page=7
Not really.
Half assed experiments can lead you to faulty conclusions.
Oh and thanks for the link.
I needed a MORNING LAUGH
From Chainsaw
Good one Chainsaw, I'm SURE the level of SO2 in the air INSIDE the WTC building was a REAL PROBLEM.
(NOT)
The levels in OUTSIDE air (where it is created when auto/diesel fuel is burnt), is less than a HUNDREDTH of a PPM.
Why is it UNLIKELY that there were high levels of SO2 in the towers?
Because SO2 concentrations as low as 0.1 ppm can incapacitate asthma or emphysema patients.
So NO, even in the many years the towers stood one can not reasonably assume that there was a build up of Iron Sulfate in the drywall of the WTC buildings.
Sheesh.
From Frank (Apollo20):
Good one Chainsaw, I'm SURE the level of SO2 in the air INSIDE the WTC building was a REAL PROBLEM.
(NOT)
The levels in OUTSIDE air (where it is created when auto/diesel fuel is burnt), is less than a HUNDREDTH of a PPM.
Why is it UNLIKELY that there were high levels of SO2 in the towers?
Because SO2 concentrations as low as 0.1 ppm can incapacitate asthma or emphysema patients.
So NO, even in the many years the towers stood one can not reasonably assume that there was a build up of Iron Sulfate in the drywall of the WTC buildings.
Sheesh.
From Frank (Apollo20):
The fires in the Twin Towers would be very similar to the fires involved in the combustion of refuse in municipal incinerators and there is quite the literature out there on this topic. It turns out that municipal incinerators are notorious for severe corrosion and wastage of metal surfaces contacted by the dusty flue gases.
Sure they get corroded.
But NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IN JUST ONE HOUR.
Arthur
Your forgetting that High sulfur diesel fuel stored in cans in the towers would have given off SO2 in higher concentrations for years also road diesel the type your referring too, is low sulfur not high sulfur. DA.
Bacterial degradation of High-sulfur diesel is well known!
The air polution nessary to convert it to sulfuric acid is Ozone not SO2 commonly given off by electric motors such as those used in elevators.
I should also remind you that generators were most likely located on the mechanical floors that burned the high sulfur diesel, they had tank vents that vented fume into the buildings.
Add to that the other sources of sulfates and now who is laughing!
High sulfur fuel stored in CANs in the towers?
Getting DESPERATE are we?
I don't believe the WTC towers generated their own power from diesel generators.
Please provide a reference to indicate that there WERE diesel generators AT ALL in the towers since I do not recall a single reference to them on the mechanical floors.
If they DID have diesel on those floors they still WOULDN'T have vented the FUEL FUMES generated on the MECHANICAL floors INTO the towers. That's just NUTS.
Yes Ozone and Sulfur Dioxide can create sulfuric acid, BUT Ozone is very reactive and doesn't have a PREFERENCE for the RARE SO3 molecule that comes around.
If and when both of them show up at the same time and place (pretty rare occurance since SO2 is pretty reactive all by itself), the resulting sulfuric acid doesn't have a preference for structural steel or wallboard and would likely react much sooner with a more exposed piece of material, you know, like a chair, desk, light fixture etc etc etc.
You can go ON AND ON about the POTENTIAL CHEMICAL reactions in the towers, either before or during 9/11, but you need to QUANTIFY them so as to SUPPORT your claim that NIST missed 1/3 the energy.
Arthur
Actually, I saw a documentary on the WTC towers over the weekend, and they did mention that they had their own generators. Whether they were used routinely or were there for backup power in case of grid failure, I don't remember them going into detail about it.
I was more interested in the circuit-breakers, which looked a lot like the ones we had at Monsanto, where I worked in their power generation group. I was told that when the circuit-breakers trip, they sound like a stick of dynamite going off.
Actually, I saw a documentary on the WTC towers over the weekend, and they did mention that they had their own generators. Whether they were used routinely or were there for backup power in case of grid failure, I don't remember them going into detail about it.
I think they were talking about WTC 7.
It did have emergency generators.
NIST covered them in NIST NCSTAR 1-1 chap 12 - WTC 7 Fuel System.
