If WTC 1 or 2 had diesel backup generators, such would surely be placed in a low sub-basement.
The additional power wiring put in shortly before had leads from WTC 6 to WTC 1. So it is possible that there were backup generators in low basement levels of WTC 6.
However, it was only a short distance to the ConEd station underneath WTC 6, which did have diesel generators. So I currently see no reason for backup generators. The ones in WTC 6 appear to me to be a typical government boondoggle.
"Electrical service to the towers was supplied by Consolidated Edison (ConEd) at 13,800 volts. This service passed through the World Trade Center Primary Distribution Center (PDC) and sent up through the core of the building to electrical substations located on the mechanical floors. The substations "stepped" the 13,800 primary voltage down to 480/277 volt secondary power and further to 120/208 volt general power and lighting service. The complex also was served by emergency generators located in the sublevels of the towers and on the roof of 5 WTC.[21][22]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 10:11 AM)
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.
Hi Trippy!
I think you have to set aside stressing the 'electronegativity' itself when looking at the comparative heat production of equivalent moles of Mag and Alum.
Firstly, one must realise that for TWO atoms of Magnesium, only TWO OXYGEN are BOUND UP....because each Mg atom binds into MgO(1) and so every TWO Mg atoms give 2MgO.
Whereas each Al atom binds into AlO(1.5) and so for for every TWO Al atoms gives Al2O3....binding AN ADDITIONAL '1/2' OXYGEN in the case of each atom of Al....meaning MORE atom-for-atom energy released even in JUST the straight OXIDATION reaction.
ON TOP of that oxidation energy release, in the case of ALUMINIUM we THEN have the CRYSTAL-FORMATION or LATTICE ENERGY released when the initial AMORPHOUS oxidation Al2O3 products COMBINE FURTHER WITH EACH OTHER to ALSO produce A LARGE AMOUNT of ADDITIONAL exothermic reaction heat energy which contributes to the ENERGY DENSITY superiority as FUEL of an Alum METAL atom over a Mg METAL atom in the oxidation/combustion process that results ALSO in 'crystalline' products (as in Al combustion).
The TOTAL and MUCH greater OXIDATION plus LATTICE energy release per mole (compared to Mg) are two very REAL reasons why Aluminium metal 'enhanced' LOCALISED flame/reaction sites in that chaotic peri-impact combustion/reaction processes may have had very real LOCALISED (ingress and reaction-heating/scaling/weakening in small cracked/exposed/gaps in ALREADY IMPACT COMPROMISED, CRACKED 'STRETCHED-SURFACES/GRAINS in bolts and welds and contact-points) may have EXACERBATED to some MARGINAL (but perhaps SIGNIFICANT in a "straw broke Camel's back" sense) degree.
In any case, QUANTIFYING/IDENTIFYING specifically any of that marginal difference as to WHERE/WHEN or DEGREE, I don't hold out much chance, because of all the SUBSEQUENT office-fire, loadshifting and collapse/rubble-fire processes which would have OVERWHELMED the 'signature traces' of those earlier Aluminium/catalysis driven localised high-temp processes.
.
.
BTW, it also bears remembering that Al2O3 and MgO are 'intermediate' or 'AMPHOTERIC' 'alkalis/acids'.
This means that in ACIDIC ENVIRONMENTS, they act as ALKALIS and bond accordingly.
HOWEVER, in HIGHLY ALKALINE CONDITIONS, they ACT AS WEAK ACIDS!
So apart from all the possible CATALYTIC reactions going on all over the place, there would also be SHIFTING REACTIONS back and forth involving BOTH/EITHER aluminium oxide and Magnesium oxide in SHIFTING REACTIONS depending on the changing COMBINATIONS being formed all over the place and then SHIFTING in conditions/reactants to produce first ACIDIC Al2O3/MgO behaviour AND then ALKALINE behaviour as materials of acidic/alkaline became became chaotically involved/entrained from one HIGHLY LOCALISED circumstance/location/reaction CHAIN to another.
No-one will ever actually KNOW what happened where or if at all, in my opinion. This discussion merely serveds to undersatnd the ACADEMIC awareness of ALREADY KNOWN behaviours of HYDRATED/DEHYDRATED 'grignard-reagent' types of materials overall.
The 9/11 collapses were inevitable given the plane/fire effects even in the absence of ANY such additional random reactions being discussed here. The 'timing' may or may not have been affected by any more than a few minutes either way, in my considered opinion.
Cheers all!
PS: Oh, and to newton and all those hearing 'rumbles/booms' and immediately thinking 'bombs', I would ask them to go to any giant waterfalls where thouisands of tons of WATER hit other WATER and rocks, and see just how OVERWHELMING to the senses/body the CRASHING and BOOMING SOUND is. Note also that there are NO explosives present.
Imagine if CONCRETE AND STEEL was falling over tghose water falls. I wonder how much MORE OVERWHELMING the BOOM CRASH and RUMBLE sound would be. Tata!
RC.
.
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.
Hi Trippy!
I think you have to set aside stressing the 'electronegativity' itself when looking at the comparative heat production of equivalent moles of Mag and Alum.
Firstly, one must realise that for TWO atoms of Magnesium, only TWO OXYGEN are BOUND UP....because each Mg atom binds into MgO(1) and so every TWO Mg atoms give 2MgO.
Whereas each Al atom binds into AlO(1.5) and so for for every TWO Al atoms gives Al2O3....binding AN ADDITIONAL '1/2' OXYGEN in the case of each atom of Al....meaning MORE atom-for-atom energy released even in JUST the straight OXIDATION reaction.
ON TOP of that oxidation energy release, in the case of ALUMINIUM we THEN have the CRYSTAL-FORMATION or LATTICE ENERGY released when the initial AMORPHOUS oxidation Al2O3 products COMBINE FURTHER WITH EACH OTHER to ALSO produce A LARGE AMOUNT of ADDITIONAL exothermic reaction heat energy which contributes to the ENERGY DENSITY superiority as FUEL of an Alum METAL atom over a Mg METAL atom in the oxidation/combustion process that results ALSO in 'crystalline' products (as in Al combustion).
The TOTAL and MUCH greater OXIDATION plus LATTICE energy release per mole (compared to Mg) are two very REAL reasons why Aluminium metal 'enhanced' LOCALISED flame/reaction sites in that chaotic peri-impact combustion/reaction processes may have had very real LOCALISED (ingress and reaction-heating/scaling/weakening in small cracked/exposed/gaps in ALREADY IMPACT COMPROMISED, CRACKED 'STRETCHED-SURFACES/GRAINS in bolts and welds and contact-points) may have EXACERBATED to some MARGINAL (but perhaps SIGNIFICANT in a "straw broke Camel's back" sense) degree.
In any case, QUANTIFYING/IDENTIFYING specifically any of that marginal difference as to WHERE/WHEN or DEGREE, I don't hold out much chance, because of all the SUBSEQUENT office-fire, loadshifting and collapse/rubble-fire processes which would have OVERWHELMED the 'signature traces' of those earlier Aluminium/catalysis driven localised high-temp processes.
.
.
BTW, it also bears remembering that Al2O3 and MgO are 'intermediate' or 'AMPHOTERIC' 'alkalis/acids'.
This means that in ACIDIC ENVIRONMENTS, they act as ALKALIS and bond accordingly.
HOWEVER, in HIGHLY ALKALINE CONDITIONS, they ACT AS WEAK ACIDS!
So apart from all the possible CATALYTIC reactions going on all over the place, there would also be SHIFTING REACTIONS back and forth involving BOTH/EITHER aluminium oxide and Magnesium oxide in SHIFTING REACTIONS depending on the changing COMBINATIONS being formed all over the place and then SHIFTING in conditions/reactants to produce first ACIDIC Al2O3/MgO behaviour AND then ALKALINE behaviour as materials of acidic/alkaline became became chaotically involved/entrained from one HIGHLY LOCALISED circumstance/location/reaction CHAIN to another.
No-one will ever actually KNOW what happened where or if at all, in my opinion. This discussion merely serveds to undersatnd the ACADEMIC awareness of ALREADY KNOWN behaviours of HYDRATED/DEHYDRATED 'grignard-reagent' types of materials overall.
The 9/11 collapses were inevitable given the plane/fire effects even in the absence of ANY such additional random reactions being discussed here. The 'timing' may or may not have been affected by any more than a few minutes either way, in my considered opinion.
Cheers all!
PS: Oh, and to newton and all those hearing 'rumbles/booms' and immediately thinking 'bombs', I would ask them to go to any giant waterfalls where thouisands of tons of WATER hit other WATER and rocks, and see just how OVERWHELMING to the senses/body the CRASHING and BOOMING SOUND is. Note also that there are NO explosives present.
Imagine if CONCRETE AND STEEL was falling over tghose water falls. I wonder how much MORE OVERWHELMING the BOOM CRASH and RUMBLE sound would be. Tata!
RC.
.
QUOTE (carterelliott+Jul 17 2007, 02:15 PM)
The complex also was served by emergency generators located in the sublevels of the towers and on the roof of 5 WTC.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Something else occurred to me, from remembering my days at Monsanto's power plant.
The Sr. Engineer I was working for recounted a story he'd read about where a "crowbar short" occurred at a power plant, and the generator feeding the short broke loose from its floor mounts and rolled out the side of the plant.
The sudden-onset of load associated with a crowbar short translates into an equally-sudden-onset of torque on the generator.
The article mentions power distribution equipment on the mechanical floors, which included transformers and circuit breakers (which I've noted sound like sticks of dynamite when they trip). There had to be short circuits in the impacted floors, along with sudden loads/deloads from transected power cables. These would've tripped circuit breakers at the lower mechanical floors, which could easily have been mistaken for secondary explosions, but the transients could also have affected the generators (if they were running) on the lower floors, generating sudden-onset torques.
Does anyone know if those sub-level generators were running during the impact or post-impact phase?
The Sr. Engineer I was working for recounted a story he'd read about where a "crowbar short" occurred at a power plant, and the generator feeding the short broke loose from its floor mounts and rolled out the side of the plant.
The sudden-onset of load associated with a crowbar short translates into an equally-sudden-onset of torque on the generator.
The article mentions power distribution equipment on the mechanical floors, which included transformers and circuit breakers (which I've noted sound like sticks of dynamite when they trip). There had to be short circuits in the impacted floors, along with sudden loads/deloads from transected power cables. These would've tripped circuit breakers at the lower mechanical floors, which could easily have been mistaken for secondary explosions, but the transients could also have affected the generators (if they were running) on the lower floors, generating sudden-onset torques.
Does anyone know if those sub-level generators were running during the impact or post-impact phase?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 17 2007, 05:25 PM)
The 9/11 collapses were inevitable given the plane/fire effects even in the absence of ANY such additional random reactions being discussed here. The 'timing' may or may not have been affected by any more than a few minutes either way, in my considered opinion.
I agree.
Chemical reactions occur predominately on EXPOSED SURFACES and they would not have had a PREFERENCE for structural steel, and so given the HUGE quantity of steel SURFACE AREAS present in the towers BESIDES the massive amount of structural steel surface areas, i.e. chairs, office equipment, cubicles, light fixtures, elevators & shafts, suspended ceiling, HVAC duct work, drywall tracks, floor truss pans (which are non structural, and alone they would FAR exceed the square footage of exposed structural steel), the hypothesis that chemical reactions resulted in any significant damage to the structural steel such that it resulted in a significant impact on the towers progression to collapse I find to be HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
Arthur
I agree.
Chemical reactions occur predominately on EXPOSED SURFACES and they would not have had a PREFERENCE for structural steel, and so given the HUGE quantity of steel SURFACE AREAS present in the towers BESIDES the massive amount of structural steel surface areas, i.e. chairs, office equipment, cubicles, light fixtures, elevators & shafts, suspended ceiling, HVAC duct work, drywall tracks, floor truss pans (which are non structural, and alone they would FAR exceed the square footage of exposed structural steel), the hypothesis that chemical reactions resulted in any significant damage to the structural steel such that it resulted in a significant impact on the towers progression to collapse I find to be HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
Arthur
QUOTE (carterelliott+Jul 17 2007, 06:02 PM)
Does anyone know if those sub-level generators were running during the impact or post-impact phase?
I think it was a fairly normal morning based on the stories I've read from some of the maintenance workers, so unless you can find evidence that says they were, I think you have to assume they wouldn't be running.
Arthur
I think it was a fairly normal morning based on the stories I've read from some of the maintenance workers, so unless you can find evidence that says they were, I think you have to assume they wouldn't be running.
Arthur
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 17 2007, 09:25 PM)
Hi Trippy!
I think you have to set aside stressing the 'electronegativity' itself when looking at the comparative heat production of equivalent moles of Mag and Alum.
Firstly, one must realise that for TWO atoms of Magnesium, only TWO OXYGEN are BOUND UP....because each Mg atom binds into MgO(1) and so every TWO Mg atoms give 2MgO.
Whereas each Al atom binds into AlO(1.5) and so for for every TWO Al atoms gives Al2O3....binding AN ADDITIONAL '1/2' OXYGEN in the case of each atom of Al....meaning MORE atom-for-atom energy released even in JUST the straight OXIDATION reaction.
ON TOP of that oxidation energy release, in the case of ALUMINIUM we THEN have the CRYSTAL-FORMATION or LATTICE ENERGY released when the initial AMORPHOUS oxidation Al2O3 products COMBINE FURTHER WITH EACH OTHER to ALSO produce A LARGE AMOUNT of ADDITIONAL exothermic reaction heat energy which contributes to the ENERGY DENSITY superiority as FUEL of an Alum METAL atom over a Mg METAL atom in the oxidation/combustion process that results ALSO in 'crystalline' products (as in Al combustion).
The TOTAL and MUCH greater OXIDATION plus LATTICE energy release per mole (compared to Mg) are two very REAL reasons why Aluminium metal 'enhanced' LOCALISED flame/reaction sites in that chaotic peri-impact combustion/reaction processes may have had very real LOCALISED (ingress and reaction-heating/scaling/weakening in small cracked/exposed/gaps in ALREADY IMPACT COMPROMISED, CRACKED 'STRETCHED-SURFACES/GRAINS in bolts and welds and contact-points) may have EXACERBATED to some MARGINAL (but perhaps SIGNIFICANT in a "straw broke Camel's back" sense) degree.
In any case, QUANTIFYING/IDENTIFYING specifically any of that marginal difference as to WHERE/WHEN or DEGREE, I don't hold out much chance, because of all the SUBSEQUENT office-fire, loadshifting and collapse/rubble-fire processes which would have OVERWHELMED the 'signature traces' of those earlier Aluminium/catalysis driven localised high-temp processes.
.
.
BTW, it also bears remembering that Al2O3 and MgO are 'intermediate' or 'AMPHOTERIC' 'alkalis/acids'.
This means that in ACIDIC ENVIRONMENTS, they act as ALKALIS and bond accordingly.
HOWEVER, in HIGHLY ALKALINE CONDITIONS, they ACT AS WEAK ACIDS!
So apart from all the possible CATALYTIC reactions going on all over the place, there would also be SHIFTING REACTIONS back and forth involving BOTH/EITHER aluminium oxide and Magnesium oxide in SHIFTING REACTIONS depending on the changing COMBINATIONS being formed all over the place and then SHIFTING in conditions/reactants to produce first ACIDIC Al2O3/MgO behaviour AND then ALKALINE behaviour as materials of acidic/alkaline became became chaotically involved/entrained from one HIGHLY LOCALISED circumstance/location/reaction CHAIN to another.
No-one will ever actually KNOW what happened where or if at all, in my opinion. This discussion merely serveds to undersatnd the ACADEMIC awareness of ALREADY KNOWN behaviours of HYDRATED/DEHYDRATED 'grignard-reagent' types of materials overall.
The 9/11 collapses were inevitable given the plane/fire effects even in the absence of ANY such additional random reactions being discussed here. The 'timing' may or may not have been affected by any more than a few minutes either way, in my considered opinion.
Cheers all!
PS: Oh, and to newton and all those hearing 'rumbles/booms' and immediately thinking 'bombs', I would ask them to go to any giant waterfalls where thouisands of tons of WATER hit other WATER and rocks, and see just how OVERWHELMING to the senses/body the CRASHING and BOOMING SOUND is. Note also that there are NO explosives present.
Imagine if CONCRETE AND STEEL was falling over tghose water falls. I wonder how much MORE OVERWHELMING the BOOM CRASH and RUMBLE sound would be. Tata!
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 17 2007, 10:06 PM)
QUOTE (RC+)
The 9/11 collapses were inevitable given the plane/fire effects even in the absence of ANY such additional random reactions being discussed here. The 'timing' may or may not have been affected by any more than a few minutes either way, in my considered opinion.
I agree.
Chemical reactions occur predominately on EXPOSED SURFACES and they would not have had a PREFERENCE for structural steel, and so given the HUGE quantity of steel SURFACE AREAS present in the towers BESIDES the massive amount of structural steel surface areas, i.e. chairs, office equipment, cubicles, light fixtures, elevators & shafts, suspended ceiling, HVAC duct work, drywall tracks, floor truss pans (which are non structural, and alone they would FAR exceed the square footage of exposed structural steel), the hypothesis that chemical reactions resulted in any significant damage to the structural steel such that it resulted in a significant impact on the towers progression to collapse I find to be HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
Don't forget though, that during the peri-impact fires the violent energy/gas/flows the reactions would be significantly being 'cataylised' and 're-catalysed', 'shifted' and 're-shifted' (both as to loaction and reaction involvement).
So while INITIALLY any reactive/corrosive agents would react with the most 'convenient' surfaces' IN SITU. they would THEN have been RECYCLING throughout the full RANGE of further catalysed/shifted reactions in the FURNACELIKE GAS/VAPOUR-reaction MAELSTROMS once the whole lot was MIXED up....incluoding the INITIAL by-products from the 'first potrt of call' reactions you mentioned (furniture etc). Because once the fireproofing had been lost/compromised, and the many connection welds/bolts/surfaces had been micro-fissured', by the initial impact, and otherwised EXPOSED to further ingress by CORROSIVE gases STILL REACTING within these 'micro-fissures', they would have been even more affected by the sheer VOLUME/MASS of the ALUMINIUM/MAGNESIUM etc metal-driven and catalyst-shifted reaction CASCADES.
Admittedly, whether the aluminium/magnesium 'fuel' load was significantly more than would have been present in the towers anyway, is to me unclear.
HOWEVER, the fact the PLANE contribution was more EFFECTIVELY SHREDDDED than in-office/building aluminium, I think. So it would be more immediately available to drive those higher energy reactions...and in all-at-once manner (like the jet-fuel did INITIALLY to set the widespread fires was available more immediately and in more all-at-once manner).
Again, the whole scenario was chaotic and unusually widespread and ignited in the first place.....not to mention no fireproofing/fighting effectiveness AT ALL.....PLUS DAMAGE/COMPTROMISE by plane impact that was so severe and extensive that the connections/welds/bolts etc 'fissuring' would have been 'taken advantage of' by whatever of these reactions/products were present. And in NORMAL building fires there is NOT that initial widespread 'micro-fissuring' and 'inferno' that would ALLOW these unsusual reactions to be 'significant' in 'normal' building fires.
But again, adoucette, you and I are in agreement that the effects were marginal and unquantifiable in the 9/11 events.....but that does not mean there is nothing NEW to be learned from considering these things FOR THEIR OWN SAKE and for 'completeness' sake as to 'thermo-chemistry' of fires in unusual conditions and mixes/quantities of reactants.
Cheerds all!
RC.
.
But again, adoucette, you and I are in agreement that the effects were marginal and unquantifiable in the 9/11 events.....but that does not mean there is nothing NEW to be learned from considering these things FOR THEIR OWN SAKE and for 'completeness' sake as to 'thermo-chemistry' of fires in unusual conditions and mixes/quantities of reactants.
I'm sure there IS something new to be learned in a plane/structure fire of this size.
All I'm asking for is for them to PUBLISH the SUPPORTING DATA.
Something neither of them seem willing or able to do.
Arthur
Probably they won't be able to DEFINITIVELY because even I can see that there is no way to identify/quantify to the degree necessary for a definitive assessment.
But as you say, the exercise may yield 'general' new insights into such large scale and well mixed scenarios in future.
Cheers!
RC.
.
The only way to get any data at all is to do experiment that try to recreate the conditions, that is what I am doing I only posted here to get ideas and to go over it with people I though more intelligent than myself.
Sorry I was wrong about that too!
Arthur will not even consider that the composition of the spheres that Dr. Jones found are the same as human blood Minus the Sodium Chloride that vaporizes above 1400c.
I have tried melting, cutting, and every thing else I could think of to duplicate the spheres the only thing that worked was exposing Blood to a reaction of Oxiding Aluminum flash powder in air.
That worked If Arthur can make another suggestion on how it can be done I would like to hear it.
I want to include I believe that the spheres could also be created by a reaction of Aluminum Chloride and Blood but I have not been able to accomplish that feat to date!
Hi Trip!
I would advise looking again at your data set for that conclusion, mate.
Since there are many pictures that show DURALUMIN plane crashes where the plane shell is BURNING and being put out by firfighting foam.
Trust me mate.
If the duralmin itself was actually buning, they wouldn't be using foam to put it out.
Foam is 97% water.
Have you seen what happens when you try to extinguish burning metal with water?
You get an even more vigorous reaction, this is why they use dry powder extinguishers for electrical fires, and fires involving burning metal.
We're discussing a technical detail, and disagreeing about the technical aspects of it.
It's the sort of thing that people who care about the truth more than they care about politics, do.
I wouldn't expect you to understand.
I agree.
Chemical reactions occur predominately on EXPOSED SURFACES and they would not have had a PREFERENCE for structural steel, and so given the HUGE quantity of steel SURFACE AREAS present in the towers BESIDES the massive amount of structural steel surface areas, i.e. chairs, office equipment, cubicles, light fixtures, elevators & shafts, suspended ceiling, HVAC duct work, drywall tracks, floor truss pans (which are non structural, and alone they would FAR exceed the square footage of exposed structural steel), the hypothesis that chemical reactions resulted in any significant damage to the structural steel such that it resulted in a significant impact on the towers progression to collapse I find to be HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
Don't forget though, that during the peri-impact fires the violent energy/gas/flows the reactions would be significantly being 'cataylised' and 're-catalysed', 'shifted' and 're-shifted' (both as to loaction and reaction involvement).
So while INITIALLY any reactive/corrosive agents would react with the most 'convenient' surfaces' IN SITU. they would THEN have been RECYCLING throughout the full RANGE of further catalysed/shifted reactions in the FURNACELIKE GAS/VAPOUR-reaction MAELSTROMS once the whole lot was MIXED up....incluoding the INITIAL by-products from the 'first potrt of call' reactions you mentioned (furniture etc). Because once the fireproofing had been lost/compromised, and the many connection welds/bolts/surfaces had been micro-fissured', by the initial impact, and otherwised EXPOSED to further ingress by CORROSIVE gases STILL REACTING within these 'micro-fissures', they would have been even more affected by the sheer VOLUME/MASS of the ALUMINIUM/MAGNESIUM etc metal-driven and catalyst-shifted reaction CASCADES.
Admittedly, whether the aluminium/magnesium 'fuel' load was significantly more than would have been present in the towers anyway, is to me unclear.
HOWEVER, the fact the PLANE contribution was more EFFECTIVELY SHREDDDED than in-office/building aluminium, I think. So it would be more immediately available to drive those higher energy reactions...and in all-at-once manner (like the jet-fuel did INITIALLY to set the widespread fires was available more immediately and in more all-at-once manner).
Again, the whole scenario was chaotic and unusually widespread and ignited in the first place.....not to mention no fireproofing/fighting effectiveness AT ALL.....PLUS DAMAGE/COMPTROMISE by plane impact that was so severe and extensive that the connections/welds/bolts etc 'fissuring' would have been 'taken advantage of' by whatever of these reactions/products were present. And in NORMAL building fires there is NOT that initial widespread 'micro-fissuring' and 'inferno' that would ALLOW these unsusual reactions to be 'significant' in 'normal' building fires.
But again, adoucette, you and I are in agreement that the effects were marginal and unquantifiable in the 9/11 events.....but that does not mean there is nothing NEW to be learned from considering these things FOR THEIR OWN SAKE and for 'completeness' sake as to 'thermo-chemistry' of fires in unusual conditions and mixes/quantities of reactants.
Cheerds all!
RC.
.
Arthur:
So NIST had aircraft debris in its MODEL but put no aircraft debris in its fire tests!
Ha, ha, ha.......... My point precisely!
What a JOKE!
So NIST had aircraft debris in its MODEL but put no aircraft debris in its fire tests!
Ha, ha, ha.......... My point precisely!
What a JOKE!
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 18 2007, 09:25 AM)
Hi Trippy!
I think you have to set aside stressing the 'electronegativity' itself when looking at the comparative heat production of equivalent moles of Mag and Alum.
Firstly, one must realise that for TWO atoms of Magnesium, only TWO OXYGEN are BOUND UP....because each Mg atom binds into MgO(1) and so every TWO Mg atoms give 2MgO.
You're missing the point RC.