NIST does not mention ANY diesel generators in WTC 1 or 2.
I don't think that NIST would go to that detail on the fuel system in WTC 7 and then ignore them in WTC 1 or 2 if they were there.
Arthur
I will give you a clue on the spheres, Although I do not know why I am doing it!
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85323&page=7
Not really.
Half assed experiments can lead you to faulty conclusions.
Oh and thanks for the link.
I needed a MORNING LAUGH
From Chainsaw
QUOTE
One source of sulfur is naturally forming sulfuric acid from air pollution in New York city, over years of build up.
SO2 plus Ozone plus sulfuric acid the Diesel fuels stored in the buildings would have been releasing SO2 For Decades, and it would not be combined with Calcium and the drywall would absorb it like a sponge.
The result would be iron sulfate, that hit by the plane combined with wood ash, as the elemental metal oxides were still molten might be a source of a limited number of spheres
SO2 plus Ozone plus sulfuric acid the Diesel fuels stored in the buildings would have been releasing SO2 For Decades, and it would not be combined with Calcium and the drywall would absorb it like a sponge.
The result would be iron sulfate, that hit by the plane combined with wood ash, as the elemental metal oxides were still molten might be a source of a limited number of spheres
Good one Chainsaw, I'm SURE the level of SO2 in the air INSIDE the WTC building was a REAL PROBLEM.
(NOT)
The levels in OUTSIDE air (where it is created when auto/diesel fuel is burnt), is less than a HUNDREDTH of a PPM.
Why is it UNLIKELY that there were high levels of SO2 in the towers?
Because SO2 concentrations as low as 0.1 ppm can incapacitate asthma or emphysema patients.
So NO, even in the many years the towers stood one can not reasonably assume that there was a build up of Iron Sulfate in the drywall of the WTC buildings.
Sheesh.
From Frank (Apollo20):
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One source of sulfur is naturally forming sulfuric acid from air pollution in New York city, over years of build up. SO2 plus Ozone plus sulfuric acid the Diesel fuels stored in the buildings would have been releasing SO2 For Decades, and it would not be combined with Calcium and the drywall would absorb it like a sponge. The result would be iron sulfate, that hit by the plane combined with wood ash, as the elemental metal oxides were still molten might be a source of a limited number of spheres |
Good one Chainsaw, I'm SURE the level of SO2 in the air INSIDE the WTC building was a REAL PROBLEM.
(NOT)
The levels in OUTSIDE air (where it is created when auto/diesel fuel is burnt), is less than a HUNDREDTH of a PPM.
Why is it UNLIKELY that there were high levels of SO2 in the towers?
Because SO2 concentrations as low as 0.1 ppm can incapacitate asthma or emphysema patients.
So NO, even in the many years the towers stood one can not reasonably assume that there was a build up of Iron Sulfate in the drywall of the WTC buildings.
Sheesh.
From Frank (Apollo20):
The fires in the Twin Towers would be very similar to the fires involved in the combustion of refuse in municipal incinerators and there is quite the literature out there on this topic. It turns out that municipal incinerators are notorious for severe corrosion and wastage of metal surfaces contacted by the dusty flue gases.
Sure they get corroded.
But NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IN JUST ONE HOUR.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 17 2007, 02:42 PM)
Not really.
Half assed experiments can lead you to faulty conclusions.
Oh and thanks for the link.
I needed a MORNING LAUGH
From Chainsaw
Good one Chainsaw, I'm SURE the level of SO2 in the air INSIDE the WTC building was a REAL PROBLEM.
(NOT)
The levels in OUTSIDE air (where it is created when auto/diesel fuel is burnt), is less than a HUNDREDTH of a PPM.
Why is it UNLIKELY that there were high levels of SO2 in the towers?
Because SO2 concentrations as low as 0.1 ppm can incapacitate asthma or emphysema patients.
So NO, even in the many years the towers stood one can not reasonably assume that there was a build up of Iron Sulfate in the drywall of the WTC buildings.
Sheesh.
From Frank (Apollo20):
Sure they get corroded.
But NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IN JUST ONE HOUR.
Arthur
Your forgetting that High sulfur diesel fuel stored in cans in the towers would have given off SO2 in higher concentrations for years also road diesel the type your referring too, is low sulfur not high sulfur. DA.
Bacterial degradation of High-sulfur diesel is well known!
The air polution nessary to convert it to sulfuric acid is Ozone not SO2 commonly given off by electric motors such as those used in elevators.
I should also remind you that generators were most likely located on the mechanical floors that burned the high sulfur diesel, they had tank vents that vented fume into the buildings.
Add to that the other sources of sulfates and now who is laughing!
Also Please also read your own posts,
Notice he says destruction, and the promenent theoretic arguement at the time of the report was that A Chimney effect caused Molten aluminum to Oxidize.
I think that NIST has proved that the Chimney effect did not occur!
If you wish I will contact him, no problem I have been wanting to anyway, although I think that Frank already has been in contact with him.
Can you show me dear Arthur where in the NIST report the temperature reached over 1400c, A temperature where steel itself would oxidize?
PS. IT was not in the collapse, first thing I tried and although you can make the metal spheres in the collapse they do not retain a spherical shape because of friction and contamination.
Your using a common CTer tactic Cherry picking Quotes.
To defend your Ideas.
So please show me the page in the NIST report that adresses how the spheres Dr. Steven Jones found were formed, you can do that can you not?
They said it was from cutting opperations, but for some reason I find that unlikely because I tried it!
If you just interested in making excuses for Nist Dear Arthur I will Ignore you from now on as your wasting my time.
Half assed experiments can lead you to faulty conclusions.
Oh and thanks for the link.
I needed a MORNING LAUGH
From Chainsaw
Good one Chainsaw, I'm SURE the level of SO2 in the air INSIDE the WTC building was a REAL PROBLEM.
(NOT)
The levels in OUTSIDE air (where it is created when auto/diesel fuel is burnt), is less than a HUNDREDTH of a PPM.
Why is it UNLIKELY that there were high levels of SO2 in the towers?
Because SO2 concentrations as low as 0.1 ppm can incapacitate asthma or emphysema patients.
So NO, even in the many years the towers stood one can not reasonably assume that there was a build up of Iron Sulfate in the drywall of the WTC buildings.
Sheesh.
From Frank (Apollo20):
Sure they get corroded.
But NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IN JUST ONE HOUR.
Arthur
Your forgetting that High sulfur diesel fuel stored in cans in the towers would have given off SO2 in higher concentrations for years also road diesel the type your referring too, is low sulfur not high sulfur. DA.
Bacterial degradation of High-sulfur diesel is well known!
The air polution nessary to convert it to sulfuric acid is Ozone not SO2 commonly given off by electric motors such as those used in elevators.
I should also remind you that generators were most likely located on the mechanical floors that burned the high sulfur diesel, they had tank vents that vented fume into the buildings.
Add to that the other sources of sulfates and now who is laughing!
Also Please also read your own posts,
QUOTE
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Notice he says destruction, and the promenent theoretic arguement at the time of the report was that A Chimney effect caused Molten aluminum to Oxidize.
I think that NIST has proved that the Chimney effect did not occur!
If you wish I will contact him, no problem I have been wanting to anyway, although I think that Frank already has been in contact with him.
Can you show me dear Arthur where in the NIST report the temperature reached over 1400c, A temperature where steel itself would oxidize?
PS. IT was not in the collapse, first thing I tried and although you can make the metal spheres in the collapse they do not retain a spherical shape because of friction and contamination.
Your using a common CTer tactic Cherry picking Quotes.
To defend your Ideas.
So please show me the page in the NIST report that adresses how the spheres Dr. Steven Jones found were formed, you can do that can you not?
They said it was from cutting opperations, but for some reason I find that unlikely because I tried it!
If you just interested in making excuses for Nist Dear Arthur I will Ignore you from now on as your wasting my time.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 04:46 AM)
But it's not the ingnition that causes the relase of chlorine, it's the pyrolysis.
The pyrolysis would have occured in the fire that followed the ignition.
The precise physics of the fireball that caused the widespread ignition are irrelevant, from a chemical point of view.