My initial point was this:
Magnesium is more reactive then Aluminium.
Any Magnesium present would have/should have been oxidized before the Aluminium was oxidized, and the Magnesium acts to preserve the Aluminium.
The fact that Aluminium eleases more energy then Magnesium isn't the point.
The reaction of Almuminium with air is described as "Mild" and produces only ONE product, Al2O3.
The reaction of Magnesium with air is described as "Vigorous" and produces two products: MgO and Mg3N2.
This is a reflection of the fact that the first and second ionization energies of Magnesium are 737.7 kj/mol and 1450.6kj/mol, where as for Aluminium they're 577.6 kj/mol and 1816.6 kj/mol, so as you can see the rate for the Magnesium acting sacrificialy as supported even by this argument.
My point with pointing out the electronegativities was to illustrate how closely matched Al and Mg are, so there can be some similarities expected between them. And there are, including the tightly bound layer of Oxide coating - although it's not as tightly bound as with Aluminium.
So, as you can see, the FACTS still back up my initial position.
I think you have to set aside stressing the 'electronegativity' itself when looking at the comparative heat production of equivalent moles of Mag and Alum.
Firstly, one must realise that for TWO atoms of Magnesium, only TWO OXYGEN are BOUND UP....because each Mg atom binds into MgO(1) and so every TWO Mg atoms give 2MgO.
You're missing the point RC.
My initial point was this:
Magnesium is more reactive then Aluminium.
Any Magnesium present would have/should have been oxidized before the Aluminium was oxidized, and the Magnesium acts to preserve the Aluminium.
The fact that Aluminium eleases more energy then Magnesium isn't the point.
The reaction of Almuminium with air is described as "Mild" and produces only ONE product, Al2O3.
The reaction of Magnesium with air is described as "Vigorous" and produces two products: MgO and Mg3N2.
This is a reflection of the fact that the first and second ionization energies of Magnesium are 737.7 kj/mol and 1450.6kj/mol, where as for Aluminium they're 577.6 kj/mol and 1816.6 kj/mol, so as you can see the rate for the Magnesium acting sacrificialy as supported even by this argument.
My point with pointing out the electronegativities was to illustrate how closely matched Al and Mg are, so there can be some similarities expected between them. And there are, including the tightly bound layer of Oxide coating - although it's not as tightly bound as with Aluminium.
So, as you can see, the FACTS still back up my initial position.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 17 2007, 06:57 PM)
Arthur:
So NIST had aircraft debris in its MODEL but put no aircraft debris in its fire tests!
Ha, ha, ha.......... My point precisely!
What a JOKE!
You're the joke Frank.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
The POINT Frank is that one could put aluminum in with the work stations, but the fires wouldn't be hot enough to ignite it.
So your "Ha, ha, ha.......... My point precisely!" falls a TAD flat.
Why not present some ACTUAL QUANTIFIED DATA to support your arguement.
I mean if I can tear it down, and I'm not a chemist, you obviously haven't thought it through.
Arthur
So NIST had aircraft debris in its MODEL but put no aircraft debris in its fire tests!
Ha, ha, ha.......... My point precisely!
What a JOKE!
You're the joke Frank.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
QUOTE
Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame.
The POINT Frank is that one could put aluminum in with the work stations, but the fires wouldn't be hot enough to ignite it.
So your "Ha, ha, ha.......... My point precisely!" falls a TAD flat.
Why not present some ACTUAL QUANTIFIED DATA to support your arguement.
I mean if I can tear it down, and I'm not a chemist, you obviously haven't thought it through.
Arthur
I'll ask again, was there a lot of metallic aluminum found in the debris? If so, then it didn't burn. If not, where did it go?
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 17 2007, 04:39 PM)
I'll ask again, was there a lot of metallic aluminum found in the debris? If so, then it didn't burn. If not, where did it go?
AFAIK, nobody bothered to mention it, one way or the other.
The pictures of the clean-up that I have seen do not obviously show aluminum, not even the aluminum panels which clad the towers, and which, in some stills taken from videos, can be seen falling free.
However, the materials removed from the bathtub were covered with fines, so other than readily identifiable remains of trusses and structural steel members, it is rather difficult to say just what was there...
Edited to add: There is a picture which shows that part of the aircraft striking WTC 1 survived intact. Clearly a segment of the forward right fuselage.
AFAIK, nobody bothered to mention it, one way or the other.
The pictures of the clean-up that I have seen do not obviously show aluminum, not even the aluminum panels which clad the towers, and which, in some stills taken from videos, can be seen falling free.
However, the materials removed from the bathtub were covered with fines, so other than readily identifiable remains of trusses and structural steel members, it is rather difficult to say just what was there...
Edited to add: There is a picture which shows that part of the aircraft striking WTC 1 survived intact. Clearly a segment of the forward right fuselage.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 11:08 PM)
You're missing the point RC.
My initial point was this:
Magnesium is more reactive then Aluminium.
Any Magnesium present would have/should have been oxidized before the Aluminium was oxidized, and the Magnesium acts to preserve the Aluminium.
The fact that Aluminium eleases more energy then Magnesium isn't the point.
The reaction of Almuminium with air is described as "Mild" and produces only ONE product, Al2O3.
The reaction of Magnesium with air is described as "Vigorous" and produces two products: MgO and Mg3N2.
This is a reflection of the fact that the first and second ionization energies of Magnesium are 737.7 kj/mol and 1450.6kj/mol, where as for Aluminium they're 577.6 kj/mol and 1816.6 kj/mol, so as you can see the rate for the Magnesium acting sacrificialy as supported even by this argument.
My point with pointing out the electronegativities was to illustrate how closely matched Al and Mg are, so there can be some similarities expected between them. And there are, including the tightly bound layer of Oxide coating - although it's not as tightly bound as with Aluminium.
So, as you can see, the FACTS still back up my initial position.
Hi Trippy!
Sorry mate, but I think you are missing my point, hehehe.
The 'vigorous' tag merely describes the reaction RATE per se...NOT the TOTAL ENERGY RELEASE atom-for-atom of Al/Mg in oxidation...which is the final product for both, even IF the Mg INITIALY also forms Nitrides.
Also you miss the point about atom-for-atom quantity energy density. I highlighted your MgO and MG3N2 example above.
The number of Mg atoms overall is FOUR (4Mg).
Now take the same number of Al atoms and you get MORE energy out of them....and in the conditions in the tower peri-impact infernos, PROBABLY JUST AS VIGOROUSLY as Magnesium.
And I think you have to stop thinking of the 'known' CONTROLLED CONDITIONS behaviour of the respective effects/properties of both.
In 9/11 event they were in CHAOTIC and uncontrolled reactions that do NOT necessarily have mg and al SIDE-BY-SIDE as VAPOUR/PARTICULATES....but INTERMINGLED with all sorts of possible accelerants/catalysts and INTERMEDIATE REACTION PRODUCTS that produce all sorts of cyclic and uncontrolled directional reacrivity that is not the usual seen in straight magnesium-aluminium PREFERENTIAL BEHAVIOUR scenarios.
That's what I think the guys are on about. The chaotic 'unknowns' in that event immediately after impact-fuel conflagration.
No-one is arguing the behaviour as per the 'electronegativity' or 'alloy/protection' behaviour/properties....but the ACTUAL CONDITIONS/REACTIONS which may have been occurring in an uncontrolled and large-scale reactions in HIGH-ENERGY scenarios LOCALLY ffrom point to point and moment to moment as all sorts of mixes/entrainments are involved in the reactions in series and in parallel and in catalysis and in 'acid-alkali shited reactions.
I know what you're saying...and you are correct...as far as it goes. The academic exrecise now being discussed is more about what COULD have actually occurred as opposed what we EXPECT to have occurred if we simply 'see' it SIMPLISTICALLY as 'electronegativity' and 'alloy type' behaviours ONLY.
See what they're getting at?
No argument with what is the knowns that you have highlighted...it is with the 'unknowns' that they are concerned about in such horrendous events as 9/11.
Cheers mate!
PS: I will try today to make some time to reply to those two posts of yours I mentioned yesterday, Trip!
RC.
.
My initial point was this:
Magnesium is more reactive then Aluminium.
Any Magnesium present would have/should have been oxidized before the Aluminium was oxidized, and the Magnesium acts to preserve the Aluminium.
The fact that Aluminium eleases more energy then Magnesium isn't the point.
The reaction of Almuminium with air is described as "Mild" and produces only ONE product, Al2O3.
The reaction of Magnesium with air is described as "Vigorous" and produces two products: MgO and Mg3N2.
This is a reflection of the fact that the first and second ionization energies of Magnesium are 737.7 kj/mol and 1450.6kj/mol, where as for Aluminium they're 577.6 kj/mol and 1816.6 kj/mol, so as you can see the rate for the Magnesium acting sacrificialy as supported even by this argument.
My point with pointing out the electronegativities was to illustrate how closely matched Al and Mg are, so there can be some similarities expected between them. And there are, including the tightly bound layer of Oxide coating - although it's not as tightly bound as with Aluminium.
So, as you can see, the FACTS still back up my initial position.
Hi Trippy!
Sorry mate, but I think you are missing my point, hehehe.
The 'vigorous' tag merely describes the reaction RATE per se...NOT the TOTAL ENERGY RELEASE atom-for-atom of Al/Mg in oxidation...which is the final product for both, even IF the Mg INITIALY also forms Nitrides.
Also you miss the point about atom-for-atom quantity energy density. I highlighted your MgO and MG3N2 example above.
The number of Mg atoms overall is FOUR (4Mg).
Now take the same number of Al atoms and you get MORE energy out of them....and in the conditions in the tower peri-impact infernos, PROBABLY JUST AS VIGOROUSLY as Magnesium.
And I think you have to stop thinking of the 'known' CONTROLLED CONDITIONS behaviour of the respective effects/properties of both.
In 9/11 event they were in CHAOTIC and uncontrolled reactions that do NOT necessarily have mg and al SIDE-BY-SIDE as VAPOUR/PARTICULATES....but INTERMINGLED with all sorts of possible accelerants/catalysts and INTERMEDIATE REACTION PRODUCTS that produce all sorts of cyclic and uncontrolled directional reacrivity that is not the usual seen in straight magnesium-aluminium PREFERENTIAL BEHAVIOUR scenarios.
That's what I think the guys are on about. The chaotic 'unknowns' in that event immediately after impact-fuel conflagration.
No-one is arguing the behaviour as per the 'electronegativity' or 'alloy/protection' behaviour/properties....but the ACTUAL CONDITIONS/REACTIONS which may have been occurring in an uncontrolled and large-scale reactions in HIGH-ENERGY scenarios LOCALLY ffrom point to point and moment to moment as all sorts of mixes/entrainments are involved in the reactions in series and in parallel and in catalysis and in 'acid-alkali shited reactions.
I know what you're saying...and you are correct...as far as it goes. The academic exrecise now being discussed is more about what COULD have actually occurred as opposed what we EXPECT to have occurred if we simply 'see' it SIMPLISTICALLY as 'electronegativity' and 'alloy type' behaviours ONLY.
See what they're getting at?
No argument with what is the knowns that you have highlighted...it is with the 'unknowns' that they are concerned about in such horrendous events as 9/11.
Cheers mate!
PS: I will try today to make some time to reply to those two posts of yours I mentioned yesterday, Trip!
RC.
.
Here's what I don't get.
I'm sitting here reading a paper published in 2005 that examines the energy distributions etc involved in the WTC collapse.
The energy of one floor falling onto the floor below it is 1.67x10^8 Joules.
Half of this energy is dissipated as heat, which is 8.3x10^7 Joules.
The time taken for this was (an average) of 12 seconds.
It takes 9 seconds for an object to free fall 110 stories.
This leaves us (roughly) 3 seconds for compaction, and sturctural failure of 110 floors.
This means the process took 0.027 seconds per floor.
So, in 0.027 seconds, 8.3x10^7 Joules of energy was released as heat.
This gives us 3074 MW.
Compare this to the total output of the Embalse Nuclear Plant in Argentina which releases a total of 2757 MW of THERMAL and ELECTRICAL energy.
Or, to put it another way:
The same nuclear power plant would release 5.6x10^7 Joules of THERMAL energy in the same period of time.
Here's something else to bare in mind, The time used in crushing and rending lower floors would be less then those for higher floors.
The WTC towers had a total of 4.6x10^11 joules. IIRC, at least half of this is required to have been converted into heat energy.
2.3x10^11 Joules. This happened in 12 seconds.
This gives us 19166 MW of Thermal energy. Again, compare this to the Embalse Nuclear Power Plant.
Most of the shear forces (therefore thermal energy) would have been been concentrated in areas of weakness, welds, bolts, rivets, things like that.
Somebody want to explain to me precisely why we need to invoke some form of unique chemistry that for some reason was only present in the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses to explain Iron spherules again?
I'm sitting here reading a paper published in 2005 that examines the energy distributions etc involved in the WTC collapse.
The energy of one floor falling onto the floor below it is 1.67x10^8 Joules.
Half of this energy is dissipated as heat, which is 8.3x10^7 Joules.
The time taken for this was (an average) of 12 seconds.
It takes 9 seconds for an object to free fall 110 stories.
This leaves us (roughly) 3 seconds for compaction, and sturctural failure of 110 floors.
This means the process took 0.027 seconds per floor.
So, in 0.027 seconds, 8.3x10^7 Joules of energy was released as heat.
This gives us 3074 MW.
Compare this to the total output of the Embalse Nuclear Plant in Argentina which releases a total of 2757 MW of THERMAL and ELECTRICAL energy.
Or, to put it another way:
The same nuclear power plant would release 5.6x10^7 Joules of THERMAL energy in the same period of time.
Here's something else to bare in mind, The time used in crushing and rending lower floors would be less then those for higher floors.
The WTC towers had a total of 4.6x10^11 joules. IIRC, at least half of this is required to have been converted into heat energy.
2.3x10^11 Joules. This happened in 12 seconds.
This gives us 19166 MW of Thermal energy. Again, compare this to the Embalse Nuclear Power Plant.
Most of the shear forces (therefore thermal energy) would have been been concentrated in areas of weakness, welds, bolts, rivets, things like that.
Somebody want to explain to me precisely why we need to invoke some form of unique chemistry that for some reason was only present in the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses to explain Iron spherules again?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 18 2007, 12:02 AM)
Here's what I don't get.
I'm sitting here reading a paper published in 2005 that examines the energy distributions etc involved in the WTC collapse.
The energy of one floor falling onto the floor below it is 1.67x10^8 Joules.
Half of this energy is dissipated as heat, which is 8.3x10^7 Joules.
The time taken for this was (an average) of 12 seconds.
It takes 9 seconds for an object to free fall 110 stories.
This leaves us (roughly) 3 seconds for compaction, and sturctural failure of 110 floors.
This means the process took 0.027 seconds per floor.
So, in 0.027 seconds, 8.3x10^7 Joules of energy was released as heat.
This gives us 3074 MW.
Compare this to the total output of the Embalse Nuclear Plant in Argentina which releases a total of 2757 MW of THERMAL and ELECTRICAL energy.
Or, to put it another way:
The same nuclear power plant would release 5.6x10^7 Joules of THERMAL energy in the same period of time.
Here's something else to bare in mind, The time used in crushing and rending lower floors would be less then those for higher floors.
The WTC towers had a total of 4.6x10^11 joules. IIRC, at least half of this is required to have been converted into heat energy.
2.3x10^11 Joules. This happened in 12 seconds.
This gives us 19166 MW of Thermal energy. Again, compare this to the Embalse Nuclear Power Plant.
Most of the shear forces (therefore thermal energy) would have been been concentrated in areas of weakness, welds, bolts, rivets, things like that.
Somebody want to explain to me precisely why we need to invoke some form of unique chemistry that for some reason was only present in the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses to explain Iron spherules again?
Hi Trip!
You posted just as I posted mine, hehehe!
I think I see where the 'cross-purposes' is coming in here, mate.
I and others are talking of the 'total' energy ONLY in the PERI-IMPACT conflagration/reactions that may have affected/contributed to (only by a few minutes, probably) the LOCAL COLLAPSE INITIATION PROCESSES/CAUSES. That's all, mate.
Not the total energy of the whole shebang conflagation/collapse per se, hehehe.
And the 'whole shebang' total energy available was pretty impressive.
Schneibster poster was the first to point that out in the VERY FIRST THREAD on 9/11 (that thread was closed long ago).
mate, it sure WAS some IMPRESSIVE energyrelease/flow in that event!
Cheers!
RC.
.
I'm sitting here reading a paper published in 2005 that examines the energy distributions etc involved in the WTC collapse.
The energy of one floor falling onto the floor below it is 1.67x10^8 Joules.
Half of this energy is dissipated as heat, which is 8.3x10^7 Joules.
The time taken for this was (an average) of 12 seconds.
It takes 9 seconds for an object to free fall 110 stories.
This leaves us (roughly) 3 seconds for compaction, and sturctural failure of 110 floors.
This means the process took 0.027 seconds per floor.
So, in 0.027 seconds, 8.3x10^7 Joules of energy was released as heat.
This gives us 3074 MW.
Compare this to the total output of the Embalse Nuclear Plant in Argentina which releases a total of 2757 MW of THERMAL and ELECTRICAL energy.
Or, to put it another way:
The same nuclear power plant would release 5.6x10^7 Joules of THERMAL energy in the same period of time.
Here's something else to bare in mind, The time used in crushing and rending lower floors would be less then those for higher floors.
The WTC towers had a total of 4.6x10^11 joules. IIRC, at least half of this is required to have been converted into heat energy.
2.3x10^11 Joules. This happened in 12 seconds.
This gives us 19166 MW of Thermal energy. Again, compare this to the Embalse Nuclear Power Plant.
Most of the shear forces (therefore thermal energy) would have been been concentrated in areas of weakness, welds, bolts, rivets, things like that.
Somebody want to explain to me precisely why we need to invoke some form of unique chemistry that for some reason was only present in the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses to explain Iron spherules again?
Hi Trip!
You posted just as I posted mine, hehehe!
I think I see where the 'cross-purposes' is coming in here, mate.
I and others are talking of the 'total' energy ONLY in the PERI-IMPACT conflagration/reactions that may have affected/contributed to (only by a few minutes, probably) the LOCAL COLLAPSE INITIATION PROCESSES/CAUSES. That's all, mate.
Not the total energy of the whole shebang conflagation/collapse per se, hehehe.
And the 'whole shebang' total energy available was pretty impressive.
Schneibster poster was the first to point that out in the VERY FIRST THREAD on 9/11 (that thread was closed long ago).
mate, it sure WAS some IMPRESSIVE energyrelease/flow in that event!
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 17 2007, 06:43 PM)
But again, adoucette, you and I are in agreement that the effects were marginal and unquantifiable in the 9/11 events.....but that does not mean there is nothing NEW to be learned from considering these things FOR THEIR OWN SAKE and for 'completeness' sake as to 'thermo-chemistry' of fires in unusual conditions and mixes/quantities of reactants.
I'm sure there IS something new to be learned in a plane/structure fire of this size.
All I'm asking for is for them to PUBLISH the SUPPORTING DATA.
Something neither of them seem willing or able to do.
Arthur
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 18 2007, 11:56 AM)
Hi Trippy!
Sorry mate, but I think you are missing my point, hehehe.
The 'vigorous' tag merely describes the reaction RATE per se...NOT the TOTAL ENERGY RELEASE atom-for-atom of Al/Mg in oxidation...which is the final product for both, even IF the Mg INITIALY also forms Nitrides.
Also you miss the point about atom-for-atom quantity energy density. I highlighted your MgO and MG3N2 example above.
The number of Mg atoms overall is FOUR (4Mg).
Now take the same number of Al atoms and you get MORE energy out of them....and in the conditions in the tower peri-impact infernos, PROBABLY JUST AS VIGOROUSLY as Magnesium.
And I think you have to stop thinking of the 'known' CONTROLLED CONDITIONS behaviour of the respective effects/properties of both.
In 9/11 event they were in CHAOTIC and uncontrolled reactions that do NOT necessarily have mg and al SIDE-BY-SIDE as VAPOUR/PARTICULATES....but INTERMINGLED with all sorts of possible accelerants/catalysts and INTERMEDIATE REACTION PRODUCTS that produce all sorts of cyclic and uncontrolled directional reacrivity that is not the usual seen in straight magnesium-aluminium PREFERENTIAL BEHAVIOUR scenarios.
That's what I think the guys are on about. The chaotic 'unknowns' in that event immediately after impact-fuel conflagration.
No-one is arguing the behaviour as per the 'electronegativity' or 'alloy/protection' behaviour/properties....but the ACTUAL CONDITIONS/REACTIONS which may have been occurring in an uncontrolled and large-scale reactions in HIGH-ENERGY scenarios LOCALLY ffrom point to point and moment to moment as all sorts of mixes/entrainments are involved in the reactions in series and in parallel and in catalysis and in 'acid-alkali shited reactions.
I know what you're saying...and you are correct...as far as it goes. The academic exrecise now being discussed is more about what COULD have actually occurred as opposed what we EXPECT to have occurred if we simply 'see' it SIMPLISTICALLY as 'electronegativity' and 'alloy type' behaviours ONLY.
See what they're getting at?
No argument with what is the knowns that you have highlighted...it is with the 'unknowns' that they are concerned about in such horrendous events as 9/11.
Cheers mate!
PS: I will try today to make some time to reply to those two posts of yours I mentioned yesterday, Trip!
RC.
No. I understand fully what you're saying.
75% of the fireball was outside the boundaries of the building.
Let's assume the unlikely scenario that the plane was reduced to a powder form.
Being in a powder form doesn't magically seperate the magnesium and the aluminium, each grain of powder still has some of each.
SO in that respect, referring to them as being seperated is an erroneous argument.
Now, let's examine another couple of facts.
The temperature of the fire is thought to have been 550°C which is enough to weaken structural steel by 20%
The ignition temperature of Magnesium is 450°C
The ignition temperature of Aluminium is 1400°C
See one of the other problems with what you're saying RC?
So once again, the facts disagree with you.
Sorry mate, but I think you are missing my point, hehehe.
The 'vigorous' tag merely describes the reaction RATE per se...NOT the TOTAL ENERGY RELEASE atom-for-atom of Al/Mg in oxidation...which is the final product for both, even IF the Mg INITIALY also forms Nitrides.
Also you miss the point about atom-for-atom quantity energy density. I highlighted your MgO and MG3N2 example above.
The number of Mg atoms overall is FOUR (4Mg).
Now take the same number of Al atoms and you get MORE energy out of them....and in the conditions in the tower peri-impact infernos, PROBABLY JUST AS VIGOROUSLY as Magnesium.
And I think you have to stop thinking of the 'known' CONTROLLED CONDITIONS behaviour of the respective effects/properties of both.
In 9/11 event they were in CHAOTIC and uncontrolled reactions that do NOT necessarily have mg and al SIDE-BY-SIDE as VAPOUR/PARTICULATES....but INTERMINGLED with all sorts of possible accelerants/catalysts and INTERMEDIATE REACTION PRODUCTS that produce all sorts of cyclic and uncontrolled directional reacrivity that is not the usual seen in straight magnesium-aluminium PREFERENTIAL BEHAVIOUR scenarios.
That's what I think the guys are on about. The chaotic 'unknowns' in that event immediately after impact-fuel conflagration.
No-one is arguing the behaviour as per the 'electronegativity' or 'alloy/protection' behaviour/properties....but the ACTUAL CONDITIONS/REACTIONS which may have been occurring in an uncontrolled and large-scale reactions in HIGH-ENERGY scenarios LOCALLY ffrom point to point and moment to moment as all sorts of mixes/entrainments are involved in the reactions in series and in parallel and in catalysis and in 'acid-alkali shited reactions.
I know what you're saying...and you are correct...as far as it goes. The academic exrecise now being discussed is more about what COULD have actually occurred as opposed what we EXPECT to have occurred if we simply 'see' it SIMPLISTICALLY as 'electronegativity' and 'alloy type' behaviours ONLY.
See what they're getting at?
No argument with what is the knowns that you have highlighted...it is with the 'unknowns' that they are concerned about in such horrendous events as 9/11.
Cheers mate!
PS: I will try today to make some time to reply to those two posts of yours I mentioned yesterday, Trip!
RC.
No. I understand fully what you're saying.
75% of the fireball was outside the boundaries of the building.
Let's assume the unlikely scenario that the plane was reduced to a powder form.
Being in a powder form doesn't magically seperate the magnesium and the aluminium, each grain of powder still has some of each.
SO in that respect, referring to them as being seperated is an erroneous argument.
Now, let's examine another couple of facts.
The temperature of the fire is thought to have been 550°C which is enough to weaken structural steel by 20%
The ignition temperature of Magnesium is 450°C
The ignition temperature of Aluminium is 1400°C
See one of the other problems with what you're saying RC?
So once again, the facts disagree with you.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 17 2007, 10:13 PM)
I think it was a fairly normal morning based on the stories I've read from some of the maintenance workers, so unless you can find evidence that says they were, I think you have to assume they wouldn't be running.
Arthur
LOL the generators started when the power failed at impact, just like in world trade center 7 they had automatic switches.