Also, three hours of Pyrolysis at 350 celsius is enough to liberate 90% of the Chlorine (as HCl)
Another point i'm going to raise is that one of your own links that you provided disagrees with you and explicitly states that HCl is present after normal office fires which brings us back full circle as to why you think that the WTC should be so different in that respect?
Arthur's right in this case.
Your right Trippy the real word that I should be using might be conflagration, the Aluminum along with the Jet fuel is the key it is what causes such rapid increase in HCl I just can not find an accurate way to describe what I have seen happen it was shocking to witness steel just dissolve so fast.
Of course my energy estimates are for the initial impact and the total energy including that released by reactions even those in the rubble pile.
While Artur is only using NIST's estimates of the energy provided by carbon based substances, I have even included the reaction between the bodies on the plane and the Aluminum which obviously occurred and points me to the conclusion of an energy deficit.
The pyrolysis would have occured in the fire that followed the ignition.
The precise physics of the fireball that caused the widespread ignition are irrelevant, from a chemical point of view.
Also, three hours of Pyrolysis at 350 celsius is enough to liberate 90% of the Chlorine (as HCl)
Another point i'm going to raise is that one of your own links that you provided disagrees with you and explicitly states that HCl is present after normal office fires which brings us back full circle as to why you think that the WTC should be so different in that respect?
Arthur's right in this case.
Your right Trippy the real word that I should be using might be conflagration, the Aluminum along with the Jet fuel is the key it is what causes such rapid increase in HCl I just can not find an accurate way to describe what I have seen happen it was shocking to witness steel just dissolve so fast.
Of course my energy estimates are for the initial impact and the total energy including that released by reactions even those in the rubble pile.
While Artur is only using NIST's estimates of the energy provided by carbon based substances, I have even included the reaction between the bodies on the plane and the Aluminum which obviously occurred and points me to the conclusion of an energy deficit.
A couple of simple questions...
1. Was there a lot of metallic aluminum recovered from the rubble?
2. How much of the airborne chemicals were in the smoke that poured out of the towers (prior to being able to contribute to the reactions identified)?
1. Was there a lot of metallic aluminum recovered from the rubble?
2. How much of the airborne chemicals were in the smoke that poured out of the towers (prior to being able to contribute to the reactions identified)?
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 17 2007, 12:22 PM)
Your forgetting that High sulfur diesel fuel stored in cans in the towers would have given off SO2 in higher concentrations for years also road diesel the type your referring too, is low sulfur not high sulfur. DA.
Bacterial degradation of High-sulfur diesel is well known!
The air polution nessary to convert it to sulfuric acid is Ozone not SO2 commonly given off by electric motors such as those used in elevators.
I should also remind you that generators were most likely located on the mechanical floors that burned the high sulfur diesel, they had tank vents that vented fume into the buildings.
Add to that the other sources of sulfates and now who is laughing!
High sulfur fuel stored in CANs in the towers?
Getting DESPERATE are we?
I don't believe the WTC towers generated their own power from diesel generators.
Please provide a reference to indicate that there WERE diesel generators AT ALL in the towers since I do not recall a single reference to them on the mechanical floors.
If they DID have diesel on those floors they still WOULDN'T have vented the FUEL FUMES generated on the MECHANICAL floors INTO the towers. That's just NUTS.
Yes Ozone and Sulfur Dioxide can create sulfuric acid, BUT Ozone is very reactive and doesn't have a PREFERENCE for the RARE SO3 molecule that comes around.
If and when both of them show up at the same time and place (pretty rare occurance since SO2 is pretty reactive all by itself), the resulting sulfuric acid doesn't have a preference for structural steel or wallboard and would likely react much sooner with a more exposed piece of material, you know, like a chair, desk, light fixture etc etc etc.
You can go ON AND ON about the POTENTIAL CHEMICAL reactions in the towers, either before or during 9/11, but you need to QUANTIFY them so as to SUPPORT your claim that NIST missed 1/3 the energy.
Arthur
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 17 2007, 12:22 PM)
Also Please also read your own posts,
Notice he says destruction, and the promenent theoretic arguement at the time of the report was that A Chimney effect caused Molten aluminum to Oxidize.
Bovine Poo.
The FEMA study was released in MAY of 2002.
The RJ Lee study was released over a YEAR later in December of 03.
There IS no reference to "a Chimney effect causing molten aluminum to oxidize" in the FEMA report.
In fact they state that the ceiling temps were 1,000 C +/- 100 C
See FEMA BPS Chap 2 pg 22.
In all my years of studying this I've never even heard of anyone seriously arguing for a chimney effect.
you know WHY?
Because the towers (as ANY tall building has to be) were designed to PREVENT a chimney effect.
Arthur
Notice he says destruction, and the promenent theoretic arguement at the time of the report was that A Chimney effect caused Molten aluminum to Oxidize.
Bovine Poo.
The FEMA study was released in MAY of 2002.
The RJ Lee study was released over a YEAR later in December of 03.
There IS no reference to "a Chimney effect causing molten aluminum to oxidize" in the FEMA report.
In fact they state that the ceiling temps were 1,000 C +/- 100 C
See FEMA BPS Chap 2 pg 22.
In all my years of studying this I've never even heard of anyone seriously arguing for a chimney effect.
you know WHY?
Because the towers (as ANY tall building has to be) were designed to PREVENT a chimney effect.
Arthur
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 17 2007, 12:40 PM)
While Artur is only using NIST's estimates of the energy provided by carbon based substances, I have even included the reaction between the bodies on the plane and the Aluminum which obviously occurred and points me to the conclusion of an energy deficit.
So now the ENERGY DEFICIT that NIST left out was caused by the BODIES on the plane REACTING with the ALUMINUM from the plane?????
Give me a break.
Surely this REACTION occurs in EVERY plane crash.
There MUST be something in the LITERATURE about plane crash victims GENERATING GIGAJOULES of energy when they react with the Aluminum of the plane.
I'm sure its covered in EVERY AVIATION FIRE FIGHTING manual.
(NOT)
Sheesh
Arthur
So now the ENERGY DEFICIT that NIST left out was caused by the BODIES on the plane REACTING with the ALUMINUM from the plane?????
Give me a break.
Surely this REACTION occurs in EVERY plane crash.
There MUST be something in the LITERATURE about plane crash victims GENERATING GIGAJOULES of energy when they react with the Aluminum of the plane.
I'm sure its covered in EVERY AVIATION FIRE FIGHTING manual.
(NOT)
Sheesh
Arthur
QUOTE
I don't believe the WTC towers generated their own power from diesel generators.
Actually, I saw a documentary on the WTC towers over the weekend, and they did mention that they had their own generators. Whether they were used routinely or were there for backup power in case of grid failure, I don't remember them going into detail about it.
I was more interested in the circuit-breakers, which looked a lot like the ones we had at Monsanto, where I worked in their power generation group. I was told that when the circuit-breakers trip, they sound like a stick of dynamite going off.
TWO POINTS:
TRIPPY:
You ask how do you get Cl2 from HCl? Well, may I suggest you read up on the DEACON PROCESS which is based on the reaction:
2HCl + 1/2 O2 = H2O + Cl2
This reaction goes rapidly at about 400 deg C in the presence of catalysts containing copper, chromium or manganese.
ARTHUR (and others):
When you ask if there was anything that was really different about the WTC fires compared to typical office fires...
Well, THERE WAS A BIG FRIGGIN JET PARKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WTC TOWERS for starters!!!!
This added about 150 tons of aluminum, titanium, magnesium, PLASTICS, OXYGEN CYLINDERS, etc, to the fires!
Now Arthur, please go and look that up in your ASTM handbooks or NIST fire studies or the WORLDWIDE literature on FIRES and tell me what tests are recommended for that situation..... and what test results have been published that would be even close to this situation.
Then tell me why NIST did not include a section of aircraft fuselage in its fire simulations.
Let me offer some possible answers:
(i) NIST forgot about the planes
(ii) A plane really DID disappear inside each of the buildings
(ii) NIST only studies buildings, not buildings + planes
I can assure you NIST's fire simulation results would have been quite different to the results discussed in the less-than-adequate NIST Report if it had thrown some aircraft parts into its "rubblized offices"!