All the World Trade Center generators were set up that way.
Arthur
LOL the generators started when the power failed at impact, just like in world trade center 7 they had automatic switches.
All the World Trade Center generators were set up that way.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 18 2007, 12:09 AM)
I'm sure there IS something new to be learned in a plane/structure fire of this size.
All I'm asking for is for them to PUBLISH the SUPPORTING DATA.
Something neither of them seem willing or able to do.
Arthur
Probably they won't be able to DEFINITIVELY because even I can see that there is no way to identify/quantify to the degree necessary for a definitive assessment.
But as you say, the exercise may yield 'general' new insights into such large scale and well mixed scenarios in future.
Cheers!
RC.
.
All I'm asking for is for them to PUBLISH the SUPPORTING DATA.
Something neither of them seem willing or able to do.
Arthur
Probably they won't be able to DEFINITIVELY because even I can see that there is no way to identify/quantify to the degree necessary for a definitive assessment.
But as you say, the exercise may yield 'general' new insights into such large scale and well mixed scenarios in future.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Trippy:
You are making a big mistake ASSUMING that the energy released in the collapse of the Twin Towers went immediately into heat. You have NOT factored in the FRACTURING and EJECTION of material.
Also your IGNITION temperatures depend on PARTICLE SIZE, so your quoted values don't mean too much WITHOUT an associated number for the average particle size.
You are making a big mistake ASSUMING that the energy released in the collapse of the Twin Towers went immediately into heat. You have NOT factored in the FRACTURING and EJECTION of material.
Also your IGNITION temperatures depend on PARTICLE SIZE, so your quoted values don't mean too much WITHOUT an associated number for the average particle size.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 17 2007, 11:20 PM)
You're the joke Frank.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
The POINT Frank is that one could put aluminum in with the work stations, but the fires wouldn't be hot enough to ignite it.
So your "Ha, ha, ha.......... My point precisely!" falls a TAD flat.
Why not present some ACTUAL QUANTIFIED DATA to support your arguement.
I mean if I can tear it down, and I'm not a chemist, you obviously haven't thought it through.
Arthur
I never thought I would hear Arthur say the exact same words that Dr. Steven Jones expressed to me.
I will reply now to Arthur the way I did to Dr. Jones, It does not take heat it takes energy to Ignite Aluminum any energy that compromise the oxide layer will do it.
Impact, sound, friction, heat.
Chemical weakening of the oxide with chlorides does it as well, once the oxide coating is molten the Aluminum may become quite a good fuel if motion or energy of any time is involved as long as said energy continues to destabilize the Oxide layer.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
The POINT Frank is that one could put aluminum in with the work stations, but the fires wouldn't be hot enough to ignite it.
So your "Ha, ha, ha.......... My point precisely!" falls a TAD flat.
Why not present some ACTUAL QUANTIFIED DATA to support your arguement.
I mean if I can tear it down, and I'm not a chemist, you obviously haven't thought it through.
Arthur
I never thought I would hear Arthur say the exact same words that Dr. Steven Jones expressed to me.
I will reply now to Arthur the way I did to Dr. Jones, It does not take heat it takes energy to Ignite Aluminum any energy that compromise the oxide layer will do it.
Impact, sound, friction, heat.
Chemical weakening of the oxide with chlorides does it as well, once the oxide coating is molten the Aluminum may become quite a good fuel if motion or energy of any time is involved as long as said energy continues to destabilize the Oxide layer.
CHAINSAW:
Yes, apparently Arthur has never heard of aluminum slurry fuels....
Yes, apparently Arthur has never heard of aluminum slurry fuels....
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 18 2007, 12:13 AM)
No. I understand fully what you're saying.
75% of the fireball was outside the boundaries of the building.
Let's assume the unlikely scenario that the plane was reduced to a powder form.
Being in a powder form doesn't magically seperate the magnesium and the aluminium, each grain of powder still has some of each.
SO in that respect, referring to them as being seperated is an erroneous argument.
Now, let's examine another couple of facts.
The temperature of the fire is thought to have been 550°C which is enough to weaken structural steel by 20%
The ignition temperature of Magnesium is 450°C
The ignition temperature of Aluminium is 1400°C
See one of the other problems with what you're saying RC?
So once again, the facts disagree with you.
Hi Trip!
I think I'd better clarify with some background that you may not be familiar with regarding these 9/11 threads, mate.
I was in it from the beginning thread long ago.
I and others attacked and effectively refuted with scientific argument EACH AND EVERY CD/CT (ahem) 'scientific' hypothesis/claim to date.
I agree with most of what you now say. I and others have established most of what you now refer to. It is 'history' for most of the old-time regulars in these 9/11 discussions. We are in general AGREEMENT that 'conspiracy' of 'controlled demolition' claims are NOT TENABLE given the NATURAL/CHAOTIC ENERGY FLOWS/AVAILABILITY AND PROCESSES observed in the events.
The point has reached where 'detailed' analysis might lead to better safety/design in future for such vulnerable constructions as the towers turned out to be.
The final 'detail' being discussed lately, seems to involve peri-impact conflagration reactions 'different' from the usual 'office-fire' fuel load....and involving possibly aluminium from the plane and building. Which is so, would INDICATE that FUTURE CLADDING/FURNITURE AND FITTINGS for such vulnerable buildings should NOT be made of such HIGH-ENERGY reaction METAL 'fuels'.
That's all, I think that is being positied/explored at present here by NF, Chain, wcelliot...
Now as to mag/Alum 'intimate contact' in feeding/reaction processes per se, it bears remembering that the plane's aluminium SHELL is basically an ALUMINIUM-COPPER ALLOY (Duralumin?) that is more easily 'breached' as to 'protective surface layer'.
And that the aluminium 'building-facia/cladding' brought in by the plane impact was probably 'straight' aluminium because otherwise its protective surface 'anodised layer' would have been severely PITTED by pollution/acid rain etc effects if it was NOT basically 'pure' aluminium. That's why ALUMINIUM BOATS do not use the DURALUMIN copper alloys...because they wouldn't be protected enough from corrosive saltwater etc.
Naturally, fixtures/furnitures and fittings would contain ali=uminium/magnesium alloy types. These would behave as you describe. Absolutely.
Now as to the aluminium and magnesium being 'intimate contact' throughout, the fact that MOST of the aluminium inside that initial inferno WAS 'copper' alloyed and straight' aluminium, then MOST of the aluminium would not necessarily be initially/lastly in such situations as for the 'preferential' reaction behaviours you mention to have a significant effect OVERALL in ther aluminium-driven reactions.
Oh, and as for the 1400C ignition temp for aluminium, you must remeber that the PLANE IMPACT and FRICTION HEATING of the IMPACT-SANDBLASTED (and more vulnerable "Duralumin") PLANE ALLOY SURFACES would have afforded AMPLE high-temp ignition points/fuel all over the shop. Once started, the CHEMICAL PRE-DISPOSITION TO FURTHER IGNITION/REACTION was present also all over the shop (as aluminium reacted with the chlorine/chlorides/silicates/CO2/H2O etc etc...which eventually would proceed in fits and starts to highest oxidation state for the aluminium.
Lastly, I agree and so has every sensible person here from day one that most of the 'jet-fuel fireball' went out the windows and some fuel-air mixes up/down the shafts to explode later therein.
However, what is being considered by NF and others at the moment, is what HAPPENED to all that aluminium and corrosive reactants that WERE SOON vaporised/reacted as described earlier when talking about FURTHER REACTIONS in catalysis and reactant shifting etc which may have exacerbated the 'micro-gap' integrity of impact damaged bolts, welds etc.? Could they have been COMPROMISED FURTHER than just the 'normal' fireball of kero-fuel and impact?
While the TOTAL ENERGY is nowhere SIDNIGICANT OVERALL in the total fire/collapse budget, it may STILL be possible that because whatever ADDITIONAL energy was contributed by the aluminium and catalysed chemical reactions wherever the initial fireball PUSHED the reacting products INTO (gaps, existing cracks etc), the LOCALLY HIGH HEAT/CHEMICAL effects may be more significant THAN THE OVERALL CONTRIBUTION to LOCAL COLLAPSE energy per se.
That's all, mate.
No-one is arguing with most of what you said (which agreed to by others and myself LONG AGO, hehehe).
It's those localised miniscule but interesting unknown reactions that seem to be the 'echoes' of the debate as it has been finalising up to now.
No argument now. The towers would have fallen and whatever interesting chemical/reaction effects happened just after the impact and a few minutes on, did not really affect the outcome by much.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
75% of the fireball was outside the boundaries of the building.
Let's assume the unlikely scenario that the plane was reduced to a powder form.
Being in a powder form doesn't magically seperate the magnesium and the aluminium, each grain of powder still has some of each.
SO in that respect, referring to them as being seperated is an erroneous argument.
Now, let's examine another couple of facts.
The temperature of the fire is thought to have been 550°C which is enough to weaken structural steel by 20%
The ignition temperature of Magnesium is 450°C
The ignition temperature of Aluminium is 1400°C
See one of the other problems with what you're saying RC?
So once again, the facts disagree with you.
Hi Trip!
I think I'd better clarify with some background that you may not be familiar with regarding these 9/11 threads, mate.
I was in it from the beginning thread long ago.
I and others attacked and effectively refuted with scientific argument EACH AND EVERY CD/CT (ahem) 'scientific' hypothesis/claim to date.
I agree with most of what you now say. I and others have established most of what you now refer to. It is 'history' for most of the old-time regulars in these 9/11 discussions. We are in general AGREEMENT that 'conspiracy' of 'controlled demolition' claims are NOT TENABLE given the NATURAL/CHAOTIC ENERGY FLOWS/AVAILABILITY AND PROCESSES observed in the events.
The point has reached where 'detailed' analysis might lead to better safety/design in future for such vulnerable constructions as the towers turned out to be.
The final 'detail' being discussed lately, seems to involve peri-impact conflagration reactions 'different' from the usual 'office-fire' fuel load....and involving possibly aluminium from the plane and building. Which is so, would INDICATE that FUTURE CLADDING/FURNITURE AND FITTINGS for such vulnerable buildings should NOT be made of such HIGH-ENERGY reaction METAL 'fuels'.
That's all, I think that is being positied/explored at present here by NF, Chain, wcelliot...
Now as to mag/Alum 'intimate contact' in feeding/reaction processes per se, it bears remembering that the plane's aluminium SHELL is basically an ALUMINIUM-COPPER ALLOY (Duralumin?) that is more easily 'breached' as to 'protective surface layer'.
And that the aluminium 'building-facia/cladding' brought in by the plane impact was probably 'straight' aluminium because otherwise its protective surface 'anodised layer' would have been severely PITTED by pollution/acid rain etc effects if it was NOT basically 'pure' aluminium. That's why ALUMINIUM BOATS do not use the DURALUMIN copper alloys...because they wouldn't be protected enough from corrosive saltwater etc.
Naturally, fixtures/furnitures and fittings would contain ali=uminium/magnesium alloy types. These would behave as you describe. Absolutely.
Now as to the aluminium and magnesium being 'intimate contact' throughout, the fact that MOST of the aluminium inside that initial inferno WAS 'copper' alloyed and straight' aluminium, then MOST of the aluminium would not necessarily be initially/lastly in such situations as for the 'preferential' reaction behaviours you mention to have a significant effect OVERALL in ther aluminium-driven reactions.
Oh, and as for the 1400C ignition temp for aluminium, you must remeber that the PLANE IMPACT and FRICTION HEATING of the IMPACT-SANDBLASTED (and more vulnerable "Duralumin") PLANE ALLOY SURFACES would have afforded AMPLE high-temp ignition points/fuel all over the shop. Once started, the CHEMICAL PRE-DISPOSITION TO FURTHER IGNITION/REACTION was present also all over the shop (as aluminium reacted with the chlorine/chlorides/silicates/CO2/H2O etc etc...which eventually would proceed in fits and starts to highest oxidation state for the aluminium.
Lastly, I agree and so has every sensible person here from day one that most of the 'jet-fuel fireball' went out the windows and some fuel-air mixes up/down the shafts to explode later therein.
However, what is being considered by NF and others at the moment, is what HAPPENED to all that aluminium and corrosive reactants that WERE SOON vaporised/reacted as described earlier when talking about FURTHER REACTIONS in catalysis and reactant shifting etc which may have exacerbated the 'micro-gap' integrity of impact damaged bolts, welds etc.? Could they have been COMPROMISED FURTHER than just the 'normal' fireball of kero-fuel and impact?
While the TOTAL ENERGY is nowhere SIDNIGICANT OVERALL in the total fire/collapse budget, it may STILL be possible that because whatever ADDITIONAL energy was contributed by the aluminium and catalysed chemical reactions wherever the initial fireball PUSHED the reacting products INTO (gaps, existing cracks etc), the LOCALLY HIGH HEAT/CHEMICAL effects may be more significant THAN THE OVERALL CONTRIBUTION to LOCAL COLLAPSE energy per se.
That's all, mate.
No-one is arguing with most of what you said (which agreed to by others and myself LONG AGO, hehehe).
It's those localised miniscule but interesting unknown reactions that seem to be the 'echoes' of the debate as it has been finalising up to now.
No argument now. The towers would have fallen and whatever interesting chemical/reaction effects happened just after the impact and a few minutes on, did not really affect the outcome by much.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 18 2007, 12:17 AM)
Probably they won't be able to DEFINITIVELY because even I can see that there is no way to identify/quantify to the degree necessary for a definitive assessment.
But as you say, the exercise may yield 'general' new insights into such large scale and well mixed scenarios in future.
Cheers!
RC.
.
The only way to get any data at all is to do experiment that try to recreate the conditions, that is what I am doing I only posted here to get ideas and to go over it with people I though more intelligent than myself.
Sorry I was wrong about that too!
Arthur will not even consider that the composition of the spheres that Dr. Jones found are the same as human blood Minus the Sodium Chloride that vaporizes above 1400c.
I have tried melting, cutting, and every thing else I could think of to duplicate the spheres the only thing that worked was exposing Blood to a reaction of Oxiding Aluminum flash powder in air.
That worked If Arthur can make another suggestion on how it can be done I would like to hear it.
I want to include I believe that the spheres could also be created by a reaction of Aluminum Chloride and Blood but I have not been able to accomplish that feat to date!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 18 2007, 12:36 PM)
Trippy:
You are making a big mistake ASSUMING that the energy released in the collapse of the Twin Towers went immediately into heat. You have NOT factored in the FRACTURING and EJECTION of material.
Also your IGNITION temperatures depend on PARTICLE SIZE, so your quoted values don't mean too much WITHOUT an associated number for the average particle size.
Two small points.
First off. Where, Precisely do you think that the other half of the energy went?
Second: The figure I quoted for the ignition point of aluminium was for a layer or film (Like an aircraft hull, no matter how badly crumpled it might be).
Thirdly: The paper that I was summarising from took all of those things into account, including the energy required to pulverize the concrete to the sizes observed, and came to the conclusion that even without the weakening of the support trusses by the fire - a phenomenom that is observed in any fire with that style of flooring or roofing, the energy from the collapse is sufficient that no external energy sources were required.
Plane hits building.
PLane severes external support.
Plane severes and damages internal support.
Support has to deal with an off axis, abnormal load.
Building tilts slightly.
Once the WTC towers tilted, even imperceptibly, it was only a matter of time until they fell.
You are making a big mistake ASSUMING that the energy released in the collapse of the Twin Towers went immediately into heat. You have NOT factored in the FRACTURING and EJECTION of material.
Also your IGNITION temperatures depend on PARTICLE SIZE, so your quoted values don't mean too much WITHOUT an associated number for the average particle size.
Two small points.
First off. Where, Precisely do you think that the other half of the energy went?
Second: The figure I quoted for the ignition point of aluminium was for a layer or film (Like an aircraft hull, no matter how badly crumpled it might be).
Thirdly: The paper that I was summarising from took all of those things into account, including the energy required to pulverize the concrete to the sizes observed, and came to the conclusion that even without the weakening of the support trusses by the fire - a phenomenom that is observed in any fire with that style of flooring or roofing, the energy from the collapse is sufficient that no external energy sources were required.
Plane hits building.
PLane severes external support.
Plane severes and damages internal support.
Support has to deal with an off axis, abnormal load.
Building tilts slightly.
Once the WTC towers tilted, even imperceptibly, it was only a matter of time until they fell.
RC: And the main points that I was trying to make were that:
1. The conditions would not have been sufficient to ignite the Aluminium.
2. Theorizing that localized extreme heating occured is actually un-neccessary when you consider all of the reactions involved.
Chainsaw: When discussing yojur globules, have you stopped to consider that Gypsum would have been present (among other things),
1. The conditions would not have been sufficient to ignite the Aluminium.
2. Theorizing that localized extreme heating occured is actually un-neccessary when you consider all of the reactions involved.
Chainsaw: When discussing yojur globules, have you stopped to consider that Gypsum would have been present (among other things),
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 05:54 PM)
Once the WTC towers tilted, even imperceptibly, it was only a matter of time until they fell.
That is not, I believe, the conclusion that NIST came to. Without the fires, NIST states, the towers would have stood 'indefinitely' (whatever that means).
That is not, I believe, the conclusion that NIST came to. Without the fires, NIST states, the towers would have stood 'indefinitely' (whatever that means).
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 17 2007, 08:41 PM)
I never thought I would hear Arthur say the exact same words that Dr. Steven Jones expressed to me.
I will reply now to Arthur the way I did to Dr. Jones, It does not take heat it takes energy to Ignite Aluminum any energy that compromise the oxide layer will do it.
Impact, sound, friction, heat.
Chemical weakening of the oxide with chlorides does it as well, once the oxide coating is molten the Aluminum may become quite a good fuel if motion or energy of any time is involved as long as said energy continues to destabilize the Oxide layer.
Now you are just being CHILDISH.
My post was about the WORKSTATION tests.
There is NO IMPACT, NO SOUND, NO FRICTION associated with the test.
Which is why Frank's suggestion of thowing parts of an aircraft into the mix was POINTLESS.
Arthur
I will reply now to Arthur the way I did to Dr. Jones, It does not take heat it takes energy to Ignite Aluminum any energy that compromise the oxide layer will do it.
Impact, sound, friction, heat.
Chemical weakening of the oxide with chlorides does it as well, once the oxide coating is molten the Aluminum may become quite a good fuel if motion or energy of any time is involved as long as said energy continues to destabilize the Oxide layer.
Now you are just being CHILDISH.
My post was about the WORKSTATION tests.
There is NO IMPACT, NO SOUND, NO FRICTION associated with the test.
Which is why Frank's suggestion of thowing parts of an aircraft into the mix was POINTLESS.
Arthur
QUOTE (Trippy to NEU-FONZE+Jul 18 2007, 12:54 AM)
Two small points.
First off. Where, Precisely do you think that the other half of the energy went?
Second: The figure I quoted for the ignition point of aluminium was for a layer or film (Like an aircraft hull, no matter how badly crumpled it might be).
Thirdly: The paper that I was summarising from took all of those things into account, including the energy required to pulverize the concrete to the sizes observed, and came to the conclusion that even without the weakening of the support trusses by the fire - a phenomenom that is observed in any fire with that style of flooring or roofing, the energy from the collapse is sufficient that no external energy sources were required.
Plane hits building.
PLane severes external support.
Plane severes and damages internal support.
Support has to deal with an off axis, abnormal load.
Building tilts slightly.
Once the WTC towers tilted, even imperceptibly, it was only a matter of time until they fell.
Hi Trip!
I think you may be confusing NF and Chain etc with CDers/CTers, mate.
They are not arguing about the non-demolition collapse. They AGREE and have done so practically as soon as they discussed the sciebntific evidence long ago with the rest of us regulars.
They do NOT consider that any additional energy 'was needed' for the collapses to occur.
They agree that the collapses would have happened anyway.
They are merely discussing 'local details' regarding aluminium/chemicals that were present NATURALLY (given the planes and impact/fires).
I would suggest you read ALL the old threads and then you will not INNOCENTLY walk into another 'cross-purpose' discussion under seemingly wrong impressions of whom you are dealing with, hehehe.
For example, NF himself has contributed mightily to some of the scientific evidence that REFUTES the CTers conspiracy/energy-defocit claims regardin 'pulverrisation of concrete' claims made by CTers.
And Chainsaw has been very effective in arguing against the 'themite charges' conspiracy theories. He has just about proven/demonstrated that all those 'aluminium compounds can be explained NATURALLY with what was THERE NATURALLY in building and plane materials/fuels.
Anyhow, I will leave this discussion for the time being. I have more important fish to fry, heh! hehehe.
Have fun till I see y'all again, Trip, everyone!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
First off. Where, Precisely do you think that the other half of the energy went?
Second: The figure I quoted for the ignition point of aluminium was for a layer or film (Like an aircraft hull, no matter how badly crumpled it might be).
Thirdly: The paper that I was summarising from took all of those things into account, including the energy required to pulverize the concrete to the sizes observed, and came to the conclusion that even without the weakening of the support trusses by the fire - a phenomenom that is observed in any fire with that style of flooring or roofing, the energy from the collapse is sufficient that no external energy sources were required.
Plane hits building.
PLane severes external support.
Plane severes and damages internal support.
Support has to deal with an off axis, abnormal load.
Building tilts slightly.
Once the WTC towers tilted, even imperceptibly, it was only a matter of time until they fell.
Hi Trip!
I think you may be confusing NF and Chain etc with CDers/CTers, mate.
They are not arguing about the non-demolition collapse. They AGREE and have done so practically as soon as they discussed the sciebntific evidence long ago with the rest of us regulars.
They do NOT consider that any additional energy 'was needed' for the collapses to occur.
They agree that the collapses would have happened anyway.
They are merely discussing 'local details' regarding aluminium/chemicals that were present NATURALLY (given the planes and impact/fires).
I would suggest you read ALL the old threads and then you will not INNOCENTLY walk into another 'cross-purpose' discussion under seemingly wrong impressions of whom you are dealing with, hehehe.
For example, NF himself has contributed mightily to some of the scientific evidence that REFUTES the CTers conspiracy/energy-defocit claims regardin 'pulverrisation of concrete' claims made by CTers.
And Chainsaw has been very effective in arguing against the 'themite charges' conspiracy theories. He has just about proven/demonstrated that all those 'aluminium compounds can be explained NATURALLY with what was THERE NATURALLY in building and plane materials/fuels.
Anyhow, I will leave this discussion for the time being. I have more important fish to fry, heh! hehehe.
Have fun till I see y'all again, Trip, everyone!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 18 2007, 12:43 AM)
CHAINSAW:
Yes, apparently Arthur has never heard of aluminum slurry fuels....
He probibly does not know that the planes engines are made of titanium Alloys and that titanium has been know to ignite in kerosene or jet fuel, at 610C.
Yes, apparently Arthur has never heard of aluminum slurry fuels....
He probibly does not know that the planes engines are made of titanium Alloys and that titanium has been know to ignite in kerosene or jet fuel, at 610C.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 18 2007, 01:02 AM)
RC: And the main points that I was trying to make were that:
1. The conditions would not have been sufficient to ignite the Aluminium.
2. Theorizing that localized extreme heating occured is actually un-neccessary when you consider all of the reactions involved.
Chainsaw: When discussing yojur globules, have you stopped to consider that Gypsum would have been present (among other things),
Hi Trip!
I would advise looking again at your data set for that conclusion, mate.
Since there are many pictures that show DURALUMIN plane crashes where the plane shell is BURNING and being put out by firfighting foam.
The tower conditions were MUCH WORDSE than just open air plane crash conditions.
There was NO firefighting of any kind. There was MULTI-TIERED fire and drafting that produced CYCLONIC SWIRLS and high localisd heat due to effectiv pre-heating of ingredients both by incoming air being heated by the hot structure below and the already HOT GASEOUS products of normal combustion (CO2, H2O-steam etc) would be already ENERGISED to 1000C even before contacting already heated/compromised aluminium/duralumin surfaces/fuel///which latter would ANYWAY have SPONTANEOUSLY IGNITED in those conditions even in air....which is why the NORMAL SITUATION oxide coating is so effective....it forms IMMEDIATELY and SPONTANEOUSLY in even COLD conditions.....and (in normal conditions/uses) ALWAYS provides a ptotective surface layer IMMEDIATELY before any further ingress to sub-layers/body of metal. But all this IMMEDIATE/COLD REACTIVITY 'plus' is actually a LIABILITY in the tower inferno conditions.
Cheers all!
1. The conditions would not have been sufficient to ignite the Aluminium.
2. Theorizing that localized extreme heating occured is actually un-neccessary when you consider all of the reactions involved.
Chainsaw: When discussing yojur globules, have you stopped to consider that Gypsum would have been present (among other things),
Hi Trip!
I would advise looking again at your data set for that conclusion, mate.
Since there are many pictures that show DURALUMIN plane crashes where the plane shell is BURNING and being put out by firfighting foam.
The tower conditions were MUCH WORDSE than just open air plane crash conditions.
There was NO firefighting of any kind. There was MULTI-TIERED fire and drafting that produced CYCLONIC SWIRLS and high localisd heat due to effectiv pre-heating of ingredients both by incoming air being heated by the hot structure below and the already HOT GASEOUS products of normal combustion (CO2, H2O-steam etc) would be already ENERGISED to 1000C even before contacting already heated/compromised aluminium/duralumin surfaces/fuel///which latter would ANYWAY have SPONTANEOUSLY IGNITED in those conditions even in air....which is why the NORMAL SITUATION oxide coating is so effective....it forms IMMEDIATELY and SPONTANEOUSLY in even COLD conditions.....and (in normal conditions/uses) ALWAYS provides a ptotective surface layer IMMEDIATELY before any further ingress to sub-layers/body of metal. But all this IMMEDIATE/COLD REACTIVITY 'plus' is actually a LIABILITY in the tower inferno conditions.
Cheers all!
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 18 2007, 01:08 PM)
That is not, I believe, the conclusion that NIST came to. Without the fires, NIST states, the towers would have stood 'indefinitely' (whatever that means).
I should hope that that isn't the case, because the paper I was reading was one of the ones linked from the NIST website, although, when was the NIST report released?
I should hope that that isn't the case, because the paper I was reading was one of the ones linked from the NIST website, although, when was the NIST report released?
well, it seems the lie is eating another piece of itself.
praise jah, one love, i and i, irie.
NIST's report is obviously incomplete. even OCTs are agreeing.
anyone who believes they KNOW what happened, even though the investigation was stifled and half-cocked, is an emperor with no clothes.
peace out, dudes, and may the blue bird of happiness take a liking to you, and crap on your head.
praise jah, one love, i and i, irie.
NIST's report is obviously incomplete. even OCTs are agreeing.
anyone who believes they KNOW what happened, even though the investigation was stifled and half-cocked, is an emperor with no clothes.
peace out, dudes, and may the blue bird of happiness take a liking to you, and crap on your head.
.
Hehehe. I can't escape the feeling that the discussion has veered into 'cross-purpose' exchanges where things are being mixed up and generating EMERGENT behaviour in the ARGUMENT/LOGIC evolutions observed, hehehe.
Start fresh on these particular aspects, chaps....is my advice.
Now I really must go.
Cheers all!
PS: Hi newton!...Too bad that given the plane impacts and fires, every SCIENTIFICALLY TENABLE scenario seems to lead naturally and inevitably to local/global collapse. No real joy there for CDers/CTers. Too bad for the twoofer t-shirt sales, hehehe. Cheers!
RC.
.
Hehehe. I can't escape the feeling that the discussion has veered into 'cross-purpose' exchanges where things are being mixed up and generating EMERGENT behaviour in the ARGUMENT/LOGIC evolutions observed, hehehe.
Start fresh on these particular aspects, chaps....is my advice.
Now I really must go.
Cheers all!
PS: Hi newton!...Too bad that given the plane impacts and fires, every SCIENTIFICALLY TENABLE scenario seems to lead naturally and inevitably to local/global collapse. No real joy there for CDers/CTers. Too bad for the twoofer t-shirt sales, hehehe. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 06:32 PM)
I should hope that that isn't the case, because the paper I was reading was one of the ones linked from the NIST website, although, when was the NIST report released?
Sept 2005. It is in NCSTAR1-6D.
Edited to add: For WTC 1, NIST states that after the aircraft impact, the top of the tower lent to the north, the impacted side. However, after burning for 102 minutes, it tilted to the south, hinged on the north wall. NEU-FONZE found a video in which he could measure that, just before the three walls buckled, the tower top was leaning to the south at one degree of arc.
At just a bit more than that, the elastic limit of the core columns would be reached and so presumably core column member buckling and connection failure would occur. This actually happened, of course, due to the three walls suddenly buckling. Although, just possibly, the core columns did fail first, immediately causing the walls to buckle...
Sept 2005. It is in NCSTAR1-6D.
Edited to add: For WTC 1, NIST states that after the aircraft impact, the top of the tower lent to the north, the impacted side. However, after burning for 102 minutes, it tilted to the south, hinged on the north wall. NEU-FONZE found a video in which he could measure that, just before the three walls buckled, the tower top was leaning to the south at one degree of arc.
At just a bit more than that, the elastic limit of the core columns would be reached and so presumably core column member buckling and connection failure would occur. This actually happened, of course, due to the three walls suddenly buckling. Although, just possibly, the core columns did fail first, immediately causing the walls to buckle...
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 18 2007, 01:31 PM)
Hi Trip!
I would advise looking again at your data set for that conclusion, mate.
Since there are many pictures that show DURALUMIN plane crashes where the plane shell is BURNING and being put out by firfighting foam.
Trust me mate.
If the duralmin itself was actually buning, they wouldn't be using foam to put it out.
Foam is 97% water.
Have you seen what happens when you try to extinguish burning metal with water?
You get an even more vigorous reaction, this is why they use dry powder extinguishers for electrical fires, and fires involving burning metal.
QUOTE
NIST's report is obviously incomplete. even OCTs are agreeing.
We're discussing a technical detail, and disagreeing about the technical aspects of it.
It's the sort of thing that people who care about the truth more than they care about politics, do.
I wouldn't expect you to understand.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 18 2007, 01:08 AM)
Now you are just being CHILDISH.
My post was about the WORKSTATION tests.
There is NO IMPACT, NO SOUND, NO FRICTION associated with the test.
Which is why Frank's suggestion of thowing parts of an aircraft into the mix was POINTLESS.
Arthur
That has been our point all along, they were not accurate to the environment of the twin towers.
With out the associated trigger mechanisms the reactions could not have occurred.
When you add them the reactions can not be avoided they have to occur because the environment favors them.
The occur every time and react the same way again and again and again, it is totally repeatable but when I contact Nist or someone to ask question they always point me back to the NIST report and I already know that NIST did not include the trigger mechanisms in the tests DA.
That is exactly what Myself and Frank have been trying to tell you!
You add the added of aluminum oxidation energy to the fire ball it takes on similar effects that have been noticed in coal mines, namely themobaric like properties when entrapment in shafts occur.
The added heat also speeds the reactions and reactants I am still working on this I came here with the hope some one would offer incite, but I am not getting it.
I sometimes feel that investigating 9/11/2001 is not worth the time or the effort, I mean who really cares anymore.
Also what I was told about the emergency generators in the towers is that they were small, and located on the mechanical floors some were just to power the elevators and emergency lighting.
Before the 1993 bombings they were in the sub basements, but were moved to the mechanical floors so that they would be Isolated and protected in the event of a fire or another bombing. The emergency generators were practically destroyed in the 1993 blast leaving the buildings without power.
My post was about the WORKSTATION tests.
There is NO IMPACT, NO SOUND, NO FRICTION associated with the test.
Which is why Frank's suggestion of thowing parts of an aircraft into the mix was POINTLESS.
Arthur
That has been our point all along, they were not accurate to the environment of the twin towers.
With out the associated trigger mechanisms the reactions could not have occurred.
When you add them the reactions can not be avoided they have to occur because the environment favors them.
The occur every time and react the same way again and again and again, it is totally repeatable but when I contact Nist or someone to ask question they always point me back to the NIST report and I already know that NIST did not include the trigger mechanisms in the tests DA.
That is exactly what Myself and Frank have been trying to tell you!
You add the added of aluminum oxidation energy to the fire ball it takes on similar effects that have been noticed in coal mines, namely themobaric like properties when entrapment in shafts occur.
The added heat also speeds the reactions and reactants I am still working on this I came here with the hope some one would offer incite, but I am not getting it.
I sometimes feel that investigating 9/11/2001 is not worth the time or the effort, I mean who really cares anymore.
Also what I was told about the emergency generators in the towers is that they were small, and located on the mechanical floors some were just to power the elevators and emergency lighting.
Before the 1993 bombings they were in the sub basements, but were moved to the mechanical floors so that they would be Isolated and protected in the event of a fire or another bombing. The emergency generators were practically destroyed in the 1993 blast leaving the buildings without power.
To whit:
I found this with some resources for fire fighters dealing with aircraft fires:
...but the various alloys, e.g. duralumin, do not usually ignite in aircraft fires, possibly because their melting points are well below their ignition points and the metal therefore has time to flow away from the heat source.
Which would seem to be supported by this:
Which would seem to be supported by this:
5.Fire Fighting Measures
Extinguishing Media:
Not a fire hazard unless in particulate form. Suspensions of aluminium dust in air may pose a severe explosion hazard. A potential for explosion exists for a mixture of fine and coarse particles if at least 15-20% of the material is finer than 44 microns (325 mesh). Buffing and polishing generate finer material than grinding, sawing and cutting. In case of aluminium fires, use a class D dry powder extinguisher. Do NOT use water or halogenated extinguishing media.
Hazardous Combustion Products:
Not relevant
Which is a quote from the Aluminium alloy MSDS used by a company that manufactures aluminium and aluminium alloy extrusions, used in the aerospace industry.
*Edit: And AFAIK there is STILL NO evidence to support 1000 degree temperatures in the fires in the WTC. The evidence I have seen supports temperatures closer to 500 (celsius) which is insufficient to ignite Aluminium in any form save a very fine powder, or 'cloud'.
I found this with some resources for fire fighters dealing with aircraft fires:
QUOTE
...but the various alloys, e.g. duralumin, do not usually ignite in aircraft fires, possibly because their melting points are well below their ignition points and the metal therefore has time to flow away from the heat source.
Which would seem to be supported by this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
...but the various alloys, e.g. duralumin, do not usually ignite in aircraft fires, possibly because their melting points are well below their ignition points and the metal therefore has time to flow away from the heat source. |
Which would seem to be supported by this:
5.Fire Fighting Measures
Extinguishing Media:
Not a fire hazard unless in particulate form. Suspensions of aluminium dust in air may pose a severe explosion hazard. A potential for explosion exists for a mixture of fine and coarse particles if at least 15-20% of the material is finer than 44 microns (325 mesh). Buffing and polishing generate finer material than grinding, sawing and cutting. In case of aluminium fires, use a class D dry powder extinguisher. Do NOT use water or halogenated extinguishing media.
Hazardous Combustion Products:
Not relevant
Which is a quote from the Aluminium alloy MSDS used by a company that manufactures aluminium and aluminium alloy extrusions, used in the aerospace industry.
*Edit: And AFAIK there is STILL NO evidence to support 1000 degree temperatures in the fires in the WTC. The evidence I have seen supports temperatures closer to 500 (celsius) which is insufficient to ignite Aluminium in any form save a very fine powder, or 'cloud'.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 18 2007, 02:36 AM)
To whit:
I found this with some resources for fire fighters dealing with aircraft fires:
Which would seem to be supported by this:
Which is a quote from the Aluminium alloy MSDS used by a company that manufactures aluminium and aluminium alloy extrusions, used in the aerospace industry.
*Edit: And AFAIK there is STILL NO evidence to support 1000 degree temperatures in the fires in the WTC. The evidence I have seen supports temperatures closer to 500 (celsius) which is insufficient to ignite Aluminium in any form save a very fine powder, or 'cloud'.
Trippy have you ever encountered sono Chemistry, the ignition temperature is only the point where thermal energy breaks the Ionic bonding.
There are other ways to disrupt the oxide layer.
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=22618
I found this with some resources for fire fighters dealing with aircraft fires:
Which would seem to be supported by this:
Which is a quote from the Aluminium alloy MSDS used by a company that manufactures aluminium and aluminium alloy extrusions, used in the aerospace industry.
*Edit: And AFAIK there is STILL NO evidence to support 1000 degree temperatures in the fires in the WTC. The evidence I have seen supports temperatures closer to 500 (celsius) which is insufficient to ignite Aluminium in any form save a very fine powder, or 'cloud'.
Trippy have you ever encountered sono Chemistry, the ignition temperature is only the point where thermal energy breaks the Ionic bonding.
There are other ways to disrupt the oxide layer.
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=22618
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 17 2007, 10:24 PM)
That has been our point all along, they were not accurate to the environment of the twin towers.
With out the associated trigger mechanisms the reactions could not have occurred.
When you add them the reactions can not be avoided they have to occur because the environment favors them.
The occur every time and react the same way again and again and again, it is totally repeatable but when I contact Nist or someone to ask question they always point me back to the NIST report and I already know that NIST did not include the trigger mechanisms in the tests DA.
That is exactly what Myself and Frank have been trying to tell you!
You add the added of aluminum oxidation energy to the fire ball it takes on similar effects that have been noticed in coal mines, namely themobaric like properties when entrapment in shafts occur.
The added heat also speeds the reactions and reactants I am still working on this I came here with the hope some one would offer incite, but I am not getting it.
EXCEPT that's NOT what Frank was complaining about.
Further, the PURPOSE of the workstation tests was to determine HEAT release rates of workstations.
It wasn't designed to simulate the environment DURING the impact in the towers.
OOPS
But David, you OVER ESTIMATE the impact of the aluminum in the plane material on the fires.
First, unlike Frank's vacuous comments, the aluminum was NOT turned into a SLURRY. Aluminum simply doesn't behave that way. (Frank you might want to consider the amount of energy needed to turn a 767 worth of aluminum into slurry)
Second, there was NO thermobaric LIKE explosion when the planes hit.
The fireball expanded relatively SLOWLY (compared to an explosion) over the course of several seconds. So, NO, even at the MOST ENERGETIC period of the planes impact there WAS NOT a HUGE amount of energy released from burning Aluminum.
WE KNOW THIS because there was NO BRILLIANT WHITE LIGHT associated with the initial fireball.
And if the Aluminum didn't burn in the first few seconds it wasn't likely to burn in the entire hour or so it took for the towers to collapse.
As far as the iron spericals coming from blood.
Not Bloody well likely.
There is only .0042 kg of Iron in an average human.
So, if ALL the iron from all the passengers and from all the people killed on the impact floors was turned into spericals, you'd STILL only have 5 lbs of the stuff.
But not all their blood WOULD be turned into spericals.
In fact at most I'd say you would get ounces, not even pounds.
OOPS.
Back to the drawing boards.
Arthur
With out the associated trigger mechanisms the reactions could not have occurred.
When you add them the reactions can not be avoided they have to occur because the environment favors them.
The occur every time and react the same way again and again and again, it is totally repeatable but when I contact Nist or someone to ask question they always point me back to the NIST report and I already know that NIST did not include the trigger mechanisms in the tests DA.
That is exactly what Myself and Frank have been trying to tell you!
You add the added of aluminum oxidation energy to the fire ball it takes on similar effects that have been noticed in coal mines, namely themobaric like properties when entrapment in shafts occur.
The added heat also speeds the reactions and reactants I am still working on this I came here with the hope some one would offer incite, but I am not getting it.
EXCEPT that's NOT what Frank was complaining about.
Further, the PURPOSE of the workstation tests was to determine HEAT release rates of workstations.
It wasn't designed to simulate the environment DURING the impact in the towers.
OOPS
But David, you OVER ESTIMATE the impact of the aluminum in the plane material on the fires.
First, unlike Frank's vacuous comments, the aluminum was NOT turned into a SLURRY. Aluminum simply doesn't behave that way. (Frank you might want to consider the amount of energy needed to turn a 767 worth of aluminum into slurry)
Second, there was NO thermobaric LIKE explosion when the planes hit.
The fireball expanded relatively SLOWLY (compared to an explosion) over the course of several seconds. So, NO, even at the MOST ENERGETIC period of the planes impact there WAS NOT a HUGE amount of energy released from burning Aluminum.
WE KNOW THIS because there was NO BRILLIANT WHITE LIGHT associated with the initial fireball.
And if the Aluminum didn't burn in the first few seconds it wasn't likely to burn in the entire hour or so it took for the towers to collapse.
As far as the iron spericals coming from blood.
Not Bloody well likely.
There is only .0042 kg of Iron in an average human.
So, if ALL the iron from all the passengers and from all the people killed on the impact floors was turned into spericals, you'd STILL only have 5 lbs of the stuff.
But not all their blood WOULD be turned into spericals.
In fact at most I'd say you would get ounces, not even pounds.
OOPS.
Back to the drawing boards.
Arthur
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 18 2007, 02:36 AM)
To whit:
I found this with some resources for fire fighters dealing with aircraft fires:
Which would seem to be supported by this:
Which is a quote from the Aluminium alloy MSDS used by a company that manufactures aluminium and aluminium alloy extrusions, used in the aerospace industry.
*Edit: And AFAIK there is STILL NO evidence to support 1000 degree temperatures in the fires in the WTC. The evidence I have seen supports temperatures closer to 500 (celsius) which is insufficient to ignite Aluminium in any form save a very fine powder, or 'cloud'.
But in the towers the metal fuels were constrained in the reverberative environment/system provided by the VAST FLOOR AREAS which 'sandwhiched the WHOLE CONFLAGRATION betwenn RAPIDY-HEATED/READIANT surfaces (celing/floor) over MANY levels and MASSES of fire/reaction regions.
It's not like the metal just 'melted/flowed away'. It had a long way to go in those vast and bounded space/volume, hehehe.
I found this with some resources for fire fighters dealing with aircraft fires:
Which would seem to be supported by this:
Which is a quote from the Aluminium alloy MSDS used by a company that manufactures aluminium and aluminium alloy extrusions, used in the aerospace industry.
*Edit: And AFAIK there is STILL NO evidence to support 1000 degree temperatures in the fires in the WTC. The evidence I have seen supports temperatures closer to 500 (celsius) which is insufficient to ignite Aluminium in any form save a very fine powder, or 'cloud'.
But in the towers the metal fuels were constrained in the reverberative environment/system provided by the VAST FLOOR AREAS which 'sandwhiched the WHOLE CONFLAGRATION betwenn RAPIDY-HEATED/READIANT surfaces (celing/floor) over MANY levels and MASSES of fire/reaction regions.
It's not like the metal just 'melted/flowed away'. It had a long way to go in those vast and bounded space/volume, hehehe.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 18 2007, 01:50 AM)
Trust me mate.
If the duralmin itself was actually buning, they wouldn't be using foam to put it out.
Foam is 97% water.
Have you seen what happens when you try to extinguish burning metal with water?
You get an even more vigorous reaction, this is why they use dry powder extinguishers for electrical fires, and fires involving burning metal.
The picture I was thinking of happend at a crash just at the end of the airport.
The foam being used was AIRCRAFT FIRE RATED...or as you point out, it would have been like pouring LIQUID OXYGEN on the fire, hehehe!
I omly pointed out that the metal FIRE does happen....and could have happened even more readily within tower infernos where the WATER from the standpipes and the CO2 from COPIOUS organic combustion and Chlorine etc would have been like having OXIDISERS ON TAP for whatever any plane shreds were about and already HOT and surface-COMPROMISED from impact/friction/jet-conflagaration/electric-sparking heating etc.
PS: Actually, I think I was the first one to point out the behaviour of such metal fires in the presence of H2O, CO, CO2, SiO, Chlor-oxides etc....back in the OLD/FIRST thread! Thanks for reminding me, Trip! Those were the 'good-ol'-days', hehehe.
Whatever happened to Foxx et al, guys?
Cheers all!
If the duralmin itself was actually buning, they wouldn't be using foam to put it out.
Foam is 97% water.
Have you seen what happens when you try to extinguish burning metal with water?
You get an even more vigorous reaction, this is why they use dry powder extinguishers for electrical fires, and fires involving burning metal.
The picture I was thinking of happend at a crash just at the end of the airport.
The foam being used was AIRCRAFT FIRE RATED...or as you point out, it would have been like pouring LIQUID OXYGEN on the fire, hehehe!
I omly pointed out that the metal FIRE does happen....and could have happened even more readily within tower infernos where the WATER from the standpipes and the CO2 from COPIOUS organic combustion and Chlorine etc would have been like having OXIDISERS ON TAP for whatever any plane shreds were about and already HOT and surface-COMPROMISED from impact/friction/jet-conflagaration/electric-sparking heating etc.
PS: Actually, I think I was the first one to point out the behaviour of such metal fires in the presence of H2O, CO, CO2, SiO, Chlor-oxides etc....back in the OLD/FIRST thread! Thanks for reminding me, Trip! Those were the 'good-ol'-days', hehehe.
Whatever happened to Foxx et al, guys?
Cheers all!
NIST believes there may have been one metal fire in the corner of WTC 2.
But they clearly weren't common because they burn with such an intense white light that they would have been visible EVEN though the dark smoke.
Arthur
But they clearly weren't common because they burn with such an intense white light that they would have been visible EVEN though the dark smoke.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 18 2007, 04:13 AM)
NIST believes there may have been one metal fire in the corner of WTC 2.
But they clearly weren't common because they burn with such an intense white light that they would have been visible EVEN though the dark smoke.
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
That's so with concentrated mass fires, but the dispersed 'shreds' and 'in-cracks/gaps' reactions wouldn't have shown as definite point sources of 'white' radiation in all that black soot smoke......unless they were bulk piles/pools of metals burning.
Does NIST say if that suspected metal fire was 'white' or attenuated by smoke?
RC.
.
But they clearly weren't common because they burn with such an intense white light that they would have been visible EVEN though the dark smoke.
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
That's so with concentrated mass fires, but the dispersed 'shreds' and 'in-cracks/gaps' reactions wouldn't have shown as definite point sources of 'white' radiation in all that black soot smoke......unless they were bulk piles/pools of metals burning.
Does NIST say if that suspected metal fire was 'white' or attenuated by smoke?
RC.
.
Whew!! I just caught up with the posts, finally. I definitely don't have anything to add about the chemical reactions that did or didn't occur, but I did want to add a couple of points about the emergency generators.
1. Chainsaw is correct that they would start up immediately when power was lost to a big enough area, and the automatic switch he referred to is called a "transfer switch", which is really a relay. It 'flips' or 'flops', depending on conditions. Lose power to the coil holding it in "normal" and it 'flips' to "emergency" and starts the generator. Also true is what somebody else said about a reduced amount of electricity. The generators supply a fraction of "normal" power. Maybe 1/10th lighting and some other essential needs (partial elevator service, fire pumps, stairwell pressurization fans, etc...).
2. Some buildings have the emergency generators piped in permanent with natural gas and don't use diesel.
1. Chainsaw is correct that they would start up immediately when power was lost to a big enough area, and the automatic switch he referred to is called a "transfer switch", which is really a relay. It 'flips' or 'flops', depending on conditions. Lose power to the coil holding it in "normal" and it 'flips' to "emergency" and starts the generator. Also true is what somebody else said about a reduced amount of electricity. The generators supply a fraction of "normal" power. Maybe 1/10th lighting and some other essential needs (partial elevator service, fire pumps, stairwell pressurization fans, etc...).
2. Some buildings have the emergency generators piped in permanent with natural gas and don't use diesel.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 18 2007, 04:04 PM)
But in the towers the metal fuels were constrained in the reverberative environment/system provided by the VAST FLOOR AREAS which 'sandwhiched the WHOLE CONFLAGRATION betwenn RAPIDY-HEATED/READIANT surfaces (celing/floor) over MANY levels and MASSES of fire/reaction regions.
It's not like the metal just 'melted/flowed away'. It had a long way to go in those vast and bounded space/volume, hehehe.
The picture I was thinking of happend at a crash just at the end of the airport.
The foam being used was AIRCRAFT FIRE RATED...or as you point out, it would have been like pouring LIQUID OXYGEN on the fire, hehehe!
I omly pointed out that the metal FIRE does happen....and could have happened even more readily within tower infernos where the WATER from the standpipes and the CO2 from COPIOUS organic combustion and Chlorine etc would have been like having OXIDISERS ON TAP for whatever any plane shreds were about and already HOT and surface-COMPROMISED from impact/friction/jet-conflagaration/electric-sparking heating etc.
PS: Actually, I think I was the first one to point out the behaviour of such metal fires in the presence of H2O, CO, CO2, SiO, Chlor-oxides etc....back in the OLD/FIRST thread! Thanks for reminding me, Trip! Those were the 'good-ol'-days', hehehe.
Whatever happened to Foxx et al, guys?
Cheers all!
Just a couple of teeny tiny points.
1. The majority of the aluminium that would have been available to burn, would have been the Aircraft fuselage, and the vast majority of that would still have been in a non powdered form.
2. The floor would (logicaly) have been buckled, and cracked, and any liquids present would have flowed, most likely to the body of the aircraft, as I would have expected this to be the lowest point.
3. What foam, precisely did you think I was talking about? The foam that they use at airports is 97% water. The content of the remaining 3% depends on precisely what foam you're talking about. The fire-fighting foams that they use at aiports are designed primarily for dealing with burning fuel. They can be used for dealing with metal fires, but there's the warning that this can need to initial problems which make the fire worse but will still lead to the eventual extinguishing of metal fire anyway.
I'm sure I could provide you with any number of links to firefighting resources that will back me up on this. The same goes for metal fires as a result of crashes. If they do occur, I would expect them to be very very very rare events, and I can just about gaurantee you that most, if not all of the pictures you will find on the internet of airplane crashes, it is the paint, fuel, and other combustibles near the fuselage that are burning and not the fuselage itself, but this can give the illusion of the fuselage burning.