The more I look at the NIST/FEMA Reports, the more I see they were not about a scientific assessment of the WTC building performance....
TRIPPY:
You ask how do you get Cl2 from HCl? Well, may I suggest you read up on the DEACON PROCESS which is based on the reaction:
2HCl + 1/2 O2 = H2O + Cl2
This reaction goes rapidly at about 400 deg C in the presence of catalysts containing copper, chromium or manganese.
ARTHUR (and others):
When you ask if there was anything that was really different about the WTC fires compared to typical office fires...
Well, THERE WAS A BIG FRIGGIN JET PARKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WTC TOWERS for starters!!!!
This added about 150 tons of aluminum, titanium, magnesium, PLASTICS, OXYGEN CYLINDERS, etc, to the fires!
Now Arthur, please go and look that up in your ASTM handbooks or NIST fire studies or the WORLDWIDE literature on FIRES and tell me what tests are recommended for that situation..... and what test results have been published that would be even close to this situation.
Then tell me why NIST did not include a section of aircraft fuselage in its fire simulations.
Let me offer some possible answers:
(i) NIST forgot about the planes
(ii) A plane really DID disappear inside each of the buildings
(ii) NIST only studies buildings, not buildings + planes
I can assure you NIST's fire simulation results would have been quite different to the results discussed in the less-than-adequate NIST Report if it had thrown some aircraft parts into its "rubblized offices"!
The more I look at the NIST/FEMA Reports, the more I see they were not about a scientific assessment of the WTC building performance....
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 17 2007, 02:40 PM)
When you ask if there was anything that was really different about the WTC fires compared to typical office fires...
Well, THERE WAS A BIG FRIGGIN JET PARKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WTC TOWERS for starters!!!!
This added about 150 tons of aluminum, titanium, magnesium, PLASTICS, OXYGEN CYLINDERS, etc, to the fires!
Now Arthur, please go and look that up in your ASTM handbooks or NIST fire studies or the WORLDWIDE literature on FIRES and tell me what tests are recommended for that situation..... and what test results have been published that would be even close to this situation.
Then tell me why NIST did not include a section of aircraft fuselage in its fire simulations.
Let me offer some possible answers:
(i) NIST forgot about the planes
(ii) A plane really DID disappear inside each of the buildings
(ii) NIST only studies buildings, not buildings + planes
I can assure you NIST's fire simulation results would have been quite different to the results discussed in the less-than-adequate NIST Report if it had thrown some aircraft parts into its "rubblized offices"!
The more I look at the NIST/FEMA Reports, the more I see they were not about a scientific assessment of the WTC building performance....
They DID account for the AIRCRAFT and your insinuation that they did not is pathetic.
QUIT IT FRANK.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Table 7-2 Fuel and Aircraft Debris Distribution which shows how the debris from the WTC 1 plane was distributed across EIGHT floors.
See that the TOTAL debris in the towers from the planes was 70 Tons LESS than your WILD claim of 150 tons.
See that the MOST debris on any one floor was 96,000 lbs.
See that in NIST NCSTAR 1-5 table 3-6 Combustible Contents of Aircraft that NIST DID include the combustibles from the aircraft, even down to the MAIL that the planes were carrying.
The FACT of the matter is the combustibles from the airplanes WERE included, and what's more, it turns out that the LARGE OPEN floor plans of the WTC towers resulted in > 50% LOWER fuel load than TYPICAL buildings.
Because of this NIST modeled the fires at 4lbs per square ft of office space (they ignored the core area entirely as far as adding to combustibles) even though more RECENT surveys of office combustibles found the load to be 6.5 lbs per sq ft. (NIST NCSTAR 1-5 pg 51)
So NET/NET if the towers were MORE like typical office buildings, then their fuel load would have been far greater than the WTC towers even with a 767 parked inside and ALL of it combustible.
Arthur
Well, THERE WAS A BIG FRIGGIN JET PARKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WTC TOWERS for starters!!!!
This added about 150 tons of aluminum, titanium, magnesium, PLASTICS, OXYGEN CYLINDERS, etc, to the fires!