The presence of oxidizers isn't all that relavent, oxidizing agents don't always result in fires per se, the vast majority of oxidixzing agents that do either do so in contact with organic materials, or are very strong oxidizing agents.
Sure, the chemistry says there was HCL present, and the potential for Cl to be present as well, maybe 30-40% of the HCl present in the PVC's on the floor could reasonably be expected to be liberated, but the HCl, and Cl2 has no preference, and there were plenty of other combustables present, like the stuff that was burning in the first place.
And once AGAIN, we come back to there being NO evidence for the temperatures required to ignite the Aluminium being present - apart from maybe in some few localized areas.
If you're going to invoke unique chemistry, and unique conditions, you have to explain why they are Unique.
Why is it that temperatures of 1000 °C occured in the WCT 1 & WCT 2 fires, but not the myrad of fires that have occured in warehouses?
It's not like the metal just 'melted/flowed away'. It had a long way to go in those vast and bounded space/volume, hehehe.
The picture I was thinking of happend at a crash just at the end of the airport.
The foam being used was AIRCRAFT FIRE RATED...or as you point out, it would have been like pouring LIQUID OXYGEN on the fire, hehehe!
I omly pointed out that the metal FIRE does happen....and could have happened even more readily within tower infernos where the WATER from the standpipes and the CO2 from COPIOUS organic combustion and Chlorine etc would have been like having OXIDISERS ON TAP for whatever any plane shreds were about and already HOT and surface-COMPROMISED from impact/friction/jet-conflagaration/electric-sparking heating etc.
PS: Actually, I think I was the first one to point out the behaviour of such metal fires in the presence of H2O, CO, CO2, SiO, Chlor-oxides etc....back in the OLD/FIRST thread! Thanks for reminding me, Trip! Those were the 'good-ol'-days', hehehe.
Whatever happened to Foxx et al, guys?
Cheers all!
Just a couple of teeny tiny points.
1. The majority of the aluminium that would have been available to burn, would have been the Aircraft fuselage, and the vast majority of that would still have been in a non powdered form.
2. The floor would (logicaly) have been buckled, and cracked, and any liquids present would have flowed, most likely to the body of the aircraft, as I would have expected this to be the lowest point.
3. What foam, precisely did you think I was talking about? The foam that they use at airports is 97% water. The content of the remaining 3% depends on precisely what foam you're talking about. The fire-fighting foams that they use at aiports are designed primarily for dealing with burning fuel. They can be used for dealing with metal fires, but there's the warning that this can need to initial problems which make the fire worse but will still lead to the eventual extinguishing of metal fire anyway.
I'm sure I could provide you with any number of links to firefighting resources that will back me up on this. The same goes for metal fires as a result of crashes. If they do occur, I would expect them to be very very very rare events, and I can just about gaurantee you that most, if not all of the pictures you will find on the internet of airplane crashes, it is the paint, fuel, and other combustibles near the fuselage that are burning and not the fuselage itself, but this can give the illusion of the fuselage burning.
The presence of oxidizers isn't all that relavent, oxidizing agents don't always result in fires per se, the vast majority of oxidixzing agents that do either do so in contact with organic materials, or are very strong oxidizing agents.
Sure, the chemistry says there was HCL present, and the potential for Cl to be present as well, maybe 30-40% of the HCl present in the PVC's on the floor could reasonably be expected to be liberated, but the HCl, and Cl2 has no preference, and there were plenty of other combustables present, like the stuff that was burning in the first place.
And once AGAIN, we come back to there being NO evidence for the temperatures required to ignite the Aluminium being present - apart from maybe in some few localized areas.
If you're going to invoke unique chemistry, and unique conditions, you have to explain why they are Unique.
Why is it that temperatures of 1000 °C occured in the WCT 1 & WCT 2 fires, but not the myrad of fires that have occured in warehouses?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 18 2007, 06:48 AM)
Just a couple of teeny tiny points.
1. The majority of the aluminium that would have been available to burn, would have been the Aircraft fuselage, and the vast majority of that would still have been in a non powdered form.
2. The floor would (logicaly) have been buckled, and cracked, and any liquids present would have flowed, most likely to the body of the aircraft, as I would have expected this to be the lowest point.
3. What foam, precisely did you think I was talking about? The foam that they use at airports is 97% water. The content of the remaining 3% depends on precisely what foam you're talking about. The fire-fighting foams that they use at aiports are designed primarily for dealing with burning fuel. They can be used for dealing with metal fires, but there's the warning that this can need to initial problems which make the fire worse but will still lead to the eventual extinguishing of metal fire anyway.
I'm sure I could provide you with any number of links to firefighting resources that will back me up on this. The same goes for metal fires as a result of crashes. If they do occur, I would expect them to be very very very rare events, and I can just about gaurantee you that most, if not all of the pictures you will find on the internet of airplane crashes, it is the paint, fuel, and other combustibles near the fuselage that are burning and not the fuselage itself, but this can give the illusion of the fuselage burning.
The presence of oxidizers isn't all that relavent, oxidizing agents don't always result in fires per se, the vast majority of oxidixzing agents that do either do so in contact with organic materials, or are very strong oxidizing agents.
Sure, the chemistry says there was HCL present, and the potential for Cl to be present as well, maybe 30-40% of the HCl present in the PVC's on the floor could reasonably be expected to be liberated, but the HCl, and Cl2 has no preference, and there were plenty of other combustables present, like the stuff that was burning in the first place.
And once AGAIN, we come back to there being NO evidence for the temperatures required to ignite the Aluminium being present - apart from maybe in some few localized areas.
If you're going to invoke unique chemistry, and unique conditions, you have to explain why they are Unique.
Why is it that temperatures of 1000 °C occured in the WCT 1 & WCT 2 fires, but not the myrad of fires that have occured in warehouses?
And precisely how do we know this?
Exposure to a high degree of rapid heating could have liquefied some of the fuselage while it was still being carried by momentum forward.
If super heating of the Aluminum occurred, do to friction, or energy of multiple impacts compromised the oxide layer temperatures at where aluminum auto oxidizes can be accomplished.
Temperature is irrelevant anyway to Aluminum ignition your making the same debunked argument as Dr. Steven Jones,
And precisely how do we know this?
Exposure to a high degree of rapid heating could have liquefied some of the fuselage while it was still being carried by momentum forward.
If super heating of the Aluminum occurred, do to friction, or energy of multiple impacts compromised the oxide layer temperatures at where aluminum auto oxidizes can be accomplished.
Temperature is irrelevant anyway to Aluminum ignition your making the same debunked argument as Dr. Steven Jones, that Aluminum can only ignite at a given temperature.
Simply compromising the Crystal structure of the oxide is enough because aluminum is an excellent fuel in itself and wants to oxidize with any oxidant.
That compromise does not even have to produce a white flame to produce considerable heat Aluminum can oxidize though the oxide layer slowly when exposed to intense energy the Crystal structure of the oxide then radiates the heat as red light.
This aluminum is oxidizing in air do to sono Chemistry,
So is this,
The quantity of Aluminum ignited is directly proportional too the energy necessary to compromise the Chrystal structure of the oxide interestingly the best way for that to occur in impacts is aluminum striking aluminum or soft aluminum striking any object. Aluminum is like an egg the inside can be liquid while the outside is solid.
This makes for some interesting possibilities.
PS. Thermite sparking usually occurs most frequently in objects that generate significant sound waves when struck. It took me along time to figure that out the beams being hollow and able to generate intense sound when struck might even increase the likely hood of aluminum reactions.
I must also point out as I said earlier that absorption of the white light by the carbon black in the fire would result in a shift of the white light to the red part of the spectrum and since most of the critical heating would have taken place inside the buildings the expansion of gasses trapped and creating Thermobaric like over pressures down the elevator and like shafts Would have gone unobserved.
Arthur your correct in that the fireball exiting the towers is not thermobaric, but Thermobaric overpressure can be caused by entrapment do to continued impacts and combustion of jet fuels being constrained down shafts.
I have been reviewing accidents in coal mines, the closest thing I can find to the twin towers elevator shaft network.
The energy is there to Compromise the oxide layer, why was this not tested?
I also want to point out that Arthur has confirmed something that Helps that Chlorides act upon exposed surfaces, and if fine super hot particulates did rupture the floor pans creating micro holes that significantly increases Frank's Reaction rate.
Also micro damage by Aluminum oxidation particles would appear exactly like fines produced in an Aluminum impact and would have been ignored by NIST.
http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/flash.html
Only actual Tests and half assed experiments can point out the error, of doing so.
Aluminum Chlorides and Steel oxidation releasing hydrogen along with other chemical reactions are the most likely way to sustain the heating in the rubble pile, the old hot coal in a vacuum bottle thing is impractical, yes a coal placed in an insulated environment will stay hot, but the vacuum bottle at the world trade center appears to have leaked contiguously into the atmosphere, though cutting operation could have provided some source of continued heating they do not explain all the heat released.
Hi adoucette!
That's so with concentrated mass fires, but the dispersed 'shreds' and 'in-cracks/gaps' reactions wouldn't have shown as definite point sources of 'white' radiation in all that black soot smoke......unless they were bulk piles/pools of metals burning.
Does NIST say if that suspected metal fire was 'white' or attenuated by smoke?
RC.
.
Actually its clearly visibile in the Northeast corner of WTC 2. It was quite near where the flowing glowing material was also seen coming from the towers. This is in the area where the jet "bulldozed" much of itself and office contents to and where a fire burnt for the entire time that WTC 2 was standing.
The pictures of what was most likely burning metal SATURATED the photographic device, so it created as white a light as the camera was capable of recording.
Arthur
1. The majority of the aluminium that would have been available to burn, would have been the Aircraft fuselage, and the vast majority of that would still have been in a non powdered form.
2. The floor would (logicaly) have been buckled, and cracked, and any liquids present would have flowed, most likely to the body of the aircraft, as I would have expected this to be the lowest point.
3. What foam, precisely did you think I was talking about? The foam that they use at airports is 97% water. The content of the remaining 3% depends on precisely what foam you're talking about. The fire-fighting foams that they use at aiports are designed primarily for dealing with burning fuel. They can be used for dealing with metal fires, but there's the warning that this can need to initial problems which make the fire worse but will still lead to the eventual extinguishing of metal fire anyway.
I'm sure I could provide you with any number of links to firefighting resources that will back me up on this. The same goes for metal fires as a result of crashes. If they do occur, I would expect them to be very very very rare events, and I can just about gaurantee you that most, if not all of the pictures you will find on the internet of airplane crashes, it is the paint, fuel, and other combustibles near the fuselage that are burning and not the fuselage itself, but this can give the illusion of the fuselage burning.
The presence of oxidizers isn't all that relavent, oxidizing agents don't always result in fires per se, the vast majority of oxidixzing agents that do either do so in contact with organic materials, or are very strong oxidizing agents.
Sure, the chemistry says there was HCL present, and the potential for Cl to be present as well, maybe 30-40% of the HCl present in the PVC's on the floor could reasonably be expected to be liberated, but the HCl, and Cl2 has no preference, and there were plenty of other combustables present, like the stuff that was burning in the first place.
And once AGAIN, we come back to there being NO evidence for the temperatures required to ignite the Aluminium being present - apart from maybe in some few localized areas.
If you're going to invoke unique chemistry, and unique conditions, you have to explain why they are Unique.
Why is it that temperatures of 1000 °C occured in the WCT 1 & WCT 2 fires, but not the myrad of fires that have occured in warehouses?
QUOTE
1. The majority of the aluminium that would have been available to burn, would have been the Aircraft fuselage, and the vast majority of that would still have been in a non powdered form.
And precisely how do we know this?
Exposure to a high degree of rapid heating could have liquefied some of the fuselage while it was still being carried by momentum forward.
If super heating of the Aluminum occurred, do to friction, or energy of multiple impacts compromised the oxide layer temperatures at where aluminum auto oxidizes can be accomplished.
Temperature is irrelevant anyway to Aluminum ignition your making the same debunked argument as Dr. Steven Jones,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. The majority of the aluminium that would have been available to burn, would have been the Aircraft fuselage, and the vast majority of that would still have been in a non powdered form. |
And precisely how do we know this?
Exposure to a high degree of rapid heating could have liquefied some of the fuselage while it was still being carried by momentum forward.
If super heating of the Aluminum occurred, do to friction, or energy of multiple impacts compromised the oxide layer temperatures at where aluminum auto oxidizes can be accomplished.
Temperature is irrelevant anyway to Aluminum ignition your making the same debunked argument as Dr. Steven Jones, that Aluminum can only ignite at a given temperature.
Simply compromising the Crystal structure of the oxide is enough because aluminum is an excellent fuel in itself and wants to oxidize with any oxidant.
That compromise does not even have to produce a white flame to produce considerable heat Aluminum can oxidize though the oxide layer slowly when exposed to intense energy the Crystal structure of the oxide then radiates the heat as red light.
This aluminum is oxidizing in air do to sono Chemistry,
So is this,
The quantity of Aluminum ignited is directly proportional too the energy necessary to compromise the Chrystal structure of the oxide interestingly the best way for that to occur in impacts is aluminum striking aluminum or soft aluminum striking any object. Aluminum is like an egg the inside can be liquid while the outside is solid.
This makes for some interesting possibilities.
PS. Thermite sparking usually occurs most frequently in objects that generate significant sound waves when struck. It took me along time to figure that out the beams being hollow and able to generate intense sound when struck might even increase the likely hood of aluminum reactions.
I must also point out as I said earlier that absorption of the white light by the carbon black in the fire would result in a shift of the white light to the red part of the spectrum and since most of the critical heating would have taken place inside the buildings the expansion of gasses trapped and creating Thermobaric like over pressures down the elevator and like shafts Would have gone unobserved.
Arthur your correct in that the fireball exiting the towers is not thermobaric, but Thermobaric overpressure can be caused by entrapment do to continued impacts and combustion of jet fuels being constrained down shafts.
I have been reviewing accidents in coal mines, the closest thing I can find to the twin towers elevator shaft network.
The energy is there to Compromise the oxide layer, why was this not tested?
I also want to point out that Arthur has confirmed something that Helps that Chlorides act upon exposed surfaces, and if fine super hot particulates did rupture the floor pans creating micro holes that significantly increases Frank's Reaction rate.
Also micro damage by Aluminum oxidation particles would appear exactly like fines produced in an Aluminum impact and would have been ignored by NIST.
http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/flash.html
Only actual Tests and half assed experiments can point out the error, of doing so.
Aluminum Chlorides and Steel oxidation releasing hydrogen along with other chemical reactions are the most likely way to sustain the heating in the rubble pile, the old hot coal in a vacuum bottle thing is impractical, yes a coal placed in an insulated environment will stay hot, but the vacuum bottle at the world trade center appears to have leaked contiguously into the atmosphere, though cutting operation could have provided some source of continued heating they do not explain all the heat released.
A few points concerning last night's posts:
1. It would be about 25 lb of iron from the WTC victim's blood. But I agree that is too small to account for the spherical iron particles in the WTC dust.
2. I never said, and would never claim, that ALL the Al in the aircraft was melted and/or reduced to small particles, but SOME most certainly was. And most of the fuselage and wings would have been totally shredded. Arthur, the figures of the NIST simulations of the aircraft impacts in NCSTAR 1-6 show the aircraft being reduced to very small fragments... could you elaborate on why NIST indicate that's what happened please.
3. I am not happy with the way that I present evidence for the effects of chlorine and the energy associated with metal/chlorine reactions and Arthur simply ignores it only to later say that he has seen no evidence presented on the role of chlorine in the WTC fires. What do you want Arthur? NIST has no evidence that the SFRM was disloged to the extent that it claims but simply rely on an AD HOC hypothesis about the amount of SFRM lost .....
4. PVC-based plastics are not simply carbon, hydrogen and chlorine... far from it!
Compounds such as lead phoshate, lead stearate, lead sulfate, lead phthalate, zinc 2-ethyl hexoate, zinc laurate, and zinc stearate are added as stabilizers to commercial PVC formulations. These zinc and lead compounds would be released in the combustion of PVC. Zinc chloride BOILS at 765 deg C. It is the world's best fluxing agent because ZnCl2 dissolves iron oxide! This means that steel surfaces would lose their passive oxide and be open to severe attack/wastage. And let's not forget all the zinc in the galvanized steel floor pans.
5. You know that comparisons of the WTC fires to typical office fires are a bit of a waste of time because no one is surprised that a small office block or building of say less than 5 stories collapses in a major fire. There isn't a major investigation into WHY such buildings collapse, only an investigation into what started the fire. The WTC collapse is obviously a completely different case. Its collapse HAS provoked a major investigation. The fact that a 150 ton jet airlined was embedded in the building made it a totally unique event. Adding aircraft debris to the fire tests would have made a tremendous difference to the heat release data. Too bad NIST didn't bother to consider this simple fact... perhaps if it had it wouldn't have needed its loss of thermal insulation hypothesis.
1. It would be about 25 lb of iron from the WTC victim's blood. But I agree that is too small to account for the spherical iron particles in the WTC dust.
2. I never said, and would never claim, that ALL the Al in the aircraft was melted and/or reduced to small particles, but SOME most certainly was. And most of the fuselage and wings would have been totally shredded. Arthur, the figures of the NIST simulations of the aircraft impacts in NCSTAR 1-6 show the aircraft being reduced to very small fragments... could you elaborate on why NIST indicate that's what happened please.
3. I am not happy with the way that I present evidence for the effects of chlorine and the energy associated with metal/chlorine reactions and Arthur simply ignores it only to later say that he has seen no evidence presented on the role of chlorine in the WTC fires. What do you want Arthur? NIST has no evidence that the SFRM was disloged to the extent that it claims but simply rely on an AD HOC hypothesis about the amount of SFRM lost .....
4. PVC-based plastics are not simply carbon, hydrogen and chlorine... far from it!
Compounds such as lead phoshate, lead stearate, lead sulfate, lead phthalate, zinc 2-ethyl hexoate, zinc laurate, and zinc stearate are added as stabilizers to commercial PVC formulations. These zinc and lead compounds would be released in the combustion of PVC. Zinc chloride BOILS at 765 deg C. It is the world's best fluxing agent because ZnCl2 dissolves iron oxide! This means that steel surfaces would lose their passive oxide and be open to severe attack/wastage. And let's not forget all the zinc in the galvanized steel floor pans.
5. You know that comparisons of the WTC fires to typical office fires are a bit of a waste of time because no one is surprised that a small office block or building of say less than 5 stories collapses in a major fire. There isn't a major investigation into WHY such buildings collapse, only an investigation into what started the fire. The WTC collapse is obviously a completely different case. Its collapse HAS provoked a major investigation. The fact that a 150 ton jet airlined was embedded in the building made it a totally unique event. Adding aircraft debris to the fire tests would have made a tremendous difference to the heat release data. Too bad NIST didn't bother to consider this simple fact... perhaps if it had it wouldn't have needed its loss of thermal insulation hypothesis.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 18 2007, 12:21 AM)
Hi adoucette!
That's so with concentrated mass fires, but the dispersed 'shreds' and 'in-cracks/gaps' reactions wouldn't have shown as definite point sources of 'white' radiation in all that black soot smoke......unless they were bulk piles/pools of metals burning.
Does NIST say if that suspected metal fire was 'white' or attenuated by smoke?
RC.
.
Actually its clearly visibile in the Northeast corner of WTC 2. It was quite near where the flowing glowing material was also seen coming from the towers. This is in the area where the jet "bulldozed" much of itself and office contents to and where a fire burnt for the entire time that WTC 2 was standing.
The pictures of what was most likely burning metal SATURATED the photographic device, so it created as white a light as the camera was capable of recording.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 18 2007, 10:20 AM)
A few points concerning last night's posts:
1. It would be about 25 lb of iron from the WTC victim's blood. But I agree that is too small to account for the spherical iron particles in the WTC dust.
That's if ALL victims blood was turned into spericals, but of course many of the victims were trapped at or above the impact floors and so their blood would not be at issue. The actual passenger count was 157 + an estimated 400 killed by the direct impact of the plane = 5 lbs.
Sheesh.
Arthur
1. It would be about 25 lb of iron from the WTC victim's blood. But I agree that is too small to account for the spherical iron particles in the WTC dust.
That's if ALL victims blood was turned into spericals, but of course many of the victims were trapped at or above the impact floors and so their blood would not be at issue. The actual passenger count was 157 + an estimated 400 killed by the direct impact of the plane = 5 lbs.
Sheesh.
Arthur
I'm not sure this helps, but all aircraft aluminum has an icky-yellow chemical anti-corrosive coating on it's inside surface (i.e., every surface other than the shiny surface on the outside of the airplane).
I can't remember what it's called, and I don't know what chemicals are used, but it'd be worth looking into it, as it's in intimate contact with all the aluminum on the aircraft (one side at least).
And on another note:
If there was magnesium present in close proximity to the aluminum, magnesium starts burning at lower temperatures and generates temperatures where aluminum self-ignites.
I can't remember what it's called, and I don't know what chemicals are used, but it'd be worth looking into it, as it's in intimate contact with all the aluminum on the aircraft (one side at least).
And on another note:
If there was magnesium present in close proximity to the aluminum, magnesium starts burning at lower temperatures and generates temperatures where aluminum self-ignites.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 17 2007, 09:50 PM)
Trust me mate.
If the duralmin itself was actually buning, they wouldn't be using foam to put it out.
If the aluminum was burning there would be NO QUESTION that it was aluminium burning.
Aluminum burns with an INTENSE WHITE LIGHT.
You COULDN'T miss it, even at 12 noon on a cloudless day.
Most of the structure of the Boeings was Aluminum Alloys 2024 and 7075.
2024 melts at a fairly low 475 C
7075 melts at 635 C
Arthur
If the duralmin itself was actually buning, they wouldn't be using foam to put it out.
If the aluminum was burning there would be NO QUESTION that it was aluminium burning.
Aluminum burns with an INTENSE WHITE LIGHT.
You COULDN'T miss it, even at 12 noon on a cloudless day.
Most of the structure of the Boeings was Aluminum Alloys 2024 and 7075.
2024 melts at a fairly low 475 C
7075 melts at 635 C
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 18 2007, 10:20 AM)
A few points concerning last night's posts:
2. I never said, and would never claim, that ALL the Al in the aircraft was melted and/or reduced to small particles, but SOME most certainly was. And most of the fuselage and wings would have been totally shredded. Arthur, the figures of the NIST simulations of the aircraft impacts in NCSTAR 1-6 show the aircraft being reduced to very small fragments... could you elaborate on why NIST indicate that's what happened please.
If you want to read up on the impact modeling stick to NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Analysis of Aircraft Impacts
Now see, for instance, figure 5-31 pg 119 or 5-42 pg 131.
Notice how the aluminium debris is depicted.
Notice how it is not reduced to small particles.
Arthur
2. I never said, and would never claim, that ALL the Al in the aircraft was melted and/or reduced to small particles, but SOME most certainly was. And most of the fuselage and wings would have been totally shredded. Arthur, the figures of the NIST simulations of the aircraft impacts in NCSTAR 1-6 show the aircraft being reduced to very small fragments... could you elaborate on why NIST indicate that's what happened please.
If you want to read up on the impact modeling stick to NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Analysis of Aircraft Impacts
Now see, for instance, figure 5-31 pg 119 or 5-42 pg 131.
Notice how the aluminium debris is depicted.
Notice how it is not reduced to small particles.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 18 2007, 02:41 PM)
If the aluminum was burning there would be NO QUESTION that it was aluminium burning.
Aluminum burns with an INTENSE WHITE LIGHT.
You COULDN'T miss it, even at 12 noon on a cloudless day.
Most of the structure of the Boeings was Aluminum Alloys 2024 and 7075.
2024 melts at a fairly low 475 C
7075 melts at 635 C
Arthur
Wrong not in all cases, that is what I was trying to point out.
Aluminum Oxidation to CO2 is less intense, Also your forgetting about soot absorbing white light and emitting the energy in the lower red of the spectrum.
I have actually tested this in my half assed experiments, and provided proof that aluminum can oxidize and not be white right on this tread.
I have even succeeded in creating thermite reactions inside the aluminum coating that glow yellow.
I simply sent sound energy not ultra sound though the handle on the skillet, notice that the block of wood the skillet is setting on is not in flames.
I have personally watched aluminum super heat to the point that it consumes itself, although I do not believe this is the case in the twin towers environment.
http://science.nasa.gov/msl1/combustion_why.htm
Wrong not in all cases, that is what I was trying to point out.
Aluminum Oxidation to CO2 is less intense, Also your forgetting about soot absorbing white light and emitting the energy in the lower red of the spectrum.
I have actually tested this in my half assed experiments, and provided proof that aluminum can oxidize and not be white right on this tread.
I have even succeeded in creating thermite reactions inside the aluminum coating that glow yellow.
I simply sent sound energy not ultra sound though the handle on the skillet, notice that the block of wood the skillet is setting on is not in flames.
I have personally watched aluminum super heat to the point that it consumes itself, although I do not believe this is the case in the twin towers environment.
http://science.nasa.gov/msl1/combustion_why.htm
The importance of soot to a fire is evident in the most simple of everyday examples. If you've ever built a fire in the fireplace, you know that the fire is brighter and feels hotter when you are 2-3 feet away, than does the flame on a gas stove. In fact, the temperature in a blue flame on a gas stove are considerably hotter than a typical wood fire. This is because soot radiates a large fraction of the flame energy as visible light and infrared "heat". Without the heat radiated by the soot, almost all of the heat from the fire would go up the chimney. Improperly controlled fires lead to release of excessive soot and the associated carbon monoxide. This carbon-monoxide emission associated with soot is the primary source of fire fatalities. To better understand the role of soot in combustion, we need to study flames that are free of effects induced by gravity. The Laminar Soot Process Experiment (LSP) on MSL-1 is designed to perform this study and will be executed in the Combustion Module Facility-1 (CM-1)of Spacelab..
NASA debunked that statement, I suggest you take your argument up with them.
Arthur I do not want to argue with you because really your not putting up an argument, that is logical.
Also Frank I agree all the metal spheres could not have been created by blood, however The Cells in the human bodies also contain those compounds and most of the other compounds in the cells burn and degrade when heated so were looking at total body mass iron not just blood.
I also feel that this is to low however to account for all the metal spheres I was only speaking of the spheres that Dr. Jones has been referring to as evidence of planted thermite which are in fact evidence of human remains exposed to temperatures above 1400c the point where Sodium Chloride vaporizes.
I admit that could have occurred do to fines in the impacts but it would have been the greatest stoke of luck for Dr. Jones to find them in one sample, it would he like wining the highest power ball lottery ever by finding the ticket in a garbage can!
I am also still looking at other ways they could have been formed, I do not accept Dr. Jones hypothesis that they are from thermate-thermite charges.
If however what Arthur postulates is fact then I would be forced to accept that thermite charges were in the towers, and I am not prepared to do that when I know that Aluminum oxidation is possible, and probable on a larger scale than indicated by NIST.
I also need to point out that iron oxidation with blood can create the particles as well, but it would require an ignition source.
I would also like to point out that Aluminum, titanium, and magnesium were all components of the planes structure.
Arthur -
I've been reading the same posts you have, and I don't get the same sense of animosity towards the NIST engineers that seems to be driving you crazy. I think he's just identified a potential explanation for the iron spheres that Jones is claiming is proof of thermate in the towers.
In small words, he's on *our* side.
I'm normally on your side, too, but I really think you're going off the deep end in your animosity towards Chainsaw. Take a deep breath and step back. All he's saying is that there is chemistry that explains the iron spheres better than Jones' thermate hypothesis, which we all agree is nonsense.
Chill out, for God's sake.
Arthur -
I've been reading the same posts you have, and I don't get the same sense of animosity towards the NIST engineers that seems to be driving you crazy. I think he's just identified a potential explanation for the iron spheres that Jones is claiming is proof of thermate in the towers.
In small words, he's on *our* side.
I'm normally on your side, too, but I really think you're going off the deep end in your animosity towards Chainsaw. Take a deep breath and step back. All he's saying is that there is chemistry that explains the iron spheres better than Jones' thermate hypothesis, which we all agree is nonsense.
Chill out, for God's sake.
That quote was form Neu Fonze not Chainsaw.
Frank is a chemist whose usual put down is to claim that you are "thinking like an engineer".
As to Chainsaw, he has little training but lots of time on his hands to run his self described half assed experiments.
Unfortunately the conclusions he LEAPS to are not supported by the evidence.
As to his animosity toward NIST, that's fairly recent.
As to being "on our side", that's debatable
A collection of RECENT Chainsawisms:
I have found several reactions that can produce spheres of that nature and larger. However all release enough energy in themselves to make Nist fire tests basically useless in trying to understand the collapse.
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 am still working on Quantifying the data, but it looks like Nist is off by a third
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!
Your forgetting that High sulfur diesel fuel stored in cans in the towers would have given off SO2 in higher concentrations for years
Need I say more?
Arthur
Aluminum burns with an INTENSE WHITE LIGHT.
You COULDN'T miss it, even at 12 noon on a cloudless day.
Most of the structure of the Boeings was Aluminum Alloys 2024 and 7075.
2024 melts at a fairly low 475 C
7075 melts at 635 C
Arthur
QUOTE
Aluminum burns with an INTENSE WHITE LIGHT.
Wrong not in all cases, that is what I was trying to point out.
Aluminum Oxidation to CO2 is less intense, Also your forgetting about soot absorbing white light and emitting the energy in the lower red of the spectrum.
I have actually tested this in my half assed experiments, and provided proof that aluminum can oxidize and not be white right on this tread.
I have even succeeded in creating thermite reactions inside the aluminum coating that glow yellow.
I simply sent sound energy not ultra sound though the handle on the skillet, notice that the block of wood the skillet is setting on is not in flames.
I have personally watched aluminum super heat to the point that it consumes itself, although I do not believe this is the case in the twin towers environment.
http://science.nasa.gov/msl1/combustion_why.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Aluminum burns with an INTENSE WHITE LIGHT. |
Wrong not in all cases, that is what I was trying to point out.
Aluminum Oxidation to CO2 is less intense, Also your forgetting about soot absorbing white light and emitting the energy in the lower red of the spectrum.
I have actually tested this in my half assed experiments, and provided proof that aluminum can oxidize and not be white right on this tread.
I have even succeeded in creating thermite reactions inside the aluminum coating that glow yellow.
I simply sent sound energy not ultra sound though the handle on the skillet, notice that the block of wood the skillet is setting on is not in flames.
I have personally watched aluminum super heat to the point that it consumes itself, although I do not believe this is the case in the twin towers environment.
http://science.nasa.gov/msl1/combustion_why.htm
The importance of soot to a fire is evident in the most simple of everyday examples. If you've ever built a fire in the fireplace, you know that the fire is brighter and feels hotter when you are 2-3 feet away, than does the flame on a gas stove. In fact, the temperature in a blue flame on a gas stove are considerably hotter than a typical wood fire. This is because soot radiates a large fraction of the flame energy as visible light and infrared "heat". Without the heat radiated by the soot, almost all of the heat from the fire would go up the chimney. Improperly controlled fires lead to release of excessive soot and the associated carbon monoxide. This carbon-monoxide emission associated with soot is the primary source of fire fatalities. To better understand the role of soot in combustion, we need to study flames that are free of effects induced by gravity. The Laminar Soot Process Experiment (LSP) on MSL-1 is designed to perform this study and will be executed in the Combustion Module Facility-1 (CM-1)of Spacelab..
NASA debunked that statement, I suggest you take your argument up with them.
Arthur I do not want to argue with you because really your not putting up an argument, that is logical.
Also Frank I agree all the metal spheres could not have been created by blood, however The Cells in the human bodies also contain those compounds and most of the other compounds in the cells burn and degrade when heated so were looking at total body mass iron not just blood.
I also feel that this is to low however to account for all the metal spheres I was only speaking of the spheres that Dr. Jones has been referring to as evidence of planted thermite which are in fact evidence of human remains exposed to temperatures above 1400c the point where Sodium Chloride vaporizes.
I admit that could have occurred do to fines in the impacts but it would have been the greatest stoke of luck for Dr. Jones to find them in one sample, it would he like wining the highest power ball lottery ever by finding the ticket in a garbage can!
I am also still looking at other ways they could have been formed, I do not accept Dr. Jones hypothesis that they are from thermate-thermite charges.
If however what Arthur postulates is fact then I would be forced to accept that thermite charges were in the towers, and I am not prepared to do that when I know that Aluminum oxidation is possible, and probable on a larger scale than indicated by NIST.
I also need to point out that iron oxidation with blood can create the particles as well, but it would require an ignition source.
I would also like to point out that Aluminum, titanium, and magnesium were all components of the planes structure.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 18 2007, 10:20 AM)
5. ...
The fact that a 150 ton jet airlined was embedded in the building made it a totally unique event. Adding aircraft debris to the fire tests would have made a tremendous difference to the heat release data. Too bad NIST didn't bother to consider this simple fact... perhaps if it had it wouldn't have needed its loss of thermal insulation hypothesis.
The plane's empty weight is 90 tons, 14 tons of which is the engines and landing gear.
NIST DID account for the fuel weight, 30 tons worth.
NIST DID account for the plane Combustibles (besides fuel) ~ 25,000 lbs per plane.
NIST DID account for the distribution of the plane debris (including a substantial amount ejected from the building) across multiple floors
NIST DID NOT include the Aluminum in the plane as a combustible.
No one has shown that a significant quantity of the aluminum combusted.
Now apparently you are claiming that a SIGNIFICANT quantity of the Aluminum DID burn in the fires but you have shown NO EVIDENCE to support this contention.
Considering the INTENSE LIGHT given off by aluminum when it burns one would think such evidence would be FRIGGIN OBVIOUS.
Maybe you have seen pictures we haven't?
Maybe you have some arcane knowledge of lightless combustion of aluminum that is not in the literature?
OR
Maybe you just like to make UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS and then denigrate the work of the engineers you so obviously detest?
Arthur
The fact that a 150 ton jet airlined was embedded in the building made it a totally unique event. Adding aircraft debris to the fire tests would have made a tremendous difference to the heat release data. Too bad NIST didn't bother to consider this simple fact... perhaps if it had it wouldn't have needed its loss of thermal insulation hypothesis.
The plane's empty weight is 90 tons, 14 tons of which is the engines and landing gear.
NIST DID account for the fuel weight, 30 tons worth.
NIST DID account for the plane Combustibles (besides fuel) ~ 25,000 lbs per plane.
NIST DID account for the distribution of the plane debris (including a substantial amount ejected from the building) across multiple floors
NIST DID NOT include the Aluminum in the plane as a combustible.
No one has shown that a significant quantity of the aluminum combusted.
Now apparently you are claiming that a SIGNIFICANT quantity of the Aluminum DID burn in the fires but you have shown NO EVIDENCE to support this contention.
Considering the INTENSE LIGHT given off by aluminum when it burns one would think such evidence would be FRIGGIN OBVIOUS.
Maybe you have seen pictures we haven't?
Maybe you have some arcane knowledge of lightless combustion of aluminum that is not in the literature?
OR
Maybe you just like to make UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS and then denigrate the work of the engineers you so obviously detest?
Arthur
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 18 2007, 11:37 AM)
Wrong not in all cases, that is what I was trying to point out.
Aluminum Oxidation to CO2 is less intense, Also your forgetting about soot absorbing white light and emitting the energy in the lower red of the spectrum.
I have actually tested this in my half assed experiments, and provided proof that aluminum can oxidize and not be white right on this tread.
I have even succeeded in creating thermite reactions inside the aluminum coating that glow yellow.
I simply sent sound energy not ultra sound though the handle on the skillet, notice that the block of wood the skillet is setting on is not in flames.
I have personally watched aluminum super heat to the point that it consumes itself, although I do not believe this is the case in the twin towers environment.
David,
It is YOU who is claiming that the AMOUNT OF ENERGY RELEASED was SO GREAT as to be equal to 1/3 MORE than NIST claimed.
Well they claimed 8,000 GJ of energy was released by the combustion of the contents of one building, so you are claiming that the Aluminum in the plane released 2,500 GJ of energy.
That is a LOT of energy. ~ 7 megawatts hours
In one hour that's equal to more than the total output of two of our largest nuclear power plants.
You can't then say, "oh but the Aluminum didn't BURN FIERCELY, it SLOWLY OXIDIZED"
Make up you mind.
And NO, I'm not forgetting about the soot, but still there is no way that you are going to BURN enough aluminum to create 2,500 GJ of energy and NOT SEE IT.
Burning Aluminum
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ingAluminum.jpg
PS (your half assed experiments have shown NOTHING more than you can heat aluminium with a friggin torch and get a slightly orangish glow, which coincidentally is the same orangish glow of the steel pan the aluminum is sitting on)
Arthur
Aluminum Oxidation to CO2 is less intense, Also your forgetting about soot absorbing white light and emitting the energy in the lower red of the spectrum.
I have actually tested this in my half assed experiments, and provided proof that aluminum can oxidize and not be white right on this tread.
I have even succeeded in creating thermite reactions inside the aluminum coating that glow yellow.
I simply sent sound energy not ultra sound though the handle on the skillet, notice that the block of wood the skillet is setting on is not in flames.
I have personally watched aluminum super heat to the point that it consumes itself, although I do not believe this is the case in the twin towers environment.
David,
It is YOU who is claiming that the AMOUNT OF ENERGY RELEASED was SO GREAT as to be equal to 1/3 MORE than NIST claimed.
Well they claimed 8,000 GJ of energy was released by the combustion of the contents of one building, so you are claiming that the Aluminum in the plane released 2,500 GJ of energy.
That is a LOT of energy. ~ 7 megawatts hours
In one hour that's equal to more than the total output of two of our largest nuclear power plants.
You can't then say, "oh but the Aluminum didn't BURN FIERCELY, it SLOWLY OXIDIZED"
Make up you mind.
And NO, I'm not forgetting about the soot, but still there is no way that you are going to BURN enough aluminum to create 2,500 GJ of energy and NOT SEE IT.
Burning Aluminum
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ingAluminum.jpg
PS (your half assed experiments have shown NOTHING more than you can heat aluminium with a friggin torch and get a slightly orangish glow, which coincidentally is the same orangish glow of the steel pan the aluminum is sitting on)
Arthur
QUOTE
Maybe you just like to make UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS and then denigrate the work of the engineers you so obviously detest?
Arthur -
I've been reading the same posts you have, and I don't get the same sense of animosity towards the NIST engineers that seems to be driving you crazy. I think he's just identified a potential explanation for the iron spheres that Jones is claiming is proof of thermate in the towers.
In small words, he's on *our* side.
I'm normally on your side, too, but I really think you're going off the deep end in your animosity towards Chainsaw. Take a deep breath and step back. All he's saying is that there is chemistry that explains the iron spheres better than Jones' thermate hypothesis, which we all agree is nonsense.
Chill out, for God's sake.
Oh for Gods sake, will some yahoo out there in to conspiracy theory's get there act together? All you need to understand why the towers came down was a basic understanding of chemistry, or metalurgy, or physics, or the effect of 3,000 degree jet fuel on the supporting structure of the building. Its not that hard to understand. Anouther problem with our people not understanding science is we have idiot-cretrens who can sell this bull ***. ENOUGH, GROW UP!!
QUOTE (carterelliott+Jul 18 2007, 12:58 PM)
Arthur -
I've been reading the same posts you have, and I don't get the same sense of animosity towards the NIST engineers that seems to be driving you crazy. I think he's just identified a potential explanation for the iron spheres that Jones is claiming is proof of thermate in the towers.
In small words, he's on *our* side.
I'm normally on your side, too, but I really think you're going off the deep end in your animosity towards Chainsaw. Take a deep breath and step back. All he's saying is that there is chemistry that explains the iron spheres better than Jones' thermate hypothesis, which we all agree is nonsense.
Chill out, for God's sake.
That quote was form Neu Fonze not Chainsaw.
Frank is a chemist whose usual put down is to claim that you are "thinking like an engineer".
As to Chainsaw, he has little training but lots of time on his hands to run his self described half assed experiments.
Unfortunately the conclusions he LEAPS to are not supported by the evidence.
As to his animosity toward NIST, that's fairly recent.
As to being "on our side", that's debatable
A collection of RECENT Chainsawisms:
QUOTE
I simply believe that NIST missed something critical and that leaving it out makes all the difference in the world because the same Chemistry is involved in all three building and at the pentagon.
If I am right it could make a plane dissolve in water even without a fire.
If I am right it could make a plane dissolve in water even without a fire.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I simply believe that NIST missed something critical and that leaving it out makes all the difference in the world because the same Chemistry is involved in all three building and at the pentagon. If I am right it could make a plane dissolve in water even without a fire. |
I have found several reactions that can produce spheres of that nature and larger. However all release enough energy in themselves to make Nist fire tests basically useless in trying to understand the collapse.
QUOTE
I know of only 5 or six ways the spheres could have formed without thermite or thermate or controlled demolition but they do point to problems in Nists Hypothesis and experimental data.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I know of only 5 or six ways the spheres could have formed without thermite or thermate or controlled demolition but they do point to problems in Nists Hypothesis and experimental data. |
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.
QUOTE
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?
Tell me why did the second tower struck fall first, was it just the impact damage or something else?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 am still working on Quantifying the data, but it looks like Nist is off by a third
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
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
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.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Your forgetting that High sulfur diesel fuel stored in cans in the towers would have given off SO2 in higher concentrations for years
QUOTE
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.
Need I say more?
Arthur
Thanks CE!
Arthur, you are nicely dancing around my point that NIST did NOT include REAL aircraft materials in its workstation fire tests, but did, so you claim, include the effects of aircraft debris in its model! (One thing I've noticed about the NIST Report is that sometimes NIST talks about its model calculations as if they were the real thing...I find you often have to go back and check on this to be sure when the discussion is about real observations and when we are in virtual reality.)
Anyway, because of the failure of NIST to include aircraft parts in its tests - and I am not just talking about metals but PLASTICS - it appears to me that the NIST model should not have agreed with the tests. Actually to make things worse NIST did not have vinyl floor tiles and vinyl coated wiring in the TRUSS assemblies it tested. Thus the potential Cl corrosion of the floor pans and the localized heating of the truss rods was missed!
The workstation combustion tests gave temperatures that were too low to significantly heat the steel... and the ASTM 119 E tests of the trusses were of no help either, as I have explained .... hence NIST found the need for the AD HOC assumption that the steel got hot because of the loss of thermal protection.
NIST blew it!
NIST got the "right" answer for the "wrong" reason.
Arthur, you are nicely dancing around my point that NIST did NOT include REAL aircraft materials in its workstation fire tests, but did, so you claim, include the effects of aircraft debris in its model! (One thing I've noticed about the NIST Report is that sometimes NIST talks about its model calculations as if they were the real thing...I find you often have to go back and check on this to be sure when the discussion is about real observations and when we are in virtual reality.)
Anyway, because of the failure of NIST to include aircraft parts in its tests - and I am not just talking about metals but PLASTICS - it appears to me that the NIST model should not have agreed with the tests. Actually to make things worse NIST did not have vinyl floor tiles and vinyl coated wiring in the TRUSS assemblies it tested. Thus the potential Cl corrosion of the floor pans and the localized heating of the truss rods was missed!
The workstation combustion tests gave temperatures that were too low to significantly heat the steel... and the ASTM 119 E tests of the trusses were of no help either, as I have explained .... hence NIST found the need for the AD HOC assumption that the steel got hot because of the loss of thermal protection.
NIST blew it!
NIST got the "right" answer for the "wrong" reason.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 18 2007, 03:56 PM)
David,
It is YOU who is claiming that the AMOUNT OF ENERGY RELEASED was SO GREAT as to be equal to 1/3 MORE than NIST claimed.
Well they claimed 8,000 GJ of energy was released by the combustion of the contents of one building, so you are claiming that the Aluminum in the plane released 2,500 GJ of energy.
That is a LOT of energy. ~ 7 megawatts hours
In one hour that's equal to more than the total output of two of our largest nuclear power plants.
You can't then say, "oh but the Aluminum didn't BURN FIERCELY, it SLOWLY OXIDIZED"
Make up you mind.
And NO, I'm not forgetting about the soot, but still there is no way that you are going to BURN enough aluminum to create 2,500 GJ of energy and NOT SEE IT.
Burning Aluminum
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ingAluminum.jpg
PS (your half assed experiments have shown NOTHING more than you can heat aluminium with a friggin torch and get a slightly orangish glow, which coincidentally is the same orangish glow of the steel pan the aluminum is sitting on)
Arthur
OH look Ma you can heat aluminum according to Arthur with a torch that has not been lite for at least four minutes. DA that is why I put the torch in the picture it is not Ignited and is cool. DA
When it is ignited a blue flame is present.
Well DBB. it looks Like I just bent the physical laws that govern the universe!
HA beat you to it.
I am not the one Claiming 2,500 Gj you are, that is a misrepresentation of what I have said.
I was only referring to one third more Thermal energy in the impact that can not be justified from the jet fuel alone.
That additional energy would cause a fatalistic reaction, that would cause Franks reaction, and other reactions in the buildings.
The result would be even if the fire proofing was still intact the buildings would have gone down, but OH the pressure and hot particles would probably result in even more damage to the fire proofing In line with what NIST assumes.
IT is important to note that the spheres Dr. Jones found were created in temperature conditions above 1400c so unless your willing to call Dr. Jones and admit that his thermite hypothesis is the correct solution then a larger scale aluminum oxidation reaction on Impact had to have occurred to cause those spheres they are direct evidence of that.
When are you placing the Call to Dr. Jones Arthur?
PS. If you would actually take the time to try to understand what I am saying you would see that I am not Antagonistic to NIST, Just questioning what I believe are Human errors by Human beings.
I am sorry I did not know the people at NIST had been appointed to the Gods of 9/11/2001 status.
It is YOU who is claiming that the AMOUNT OF ENERGY RELEASED was SO GREAT as to be equal to 1/3 MORE than NIST claimed.
Well they claimed 8,000 GJ of energy was released by the combustion of the contents of one building, so you are claiming that the Aluminum in the plane released 2,500 GJ of energy.
That is a LOT of energy. ~ 7 megawatts hours
In one hour that's equal to more than the total output of two of our largest nuclear power plants.
You can't then say, "oh but the Aluminum didn't BURN FIERCELY, it SLOWLY OXIDIZED"
Make up you mind.
And NO, I'm not forgetting about the soot, but still there is no way that you are going to BURN enough aluminum to create 2,500 GJ of energy and NOT SEE IT.
Burning Aluminum
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ingAluminum.jpg
PS (your half assed experiments have shown NOTHING more than you can heat aluminium with a friggin torch and get a slightly orangish glow, which coincidentally is the same orangish glow of the steel pan the aluminum is sitting on)
Arthur
QUOTE
PS (your half assed experiments have shown NOTHING more than you can heat aluminium with a friggin torch and get a slightly orangish glow, which coincidentally is the same orangish glow of the steel pan the aluminum is sitting on)
OH look Ma you can heat aluminum according to Arthur with a torch that has not been lite for at least four minutes. DA that is why I put the torch in the picture it is not Ignited and is cool. DA
When it is ignited a blue flame is present.
Well DBB. it looks Like I just bent the physical laws that govern the universe!
HA beat you to it.
I am not the one Claiming 2,500 Gj you are, that is a misrepresentation of what I have said.
I was only referring to one third more Thermal energy in the impact that can not be justified from the jet fuel alone.
That additional energy would cause a fatalistic reaction, that would cause Franks reaction, and other reactions in the buildings.
The result would be even if the fire proofing was still intact the buildings would have gone down, but OH the pressure and hot particles would probably result in even more damage to the fire proofing In line with what NIST assumes.
IT is important to note that the spheres Dr. Jones found were created in temperature conditions above 1400c so unless your willing to call Dr. Jones and admit that his thermite hypothesis is the correct solution then a larger scale aluminum oxidation reaction on Impact had to have occurred to cause those spheres they are direct evidence of that.
When are you placing the Call to Dr. Jones Arthur?
PS. If you would actually take the time to try to understand what I am saying you would see that I am not Antagonistic to NIST, Just questioning what I believe are Human errors by Human beings.
I am sorry I did not know the people at NIST had been appointed to the Gods of 9/11/2001 status.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 18 2007, 06:56 PM)
Thanks CE!
Arthur, you are nicely dancing around my point that NIST did NOT include REAL aircraft materials in its workstation fire tests, but did, so you claim, include the effects of aircraft debris in its model! (One thing I've noticed about the NIST Report is that sometimes NIST talks about its model calculations as if they were the real thing...I find you often have to go back and check on this to be sure when the discussion is about real observations and when we are in virtual reality.)
Anyway, because of the failure of NIST to include aircraft parts in its tests - and I am not just talking about metals but PLASTICS - it appears to me that the NIST model should not have agreed with the tests. Actually to make things worse NIST did not have vinyl floor tiles and vinyl coated wiring in the TRUSS assemblies it tested. Thus the potential Cl corrosion of the floor pans and the localized heating of the truss rods was missed!
The workstation combustion tests gave temperatures that were too low to significantly heat the steel... and the ASTM 119 E tests of the trusses were of no help either, as I have explained .... hence NIST found the need for the AD HOC assumption that the steel got hot because of the loss of thermal protection.
NIST blew it!
NIST got the "right" answer for the "wrong" reason.
YA. they went with the original assumption that the society of engineers made, But try talking to the stone wall, named Arthur about it.
IT is basically the same proposal flaunted on the original NOVA program why the Towers fell only without the burning Aluminum.
They subtracted the Aluminum and added more Fire proof Insulation damage, Wish I could have fudged stuff that good on my income taxes.
Arthur, you are nicely dancing around my point that NIST did NOT include REAL aircraft materials in its workstation fire tests, but did, so you claim, include the effects of aircraft debris in its model! (One thing I've noticed about the NIST Report is that sometimes NIST talks about its model calculations as if they were the real thing...I find you often have to go back and check on this to be sure when the discussion is about real observations and when we are in virtual reality.)