Now Arthur, please go and look that up in your ASTM handbooks or NIST fire studies or the WORLDWIDE literature on FIRES and tell me what tests are recommended for that situation..... and what test results have been published that would be even close to this situation.
Then tell me why NIST did not include a section of aircraft fuselage in its fire simulations.
Let me offer some possible answers:
(i) NIST forgot about the planes
(ii) A plane really DID disappear inside each of the buildings
(ii) NIST only studies buildings, not buildings + planes
I can assure you NIST's fire simulation results would have been quite different to the results discussed in the less-than-adequate NIST Report if it had thrown some aircraft parts into its "rubblized offices"!
The more I look at the NIST/FEMA Reports, the more I see they were not about a scientific assessment of the WTC building performance....
They DID account for the AIRCRAFT and your insinuation that they did not is pathetic.
QUIT IT FRANK.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Table 7-2 Fuel and Aircraft Debris Distribution which shows how the debris from the WTC 1 plane was distributed across EIGHT floors.
See that the TOTAL debris in the towers from the planes was 70 Tons LESS than your WILD claim of 150 tons.
See that the MOST debris on any one floor was 96,000 lbs.
See that in NIST NCSTAR 1-5 table 3-6 Combustible Contents of Aircraft that NIST DID include the combustibles from the aircraft, even down to the MAIL that the planes were carrying.
The FACT of the matter is the combustibles from the airplanes WERE included, and what's more, it turns out that the LARGE OPEN floor plans of the WTC towers resulted in > 50% LOWER fuel load than TYPICAL buildings.
Because of this NIST modeled the fires at 4lbs per square ft of office space (they ignored the core area entirely as far as adding to combustibles) even though more RECENT surveys of office combustibles found the load to be 6.5 lbs per sq ft. (NIST NCSTAR 1-5 pg 51)
So NET/NET if the towers were MORE like typical office buildings, then their fuel load would have been far greater than the WTC towers even with a 767 parked inside and ALL of it combustible.
Arthur
QUOTE (carterelliott+Jul 17 2007, 02:39 PM)
Actually, I saw a documentary on the WTC towers over the weekend, and they did mention that they had their own generators. Whether they were used routinely or were there for backup power in case of grid failure, I don't remember them going into detail about it.
I think they were talking about WTC 7.
It did have emergency generators.
NIST covered them in NIST NCSTAR 1-1 chap 12 - WTC 7 Fuel System.
NIST does not mention ANY diesel generators in WTC 1 or 2.
I don't think that NIST would go to that detail on the fuel system in WTC 7 and then ignore them in WTC 1 or 2 if they were there.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 18 2007, 06:40 AM)
TWO POINTS:
TRIPPY:
You ask how do you get Cl2 from HCl? Well, may I suggest you read up on the DEACON PROCESS which is based on the reaction:
2HCl + 1/2 O2 = H2O + Cl2
This reaction goes rapidly at about 400 deg C in the presence of catalysts containing copper, chromium or manganese.
I'm well aware of the deacon process.
What I initially questioned was the source of the chlorine in the first place, because nobody was talking about where it came from, simply assuming it was there.
I then stated that the only source of Chlorine that I could think of without implying a conspiracy was pyrolysis of PVC and PVDC, but I was uncertain as to how likely that was.
I then corrected myself by mentioning that I had come across several articles that confirmed that the pyrolysis of PVC did in fact liberate HCl.
Please, feel free to apologize, or issue a retraction.
TRIPPY:
You ask how do you get Cl2 from HCl? Well, may I suggest you read up on the DEACON PROCESS which is based on the reaction:
2HCl + 1/2 O2 = H2O + Cl2
This reaction goes rapidly at about 400 deg C in the presence of catalysts containing copper, chromium or manganese.
I'm well aware of the deacon process.
What I initially questioned was the source of the chlorine in the first place, because nobody was talking about where it came from, simply assuming it was there.
I then stated that the only source of Chlorine that I could think of without implying a conspiracy was pyrolysis of PVC and PVDC, but I was uncertain as to how likely that was.
I then corrected myself by mentioning that I had come across several articles that confirmed that the pyrolysis of PVC did in fact liberate HCl.
Please, feel free to apologize, or issue a retraction.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.