Anyway, because of the failure of NIST to include aircraft parts in its tests - and I am not just talking about metals but PLASTICS - it appears to me that the NIST model should not have agreed with the tests. Actually to make things worse NIST did not have vinyl floor tiles and vinyl coated wiring in the TRUSS assemblies it tested. Thus the potential Cl corrosion of the floor pans and the localized heating of the truss rods was missed!
The workstation combustion tests gave temperatures that were too low to significantly heat the steel... and the ASTM 119 E tests of the trusses were of no help either, as I have explained .... hence NIST found the need for the AD HOC assumption that the steel got hot because of the loss of thermal protection.
NIST blew it!
NIST got the "right" answer for the "wrong" reason.
YA. they went with the original assumption that the society of engineers made, But try talking to the stone wall, named Arthur about it.
IT is basically the same proposal flaunted on the original NOVA program why the Towers fell only without the burning Aluminum.
They subtracted the Aluminum and added more Fire proof Insulation damage, Wish I could have fudged stuff that good on my income taxes.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 17 2007, 08:40 PM)
But David, you OVER ESTIMATE the impact of the aluminum in the plane material on the fires.
I don't make any sort of estimate (of that) at all.
I don't make any sort of estimate (of that) at all.
QUOTE (hawksecho+Jul 18 2007, 05:12 PM)
Oh for Gods sake, will some yahoo out there in to conspiracy theory's get there act together? All you need to understand why the towers came down was a basic understanding of chemistry, or metalurgy, or physics, or the effect of 3,000 degree jet fuel on the supporting structure of the building. Its not that hard to understand. Anouther problem with our people not understanding science is we have idiot-cretrens who can sell this bull ***. ENOUGH, GROW UP!!
I would Like for you to show me a jet burner capable of burning Jet fuel at 3000c, I do not believe one has been found.
I would Like for you to show me a jet burner capable of burning Jet fuel at 3000c, I do not believe one has been found.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 19 2007, 07:42 AM)
I would Like for you to show me a jet burner capable of burning Jet fuel at 3000c, I do not believe one has been found.
I agree - I can't decide if a jet burner operating at that temperature would incinierate it's components, or melt them first...
I agree - I can't decide if a jet burner operating at that temperature would incinierate it's components, or melt them first...
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 18 2007, 03:08 PM)
I am not the one Claiming 2,500 Gj you are, that is a misrepresentation of what I have said.
I was only referring to one third more Thermal energy in the impact that can not be justified from the jet fuel alone.
No I'm not.
Maybe THIS will refresh your memory.
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.
The question I asked was simple:
NIST stated how many Gigajoules of energy was given off by the fire.
I asked how much more energy than NIST stated you believed was released by the chemical reactions.
YOUR ANSWER
Chainsaw ==> NIST is OFF BY 1/3.
Since NIST stated 8,500 GJ then you are claiming they were off by 2,500 GJ.
I don't make up YOUR answers.
If you NOW claim that's not what you meant by that, fine, we all make mistakes.
BUT,
Then the problem you have is that a 1/3 increase of the thermal energy released by the jet fuel in the towers at the time of the impact amounts to only 1 GigaWatt and for only ~2 minutes. See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 fig E-2 pg xlvi.
This equates to ~100 GigaJoules of energy
Which is equal to ~ 1% of the energy released by the combustibles.
Arthur
I don't make any sort of estimate (of that) at all.
Sorry, I was using Chainsaw's given name.
I'll refrain in the future to avoid confusion.
Besides, Chainsaw "fits".
Arthur
Hi Trippy!
About the above. I don't know to whom it was directed, so excuse me if I've butted in there!....but I think what you referred to was almost/about an hour SINCE first impact/fires/processes. And that was also on the wind-side so that the ingress of air there would have reduced local AIR-TEMPS and Infra-Red Radiation to 'momentarily survivable' but still probably 'eventually fatal' burns on the back (witness how burns victims can run for some time before the burn shock and fluid loss downs them).
About our continuing conversation re the Aluminium behaviour etc; please note:
(1) There was totaldamage done to the water riser pipes over all those impact levels (both firefighting and office-use water pipes)....
.........so the initially friction/impact heated aluminium 'fines' (from shredded plane and entrained building cladding) would have reacted with the superheated steam immediately produced by the jet kero-fuel conflagration, and would have added to that initial conflagration somewhat.
(2) That initial jet kero-fuel and metal-fuel conflagration would have driven all sorts of 'atomised particles (of ALL SORTS of organic and metalic compounds/elements) into any micro-gaps/fissures and rubbing/joint contact surfaces and welds and bolts damaged/distorted/cracked/abraded/fissured etc ALREADY by decades of building movements and THEN the plane impact itself......
.........so these 'micro-mixes' would FURTHER react in a myriad of ways depending on what they 'met' and what they 'entrained' in getting 'blasted' into those 'thin end of the wedge' points which could compromise those MARGINALLY' ("last straw broke camel's back" sense) to the extent that it gave more/better 'access' to fissuring/weakening etc STRESSESPROCESSES LATER as the whole event unfolded over the hour to collapse. We are talking 'start' points for further damage process 'fascilitation' here, and NOT 'bulk' damage/weakening per se.
(3) The actual 'possible' aluminium-related reaction possibilities...
-----a----- Aluminium starts to reduce SILICATES (especially GLASS from the windows brought in by the plane, and office lighting/panels, comp-screen etc glasses, and in-plane glass lighting/materials)------>>>
..........and THIS HAPPENS at WELL BELOW MELTING POINT of aluminium. So that's NEXT 'probably immediate' thermite-LIKE reaction.
-----b----- Aluminium combines with incandescant Carbon (soot) to produce Aluminium Carbide....which further reacts later when contacting superheated steam to give ACETYLENE....which latter burns to steam/CO2 and then reacts with more aluminium to produce HYDROGEN and Al2O3 and AlCarbide......which HYDROGEN then meets more incoming/shaft/conduit AIR to burn and heat MORE materials and aluminium etc etc etc.
.......Worth noting that when any of the aluminium met pooled water it reacts EXPLOSIVELY and further compromises whatever oxidised 'film it may have produced....so NO protection at all while the alumin and Water explosions are taking place.....and the STEAM EXPLOSION effects may ADD to that peri-impact SERIES of 'mini-explosions' whose combined effects were 'observed' as a GENERALISED MERGED 'FIREBALL'...the actual 'details' of which were readily overlooked and deemed 'not important' because of the jet-fule blast would have been enough to produce a SIMILAR TYPE/SIZE/DURATION 'fireball'.....and since it would take a LITTLE agitated/separated MASS of reacting aluminium in a BIG POOL of already hot/steaming water to give a steam explosion, the white radiation from that aluminium would NOT be detected AS SUCH....because the oxidation is using some energy to 'dissociate the H2O molecules AND to drive the expansion of steam AND the re-igniting HYDROGEN would have been BLUER and swamped any litt;e white 'specks' here and there....PLUS any INCANDESCENT CARBON (soot) would further swamp the aluminium reaction radiation in all that great expanse/soot.
-----c----- Splattering/flowing Aluminium will react with:
........the 'cracked' and 'porous/lightweight' concrete to steal the Oxygen and Carbon component in the mainly Calcium Carbonate.....
........the DRYWALL sulphate (SO4) component to give Aluminiuum Sulfates/Sulfides...
.......the Nitrogen and Chlorine in AIR/GASES and MATERIALS to give Nitrides/Chlorides.....and THEN go on to further reactions 'downhill' from their as the opportunity presented with air/water/CO2.....
-----d----- Even AFTER the initial and subsequent'reactions/detonations of the 'trali-end' of the first 'fireball', the CONTUINING WATER coming from broken water pipes in the impact levels and above levels would have 'pooled' and DISSOLVED ALL SORTS OF PRODUCTS.....BOTH ACID and ALKALINE and LEWIS-ACID/BASE and CATALYTIC ORGANIC/INORGANIC and CARBONYL (FeCO and etc) which would have created a CAULDRON OF UNCONTROLLED CHEMISTRY ATTACKS ON ANY METALS/CRACKS'GAPS IT FLOWED OVER/INTO....so 'etching' FURTHER 'PREDISPOSING' achilles heels at critical connections/contact syrfaces.....FOR MANY MORE MINUTES after the initial fireball.
SO....these things may have been 'unspectacular' and 'marginal-overall' as to TOTAL ENERGY involved in peri-and-post effects, but thye may have been SIGNIFICANT' facilitators FOR THE LATER DAMAGE THAT THE GREATER FIRES did....and so may have 'expedited' (probably only by ten minutes"...just a guess, so don't 'roast' me, heh!).
Oh, and Trip; Ive noticed you sometimes describe metal/other thermo-dynamic and general chemistry/physical behaviour/properties from 'handbooks' that give details observed/produced under various/ranges/mixes under 'controlled conditions'. It should be first and foremost realised that the QUANTITIES and ENERGIES and area/volumes and possible VIOLENT MIXING and CYCLING of what went on in those towers has as far as I know not been 'seen' nor since 'dupplicated' at that scale and under those plane/aluminium IMPACT and jet fire on MULIPLE LEVELS AT ONCE with NO firefighting and practically NO fireproofing at the impact/fire levels FOR AN HOUR. So no 'straightforward' out-of-the-textbook information PIECEMEAL is going to 'tell' you what was POSSIBLY/REALLY going on in there.
Hence I personally applaud Chainsaw's and NF's researches because I AM CURIOUS TO KNOW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE what went on....PLUS it MAY be critically important for future high-rise steel OR OTHER designs which suffer catastrophic impact damage and fuel explosions over many levels at one, especially if firefighting/proofing and evacuation SYSTEMS are COMPROMISED/NEUTRALISED.
Rushed and a bit short of time for a day or so. That's all I'm going to post here for awhile, mateys! (See ya in the New Theories forums, Trip!)
Cheers al!
RC.
And suddenly my motivation for trying to discuss this, and inject some 'rationality' into the conversation.
Once again, YOU RC are heading, once again, down the road of "You've been indoctrinated into the cult of science, you only know the textbooks, therefore everything you know is wrong", and frankly it's bugging the heck out of me.
The fact that I may be able to quote things chapter and verse from textbooks is a reflection of the depth of my understanding of chemistry and chemical processes.
My intrest is in APPLIED chemistry, not PURE chemistry, as you seem to be implying.
The fact that I have in my lap while I type this the course material for the postgrad paper I am doing this semester that deals with things such as chemical weapons of mass destruction, and how to deal with them should they be released into the environment should tell you something.
I have been discussing things in this thread in GOOD FAITH.
Right now, you are showing very BAD FAITH RC, and I am NOT impressed.
Once again, you are demonstrating that you are unwilling to listen to someone who actually knows what they're talking about on the subject, apparently preferring to believe whatever is convenient.
First point: You are, and have been adovacting Furnace like conditions in the floors, the heat held in the steel and the concrete of the walls and floor doesn't simply 'vanish' the hot air doesn't simply vanish, it doesn't work that way. You can't invoke furnace like conditions for part of the scenario, and then have them 'vanish' when it's convenient. The comment in relation to the photo is that it was taken between the impact and the collapse, and it was taken early, rather then late in the footage. Also, it's in the first tower to stand, which survived 55 minutes between the impact and collapse.
Second point: Close inspection of the impact footage reveals three flashes when the aircraft strikes the cladding, the three flashes are when the three densest parts of the aircraft strike the cladding. These flashes are the Al powder generated by the impact igniting.
Third point: Heating due to friction would be extremely localized, and it's obvious from the footage that the plane did not (appear) to slow down significantly as it entered the building, so it's fairly safe to assume that most of the impact energy would have been released in the impacts with the central columns.
Fourth point: Combustion of Hydrocarbons does not release super heated steam, it releases water in the gas phase. Steam is water in the liquid phase (in very small droplets). This is why it's possible to superheat it, and before you go and try and contradict this point, take a careful look at pictures of steam being vented at Geothermal plants, there is a space between the steam and the nozzle, in this space, water exists in the gas phase.
Fifth point: I don't have the data at my fingertips right at this instant, and to be honest, given the responses I have received, I'm feeling far from motivated to go and look it up, but you're assigning much higher explosion velocities to the fireball then 1. Are generally observed in comparable fireballs, and 2. Were observed in this particular fireball.
Sixth point: Did I, or did I not explicitly state, or at least imply in one of my posts to chainsaw about his experiments that there is/was the posibility for small scale localized thermite reactions.
Seventh point: I'm aware of the reactions between Aluminium and Silicates.
Eighth point: I'm feeling to lazy to go and look up the thermochemical data on Aluminium carbide and it's reactions, I may do it later, but there's something that seems not quite right about what you've said in that respect - but i'm not able to put my finger on it right now.
Ninth point: Most of what you say about the Carbon or what ever swamping any light or effects from whatever explosions, is, IMO, bogus. One of the aircraft effectively occupied a corner of the building, some fragments even exited IIRC, this means that all of the effects that you are claiming should have been noticable, but, nothing.
10th point: I'm not sure how to address what you 'claim' wrt the splattering/flowing Aluminium, again, there's something in there that strikes me as being wrong, but i can't quite put my finger on it.
11th point: I don't think that the aqueous processes you're talking about are as important as you seem to think they are. Agaom, there seems to me to be something inherently wrong with some of those things, but I can'r put my finger on it.
Question.
Where's the information? It's not that hard to find. Take the PVC discussion, what use is all this discussion about HCl, if you don't know how fast it's generated, and you don't know how much was generated.
I've already pointed out some of the potential problems with the experiments chainsaw's doing, and I get criticized for doing this? What's the deal with that? How is Chainsaw supposed to conduct better experiments to prove his point my reliably and more emphaticaly, if nobody points out the (potential) problems in his experiments? (Or anyone elses experiments). You know? You're so quick to jump on the 'thinking outside the box' bandwagon that you manage to completely overlook the simple, obvious truths.
And you overlook the obvious questions:
Why is it that the tower that took the most glancing blow fell first?
Why is it that the tower with the shortest lived fires fell first?
I can offer explanations for both of those without invoking exotic chemistry, but, if the fire was responsible, then the other tower should have collapsed first. It really is that simple.
I have other observations I can offer, but I find myself asking it is really worth it? Because so far, nobody (except maybe Arthur, and one or two others) actually seems interested in having a seriouse and rational discussion.
I was only referring to one third more Thermal energy in the impact that can not be justified from the jet fuel alone.
No I'm not.
Maybe THIS will refresh your memory.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+)
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.
The question I asked was simple:
NIST stated how many Gigajoules of energy was given off by the fire.
I asked how much more energy than NIST stated you believed was released by the chemical reactions.
YOUR ANSWER
Chainsaw ==> NIST is OFF BY 1/3.
Since NIST stated 8,500 GJ then you are claiming they were off by 2,500 GJ.
I don't make up YOUR answers.
If you NOW claim that's not what you meant by that, fine, we all make mistakes.
BUT,
Then the problem you have is that a 1/3 increase of the thermal energy released by the jet fuel in the towers at the time of the impact amounts to only 1 GigaWatt and for only ~2 minutes. See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 fig E-2 pg xlvi.
This equates to ~100 GigaJoules of energy
Which is equal to ~ 1% of the energy released by the combustibles.
Arthur
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 19 2007, 03:37 AM)
Wrong not in all cases, that is what I was trying to point out.
Aluminum Oxidation to CO2 is less intense, Also your forgetting about soot absorbing white light and emitting the energy in the lower red of the spectrum.
I have actually tested this in my half assed experiments, and provided proof that aluminum can oxidize and not be white right on this tread.
I have even succeeded in creating thermite reactions inside the aluminum coating that glow yellow.
I simply sent sound energy not ultra sound though the handle on the skillet, notice that the block of wood the skillet is setting on is not in flames.
I have personally watched aluminum super heat to the point that it consumes itself, although I do not believe this is the case in the twin towers environment.
While I applaud your efforts, and quietly wish that more people would attempt to conduct serious scientific experiments in their backyards, purely for the purposes of education and enlightenment, here we also have a perfect demonstration of the danger of doing so.
There is, unfortunately no controls on this experiment, allow me to demonstrate what I mean.
If you look at the photo provided, you can see that the pan is rusty. Rust is only ever Iron Oxide.
It's clear to see, that even though it doe snot radiate visible light when molten, the aluminium in this picture is, or has been molten, but it's still shiney, which indicates that it has not yet oxidized. While, under controlled circumstances, and controlled cooling the oxide layer is invisble, this is not always the case - the oxide layer of Aluminium gives it a dull grey apperance. I am willing to concede that the oxide layer may have reformed in it's 'invisible' state by simply allowing it to cool naturally.
The most prominent thing that catches my eye is the fact that the iron pan around the glowing lump of aluminium is also glowing, this suggests a common cause.
I propose that what is happening is this.
The molten aluminium is undergoing a 'controlled' thermite reaction with the iron, and it is this that is causing the iron, and aluminium to glow, rather than the aluminium being oxidized by the air. I call it a controlled thermite reaction, because there would only be a thin film of Iron oxide for the aluminium to react with, but this film should, to some extent renew itself, allowing the reaction to occur at a much slower rate then might ordinarily be observed, while still heating the iron, and aluminium up to the point where it is able to where it is able to glow at that colour.
Aluminum Oxidation to CO2 is less intense, Also your forgetting about soot absorbing white light and emitting the energy in the lower red of the spectrum.
I have actually tested this in my half assed experiments, and provided proof that aluminum can oxidize and not be white right on this tread.
I have even succeeded in creating thermite reactions inside the aluminum coating that glow yellow.
I simply sent sound energy not ultra sound though the handle on the skillet, notice that the block of wood the skillet is setting on is not in flames.
I have personally watched aluminum super heat to the point that it consumes itself, although I do not believe this is the case in the twin towers environment.
While I applaud your efforts, and quietly wish that more people would attempt to conduct serious scientific experiments in their backyards, purely for the purposes of education and enlightenment, here we also have a perfect demonstration of the danger of doing so.
There is, unfortunately no controls on this experiment, allow me to demonstrate what I mean.
If you look at the photo provided, you can see that the pan is rusty. Rust is only ever Iron Oxide.
It's clear to see, that even though it doe snot radiate visible light when molten, the aluminium in this picture is, or has been molten, but it's still shiney, which indicates that it has not yet oxidized. While, under controlled circumstances, and controlled cooling the oxide layer is invisble, this is not always the case - the oxide layer of Aluminium gives it a dull grey apperance. I am willing to concede that the oxide layer may have reformed in it's 'invisible' state by simply allowing it to cool naturally.
The most prominent thing that catches my eye is the fact that the iron pan around the glowing lump of aluminium is also glowing, this suggests a common cause.
I propose that what is happening is this.
The molten aluminium is undergoing a 'controlled' thermite reaction with the iron, and it is this that is causing the iron, and aluminium to glow, rather than the aluminium being oxidized by the air. I call it a controlled thermite reaction, because there would only be a thin film of Iron oxide for the aluminium to react with, but this film should, to some extent renew itself, allowing the reaction to occur at a much slower rate then might ordinarily be observed, while still heating the iron, and aluminium up to the point where it is able to where it is able to glow at that colour.
Did the WTC cleanup (or subsequent processing efforts) make any attempt to separate the aircraft aluminum fragments from the rest of the debris?
Was there a big pile of aluminum left over, or was it all dumped in the same heap as the steel and concrete and ???
If there was a lot of metallic aluminum found in the debris, then we'd know that not all the aluminum was consumed, either chemically or thermally (melted, evaporated, amalgamated, or ???), so that energy wouldn't have contributed to aluminum-related damage. Maybe we could put an upper limit on it.
My own suspicion is that *some* of the aluminum disappeared in the fire, whether from direct combustion or chemical reactions or forming amalgams, but that the amount wasn't large enough to make a significant difference in the course of events. It might've been limited to creating the iron spheres, and little else.
I should add, though, that even if this is all the combustion of aluminum did in the WTC fires, that it's a significant discovery in that it disproves Dr. Jones' thermate hypothesis.
BTW - I just read newton's comment on my work screen name. I have a work computer and a home computer. I don't memorize my passwords, so I created a new account at work. It's clear that I wasn't attempting to hide my identity, so newton's remark, claiming that I'd created a "sock-puppet" for myself, like all his comments, is baseless.
Was there a big pile of aluminum left over, or was it all dumped in the same heap as the steel and concrete and ???
If there was a lot of metallic aluminum found in the debris, then we'd know that not all the aluminum was consumed, either chemically or thermally (melted, evaporated, amalgamated, or ???), so that energy wouldn't have contributed to aluminum-related damage. Maybe we could put an upper limit on it.
My own suspicion is that *some* of the aluminum disappeared in the fire, whether from direct combustion or chemical reactions or forming amalgams, but that the amount wasn't large enough to make a significant difference in the course of events. It might've been limited to creating the iron spheres, and little else.
I should add, though, that even if this is all the combustion of aluminum did in the WTC fires, that it's a significant discovery in that it disproves Dr. Jones' thermate hypothesis.
BTW - I just read newton's comment on my work screen name. I have a work computer and a home computer. I don't memorize my passwords, so I created a new account at work. It's clear that I wasn't attempting to hide my identity, so newton's remark, claiming that I'd created a "sock-puppet" for myself, like all his comments, is baseless.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 18 2007, 03:22 PM)
I don't make any sort of estimate (of that) at all.
Sorry, I was using Chainsaw's given name.
I'll refrain in the future to avoid confusion.
Besides, Chainsaw "fits".
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 4 2007, 01:08 PM)
I have a few comments on the mass of a WTC tower:
First, take a look at NIST NCSTAR 1-5D, page 43. Here we find one of the few places where NIST gives a simple, direct, estimate of the mass of a WTC tower.
Thus on page 43 we read:
"The average load per unit area (including live and dead loads) of a typical floor was approximately 87 lb/ft^2 (4.17 kN/m^2). Based on a typical floor area of 42,200 ft^2 (3,900 m^2), each floor in the tower would have had a weight of approximately, 3,675 kip (16,400 kN), which corresponds to a mass of 114 x 10^3 slugs (1.67 x 10^6 kg.)"
The problem with this estimate is that if 1.67 x 10^6 kg is truly an "average" mass per floor, the mass of one tower is then 110 x 1.67 x 10^6 kg = 184,000 tonnes.
A similar approach to estimating the mass of a tower is used in the recent paper by G. H. Urich in the "Scholars Journal". His estimated mass of a tower is 253,000 metric tons.
However, if you look closely at the column load data given in NIST NCSTAR 1-6D, ~ pages 225 - 230, you will see why the idea of an "average mass" of a WTC floor is not very meaningful. The very massive hat truss is part of the problem.
Hope this helps.....
Hi Neu-fonze,
My paper is actually somewhat different from using an average floor mass. The steel is scaled by 16:1 throughout the building to account for stronger columns (due to higher column loads) lower in the building. This method has generated valid criticism as the floor steel should not be varied.
I have done a rework of the calculation in which each floor is considered individually but many floors are similar except for column mass. The new calculation uses a somewhat different method and is better grounded in the NIST data especially with regard to SDLs. My new mass value is 285,000 tonnes.
I include here images of my spread sheet and a description of the calculation. I would very much appreciate review and comments. They are fairly large images so you may have to click on the "expand" icon in order to be able to read them.
massAndEnergyPart1.jpg
massAndEnergyPart2.jpg
massAndEnergyDesc.jpg
First, take a look at NIST NCSTAR 1-5D, page 43. Here we find one of the few places where NIST gives a simple, direct, estimate of the mass of a WTC tower.
Thus on page 43 we read:
"The average load per unit area (including live and dead loads) of a typical floor was approximately 87 lb/ft^2 (4.17 kN/m^2). Based on a typical floor area of 42,200 ft^2 (3,900 m^2), each floor in the tower would have had a weight of approximately, 3,675 kip (16,400 kN), which corresponds to a mass of 114 x 10^3 slugs (1.67 x 10^6 kg.)"
The problem with this estimate is that if 1.67 x 10^6 kg is truly an "average" mass per floor, the mass of one tower is then 110 x 1.67 x 10^6 kg = 184,000 tonnes.
A similar approach to estimating the mass of a tower is used in the recent paper by G. H. Urich in the "Scholars Journal". His estimated mass of a tower is 253,000 metric tons.
However, if you look closely at the column load data given in NIST NCSTAR 1-6D, ~ pages 225 - 230, you will see why the idea of an "average mass" of a WTC floor is not very meaningful. The very massive hat truss is part of the problem.
Hope this helps.....
Hi Neu-fonze,
My paper is actually somewhat different from using an average floor mass. The steel is scaled by 16:1 throughout the building to account for stronger columns (due to higher column loads) lower in the building. This method has generated valid criticism as the floor steel should not be varied.
I have done a rework of the calculation in which each floor is considered individually but many floors are similar except for column mass. The new calculation uses a somewhat different method and is better grounded in the NIST data especially with regard to SDLs. My new mass value is 285,000 tonnes.
I include here images of my spread sheet and a description of the calculation. I would very much appreciate review and comments. They are fairly large images so you may have to click on the "expand" icon in order to be able to read them.
massAndEnergyPart1.jpg
massAndEnergyPart2.jpg
massAndEnergyDesc.jpg
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 18 2007, 03:08 PM)
If you would actually take the time to try to understand what I am saying you would see that I am not Antagonistic to NIST, Just questioning what I believe are Human errors by Human beings.
Well it MIGHT serve you well to consider these facts:
The SCIENTISTS at NIST know a heck of a lot more about the towers, the planes, the impacts and the fires then you do.
The SCIENTISTS at NIST are FAR MORE educated in the SCIENCES than you are.
YOU are human and YOU can ALSO make mistakes.
So when you make UNSUBSTANTIATED comments like:
I simply believe that NIST missed something critical and that leaving it out makes all the difference in the world
I have found several reactions that ... release enough energy in themselves to make Nist fire tests basically useless in trying to understand the collapse.
there seems to be an energy deficit that Nist Accounted for by fudging the model.
I am still working on Quantifying the data, but it looks like Nist is off by a third
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.
It really DOESN'T reflect poorly on NIST.
Arthur
Well it MIGHT serve you well to consider these facts:
The SCIENTISTS at NIST know a heck of a lot more about the towers, the planes, the impacts and the fires then you do.
The SCIENTISTS at NIST are FAR MORE educated in the SCIENCES than you are.
YOU are human and YOU can ALSO make mistakes.
So when you make UNSUBSTANTIATED comments like:
QUOTE
I simply believe that NIST missed something critical and that leaving it out makes all the difference in the world
I have found several reactions that ... release enough energy in themselves to make Nist fire tests basically useless in trying to understand the collapse.
there seems to be an energy deficit that Nist Accounted for by fudging the model.
I am still working on Quantifying the data, but it looks like Nist is off by a third
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.
It really DOESN'T reflect poorly on NIST.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 18 2007, 02:56 PM)
Thanks CE!
Arthur, you are nicely dancing around my point that NIST did NOT include REAL aircraft materials in its workstation fire tests, but did, so you claim, include the effects of aircraft debris in its model! (One thing I've noticed about the NIST Report is that sometimes NIST talks about its model calculations as if they were the real thing...I find you often have to go back and check on this to be sure when the discussion is about real observations and when we are in virtual reality.)
Anyway, because of the failure of NIST to include aircraft parts in its tests - and I am not just talking about metals but PLASTICS - it appears to me that the NIST model should not have agreed with the tests. Actually to make things worse NIST did not have vinyl floor tiles and vinyl coated wiring in the TRUSS assemblies it tested. Thus the potential Cl corrosion of the floor pans and the localized heating of the truss rods was missed!
The workstation combustion tests gave temperatures that were too low to significantly heat the steel... and the ASTM 119 E tests of the trusses were of no help either, as I have explained .... hence NIST found the need for the AD HOC assumption that the steel got hot because of the loss of thermal protection.
NIST blew it!
NIST got the "right" answer for the "wrong" reason.
There were ~ 200 workstations (or equivilents) per floor.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Sec 3-2 Building Combustibles.
There were 6 to 8 floors on fire and so by far, most workstations would NOT have included combustible aircraft debris.
The addition of the aircraft debris to the model was to INCREASE the combustible load which affects mainly Heat Release Rates, Total Heat Relaese and Rate of Spread.
There is no evidence that any significant quantity of the aluminum airframe combusted.
Modeling of the actual misc combustibles was based on a "Group A Plastic" standard.
Your points about the ASTM tests are SILLY as they were NOT trying to recreate the conditions in the tower (and you know that)
Arthur
Arthur, you are nicely dancing around my point that NIST did NOT include REAL aircraft materials in its workstation fire tests, but did, so you claim, include the effects of aircraft debris in its model! (One thing I've noticed about the NIST Report is that sometimes NIST talks about its model calculations as if they were the real thing...I find you often have to go back and check on this to be sure when the discussion is about real observations and when we are in virtual reality.)
Anyway, because of the failure of NIST to include aircraft parts in its tests - and I am not just talking about metals but PLASTICS - it appears to me that the NIST model should not have agreed with the tests. Actually to make things worse NIST did not have vinyl floor tiles and vinyl coated wiring in the TRUSS assemblies it tested. Thus the potential Cl corrosion of the floor pans and the localized heating of the truss rods was missed!
The workstation combustion tests gave temperatures that were too low to significantly heat the steel... and the ASTM 119 E tests of the trusses were of no help either, as I have explained .... hence NIST found the need for the AD HOC assumption that the steel got hot because of the loss of thermal protection.
NIST blew it!
NIST got the "right" answer for the "wrong" reason.
There were ~ 200 workstations (or equivilents) per floor.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Sec 3-2 Building Combustibles.
There were 6 to 8 floors on fire and so by far, most workstations would NOT have included combustible aircraft debris.
The addition of the aircraft debris to the model was to INCREASE the combustible load which affects mainly Heat Release Rates, Total Heat Relaese and Rate of Spread.
There is no evidence that any significant quantity of the aluminum airframe combusted.
Modeling of the actual misc combustibles was based on a "Group A Plastic" standard.
Your points about the ASTM tests are SILLY as they were NOT trying to recreate the conditions in the tower (and you know that)
Arthur
QUOTE (carterelliott+Jul 18 2007, 01:51 PM)
Did the WTC cleanup (or subsequent processing efforts) make any attempt to separate the aircraft aluminum fragments from the rest of the debris?
Was there a big pile of aluminum left over, or was it all dumped in the same heap as the steel and concrete and ???
(1) Nothing is said about this in any report that I have read, as best I recall.
(2) The steel was handled differently than the other materials. While it seems that everything went to the Fresh Kills landfill site, the structural steel was stacked for recycling. It seems that the trusses went to a local scrap dealer. Everything else became landfill, all 1.2 million tons of it.
Most interesting in the above account, now that you mention it, is that nothing whatsoever is said about the aluminum cladding. There was lots of it. If it survived reasonably intact I should think it well worth recycling...
========
This has proved to be a long, windy, way to say I don't know.
Was there a big pile of aluminum left over, or was it all dumped in the same heap as the steel and concrete and ???
(1) Nothing is said about this in any report that I have read, as best I recall.
(2) The steel was handled differently than the other materials. While it seems that everything went to the Fresh Kills landfill site, the structural steel was stacked for recycling. It seems that the trusses went to a local scrap dealer. Everything else became landfill, all 1.2 million tons of it.
Most interesting in the above account, now that you mention it, is that nothing whatsoever is said about the aluminum cladding. There was lots of it. If it survived reasonably intact I should think it well worth recycling...
========
This has proved to be a long, windy, way to say I don't know.
QUOTE (Hambone+Jul 18 2007, 02:09 PM)
I would very much appreciate review and comments.
What a fine start!
Before going in detail, I have a few questions.
(0) Which tower? WTC 1 was the more massive, with the transmitter room and the antenna tower.
(1) Did you look at the appendix to NCSTAR1-2A, which describes the several different floor types? If so, did you attempt to account for the partially-beamed floors?
(2) In both NCSTAR1--6 and in NCSTAR1--6D there are tables giving the loadings at floor 105 (both towers), floors 93--98 (WTC 1), and floors 78--83 (WTC 2). These latter two are Tables 4--7 and 4--8,, on page 176 (240 ordinal) of NCSTAR1--6D. For WTC 1, floor 105 data is in Table 8--3, page 242 (324 ordinal) of NCSTAR1--6. These will provide some checks on the accuracy of your work. In particular, I do not yet see that you have taken the hat truss into account?
Edited to add: I guess not. Table 8--3 gives the WTC 1 floor 105 loads as 22,519 tonnes, table 8--6 gives the WTC 2 floor 105 loads as 22,112 tonnes, but when I add up the total mass column in your first spreadsheet for floor 105 up to the roof, I obtained 17,563 tonnes.
What a fine start!
Before going in detail, I have a few questions.
(0) Which tower? WTC 1 was the more massive, with the transmitter room and the antenna tower.
(1) Did you look at the appendix to NCSTAR1-2A, which describes the several different floor types? If so, did you attempt to account for the partially-beamed floors?
(2) In both NCSTAR1--6 and in NCSTAR1--6D there are tables giving the loadings at floor 105 (both towers), floors 93--98 (WTC 1), and floors 78--83 (WTC 2). These latter two are Tables 4--7 and 4--8,, on page 176 (240 ordinal) of NCSTAR1--6D. For WTC 1, floor 105 data is in Table 8--3, page 242 (324 ordinal) of NCSTAR1--6. These will provide some checks on the accuracy of your work. In particular, I do not yet see that you have taken the hat truss into account?
Edited to add: I guess not. Table 8--3 gives the WTC 1 floor 105 loads as 22,519 tonnes, table 8--6 gives the WTC 2 floor 105 loads as 22,112 tonnes, but when I add up the total mass column in your first spreadsheet for floor 105 up to the roof, I obtained 17,563 tonnes.
The three stages of a thermobaric explosive seem to describe the slow rising "fireball" exactly. I could be wrong but a fuel air explosion enhanced with metal seems very similar to the thermobaric weapons mentioned in this pdf.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/lud.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/lud.pdf
Arthur:
I have great respect for your knowledge of the NIST Report. You are THE BEST NIST REPORT EXPERT I KNOW!
So I always defer to your knowledge of the NIST Report.
However, having said that, I do find you are too defensive of this document, excellent as it may be.
In my humble opinion, the NIST Report is weak on chemistry...
And, by the way, having worked with nuclear engineers for 25 years, I know engineers are very thick skinned, so I am amazed that you are so sensitive to my claimed "put downs" of engineers - they are done in jest I can assure you.
Arthur, you can put down chemists all you want .... I don't care ... I would probably agree with you. Chemists can be jerks too!
Anyway, let's hope we can maintain some level of healthy dialogue here at PHYSORG, and avoid the ugly rhetoric and innuendo typical of other 9/11 forums such as JREF where controversial views about 9/11 are met with derision and, worse yet, (as I can attest to), censorship.
My present position with regard to the WTC collapse is that:
1. There were no pre-planted explosives in the towers.
2. The NIST Report could be improved by a closer look at the chemistry of the collapse and, if the appropriate research was carried out, I believe the loss of thermal insulation would prove to be a non-issue.
I have great respect for your knowledge of the NIST Report. You are THE BEST NIST REPORT EXPERT I KNOW!
So I always defer to your knowledge of the NIST Report.
However, having said that, I do find you are too defensive of this document, excellent as it may be.
In my humble opinion, the NIST Report is weak on chemistry...
And, by the way, having worked with nuclear engineers for 25 years, I know engineers are very thick skinned, so I am amazed that you are so sensitive to my claimed "put downs" of engineers - they are done in jest I can assure you.
Arthur, you can put down chemists all you want .... I don't care ... I would probably agree with you. Chemists can be jerks too!
Anyway, let's hope we can maintain some level of healthy dialogue here at PHYSORG, and avoid the ugly rhetoric and innuendo typical of other 9/11 forums such as JREF where controversial views about 9/11 are met with derision and, worse yet, (as I can attest to), censorship.
My present position with regard to the WTC collapse is that:
1. There were no pre-planted explosives in the towers.
2. The NIST Report could be improved by a closer look at the chemistry of the collapse and, if the appropriate research was carried out, I believe the loss of thermal insulation would prove to be a non-issue.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 18 2007, 08:49 PM)
While I applaud your efforts, and quietly wish that more people would attempt to conduct serious scientific experiments in their backyards, purely for the purposes of education and enlightenment, here we also have a perfect demonstration of the danger of doing so.
There is, unfortunately no controls on this experiment, allow me to demonstrate what I mean.
If you look at the photo provided, you can see that the pan is rusty. Rust is only ever Iron Oxide.
It's clear to see, that even though it doe snot radiate visible light when molten, the aluminium in this picture is, or has been molten, but it's still shiney, which indicates that it has not yet oxidized. While, under controlled circumstances, and controlled cooling the oxide layer is invisble, this is not always the case - the oxide layer of Aluminium gives it a dull grey apperance. I am willing to concede that the oxide layer may have reformed in it's 'invisible' state by simply allowing it to cool naturally.
The most prominent thing that catches my eye is the fact that the iron pan around the glowing lump of aluminium is also glowing, this suggests a common cause.
I propose that what is happening is this.
The molten aluminium is undergoing a 'controlled' thermite reaction with the iron, and it is this that is causing the iron, and aluminium to glow, rather than the aluminium being oxidized by the air. I call it a controlled thermite reaction, because there would only be a thin film of Iron oxide for the aluminium to react with, but this film should, to some extent renew itself, allowing the reaction to occur at a much slower rate then might ordinarily be observed, while still heating the iron, and aluminium up to the point where it is able to where it is able to glow at that colour.
The pan is not glowing the iron oxide Fe 304 inclusion inside the aluminum is.
Your correct the Aluminum was molten, I melted the aluminum in the pan, then used sound to further heat the aluminum until it reached The point where the iron oxide melted sound waves then triggered the reaction your noticing along with others that is the end of the reaction, the other reactions were to bright to see but you can see if you look the iron spheres they formed.
I kinda figured out how to heat aluminum and react it with oxide inside the aluminum's oxide coating.
PS the pan was also covered in rust Fe 203 but few small thermite sparks were noticed.
However the inclusions of Fe 304 put on quite a good display.
In a larger scale experiment I created a molten ball of Hot burning aluminum traveling at high speed Oxidizing in air, and a mess in my shorts from the shock of the reaction and fact I was to near to it.
I had been around thermite a long time and I had never seen anything like that!
What you misunderstand is I was attempting a controlled sonochemical reaction to see if fe 304 possibly created in the impact could start a larger thermite reaction on fe 203.
I was successful eventually but it would have taken a large Chimney effect to do it. That or contact with running diesel engines.
PS. I have also created Aluminum, Carbon, Iron oxide reactions, and flowing glowing aluminum, similar to that seen in the towers.
The other pictures I showed were aluminum in a high temperature pan, heated in controlled conditions to the melting point then subject to sound, or ultra sound.
Continuous disruption of the oxide layer is all that is necessary to oxidize aluminum in air, even fast motion of molten aluminum can do it.
This was a fun experiment, unforturnately the device always self destructed, melted every time.
There is, unfortunately no controls on this experiment, allow me to demonstrate what I mean.
If you look at the photo provided, you can see that the pan is rusty. Rust is only ever Iron Oxide.
It's clear to see, that even though it doe snot radiate visible light when molten, the aluminium in this picture is, or has been molten, but it's still shiney, which indicates that it has not yet oxidized. While, under controlled circumstances, and controlled cooling the oxide layer is invisble, this is not always the case - the oxide layer of Aluminium gives it a dull grey apperance. I am willing to concede that the oxide layer may have reformed in it's 'invisible' state by simply allowing it to cool naturally.
The most prominent thing that catches my eye is the fact that the iron pan around the glowing lump of aluminium is also glowing, this suggests a common cause.
I propose that what is happening is this.
The molten aluminium is undergoing a 'controlled' thermite reaction with the iron, and it is this that is causing the iron, and aluminium to glow, rather than the aluminium being oxidized by the air. I call it a controlled thermite reaction, because there would only be a thin film of Iron oxide for the aluminium to react with, but this film should, to some extent renew itself, allowing the reaction to occur at a much slower rate then might ordinarily be observed, while still heating the iron, and aluminium up to the point where it is able to where it is able to glow at that colour.
The pan is not glowing the iron oxide Fe 304 inclusion inside the aluminum is.
Your correct the Aluminum was molten, I melted the aluminum in the pan, then used sound to further heat the aluminum until it reached The point where the iron oxide melted sound waves then triggered the reaction your noticing along with others that is the end of the reaction, the other reactions were to bright to see but you can see if you look the iron spheres they formed.
I kinda figured out how to heat aluminum and react it with oxide inside the aluminum's oxide coating.
PS the pan was also covered in rust Fe 203 but few small thermite sparks were noticed.
However the inclusions of Fe 304 put on quite a good display.
In a larger scale experiment I created a molten ball of Hot burning aluminum traveling at high speed Oxidizing in air, and a mess in my shorts from the shock of the reaction and fact I was to near to it.
I had been around thermite a long time and I had never seen anything like that!
What you misunderstand is I was attempting a controlled sonochemical reaction to see if fe 304 possibly created in the impact could start a larger thermite reaction on fe 203.
I was successful eventually but it would have taken a large Chimney effect to do it. That or contact with running diesel engines.
PS. I have also created Aluminum, Carbon, Iron oxide reactions, and flowing glowing aluminum, similar to that seen in the towers.
The other pictures I showed were aluminum in a high temperature pan, heated in controlled conditions to the melting point then subject to sound, or ultra sound.
Continuous disruption of the oxide layer is all that is necessary to oxidize aluminum in air, even fast motion of molten aluminum can do it.
This was a fun experiment, unforturnately the device always self destructed, melted every time.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 18 2007, 08:36 PM)
No I'm not.
Maybe THIS will refresh your memory.
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. [/QUOTE]
The question I asked was simple:
NIST stated how many Gigajoules of energy was given off by the fire.
I asked how much more energy than NIST stated you believed was released by the chemical reactions.
YOUR ANSWER
Chainsaw ==> NIST is OFF BY 1/3.
Since NIST stated 8,500 GJ then you are claiming they were off by 2,500 GJ.
I don't make up YOUR answers.
If you NOW claim that's not what you meant by that, fine, we all make mistakes.
BUT,
Then the problem you have is that a 1/3 increase of the thermal energy released by the jet fuel in the towers at the time of the impact amounts to only 1 GigaWatt and for only ~2 minutes. See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 fig E-2 pg xlvi.
This equates to ~100 GigaJoules of energy
Which is equal to ~ 1% of the energy released by the combustibles.
Arthur
Sorry Arthur I misunderstood the question, I was multi tasking and also a little sick, have been for days on antibiotics, got something while working at Rough River lake.
They are testing me right now for West Nile.
Also you can call me Carroll and it will not confuse DBB.
Cters already know who I am only a few death treats so far though mostly with out a name attached.
Also several crank phone calls, Lyte Tripp published my name and address a long time ago and Cters have shown up on my door step. To complain about me.
I wonder if the one who blockaded my drive way ever got out of the car after I welded the doors shut and towed it to the sheriffs office?
Maybe THIS will refresh your memory.
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. [/QUOTE]
The question I asked was simple:
NIST stated how many Gigajoules of energy was given off by the fire.
I asked how much more energy than NIST stated you believed was released by the chemical reactions.
YOUR ANSWER
Chainsaw ==> NIST is OFF BY 1/3.
Since NIST stated 8,500 GJ then you are claiming they were off by 2,500 GJ.
I don't make up YOUR answers.
If you NOW claim that's not what you meant by that, fine, we all make mistakes.
BUT,
Then the problem you have is that a 1/3 increase of the thermal energy released by the jet fuel in the towers at the time of the impact amounts to only 1 GigaWatt and for only ~2 minutes. See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 fig E-2 pg xlvi.
This equates to ~100 GigaJoules of energy
Which is equal to ~ 1% of the energy released by the combustibles.
Arthur
Sorry Arthur I misunderstood the question, I was multi tasking and also a little sick, have been for days on antibiotics, got something while working at Rough River lake.
They are testing me right now for West Nile.
Also you can call me Carroll and it will not confuse DBB.
Cters already know who I am only a few death treats so far though mostly with out a name attached.
Also several crank phone calls, Lyte Tripp published my name and address a long time ago and Cters have shown up on my door step. To complain about me.
I wonder if the one who blockaded my drive way ever got out of the car after I welded the doors shut and towed it to the sheriffs office?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 18 2007, 09:18 PM)
Well it MIGHT serve you well to consider these facts:
The SCIENTISTS at NIST know a heck of a lot more about the towers, the planes, the impacts and the fires then you do.
The SCIENTISTS at NIST are FAR MORE educated in the SCIENCES than you are.
YOU are human and YOU can ALSO make mistakes.
So when you make UNSUBSTANTIATED comments like:
It really DOESN'T reflect poorly on NIST.
Arthur
I have made a lot of mistakes, I admit I am human never said any different.
I use Nist as a reference, and I have used your knowledge of Nist at times Arthur to enhance what I have been doing.
The reason I am so confused that NIST missed or did not include these reaction is because I have great respect for the Scientist engineers of NIST and the hard work they have done.
However when I went to researching the spheres I found reactions and conditions that just do not fit what NIST is saying, I want to be intellectually honest I have to be, but something just does not add up.
I emailed Nist and got no reply, probably because I like you said have little training. I do however have and open mind, and the need to discover though logical investigation using the Scientific method.
However I guess that means nothing any more!
The SCIENTISTS at NIST know a heck of a lot more about the towers, the planes, the impacts and the fires then you do.
The SCIENTISTS at NIST are FAR MORE educated in the SCIENCES than you are.
YOU are human and YOU can ALSO make mistakes.
So when you make UNSUBSTANTIATED comments like:
It really DOESN'T reflect poorly on NIST.
Arthur
I have made a lot of mistakes, I admit I am human never said any different.
I use Nist as a reference, and I have used your knowledge of Nist at times Arthur to enhance what I have been doing.
The reason I am so confused that NIST missed or did not include these reaction is because I have great respect for the Scientist engineers of NIST and the hard work they have done.
However when I went to researching the spheres I found reactions and conditions that just do not fit what NIST is saying, I want to be intellectually honest I have to be, but something just does not add up.
I emailed Nist and got no reply, probably because I like you said have little training. I do however have and open mind, and the need to discover though logical investigation using the Scientific method.
However I guess that means nothing any more!
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 18 2007, 10:10 PM)
What a fine start!
Before going in detail, I have a few questions.
(0) Which tower? WTC 1 was the more massive, with the transmitter room and the antenna tower.
(1) Did you look at the appendix to NCSTAR1-2A, which describes the several different floor types? If so, did you attempt to account for the partially-beamed floors?
(2) In both NCSTAR1--6 and in NCSTAR1--6D there are tables giving the loadings at floor 105 (both towers), floors 93--98 (WTC 1), and floors 78--83 (WTC 2). These latter two are Tables 4--7 and 4--8,, on page 176 (240 ordinal) of NCSTAR1--6D. For WTC 1, floor 105 data is in Table 8--3, page 242 (324 ordinal) of NCSTAR1--6. These will provide some checks on the accuracy of your work. In particular, I do not yet see that you have taken the hat truss into account?
Edited to add: I guess not. Table 8--3 gives the WTC 1 floor 105 loads as 22,519 tonnes, table 8--6 gives the WTC 2 floor 105 loads as 22,112 tonnes, but when I add up the total mass column in your first spreadsheet for floor 105 up to the roof, I obtained 17,563 tonnes.
Thanks for taking the time. It sounds like you are quite immersed in this.
0. WTC1
1. I haven't looked at the appendix. I'll have to check that out. I do differentiate between two types of heavier floors (being the mechanical floors and the floors above mechanical areas) and normal floors. Mechanical mezzanines are treated as having no floor outside the core. The sublevel floors are treated the same as the heaviest mechanical floors. Floor 1 is somewhat heavier than normal. Floor 2 the lobby mezzanine is treated as a normal floor. Floors 3-6 have no floor outside the core.
2. I have found no detailed data on the actual members included in the hat truss. Nonetheless, I added 20 psf to the steel component of the CDL for the core floors 107-110 which adds approx 470 tons or 80% of the floor steel itself. The floor steel from these floors can support a design live load of approx 3,500 tons. My reasoning was that it was probably overkill to support a 340 tonne antenna but that the frame stiffening aspect would require extra strength. Also, NIST added 20 psf to their model for hat truss members that weren't actually modelled. (Sounds strange huh?)
Before going in detail, I have a few questions.
(0) Which tower? WTC 1 was the more massive, with the transmitter room and the antenna tower.
(1) Did you look at the appendix to NCSTAR1-2A, which describes the several different floor types? If so, did you attempt to account for the partially-beamed floors?
(2) In both NCSTAR1--6 and in NCSTAR1--6D there are tables giving the loadings at floor 105 (both towers), floors 93--98 (WTC 1), and floors 78--83 (WTC 2). These latter two are Tables 4--7 and 4--8,, on page 176 (240 ordinal) of NCSTAR1--6D. For WTC 1, floor 105 data is in Table 8--3, page 242 (324 ordinal) of NCSTAR1--6. These will provide some checks on the accuracy of your work. In particular, I do not yet see that you have taken the hat truss into account?
Edited to add: I guess not. Table 8--3 gives the WTC 1 floor 105 loads as 22,519 tonnes, table 8--6 gives the WTC 2 floor 105 loads as 22,112 tonnes, but when I add up the total mass column in your first spreadsheet for floor 105 up to the roof, I obtained 17,563 tonnes.
Thanks for taking the time. It sounds like you are quite immersed in this.
0. WTC1
1. I haven't looked at the appendix. I'll have to check that out. I do differentiate between two types of heavier floors (being the mechanical floors and the floors above mechanical areas) and normal floors. Mechanical mezzanines are treated as having no floor outside the core. The sublevel floors are treated the same as the heaviest mechanical floors. Floor 1 is somewhat heavier than normal. Floor 2 the lobby mezzanine is treated as a normal floor. Floors 3-6 have no floor outside the core.
2. I have found no detailed data on the actual members included in the hat truss. Nonetheless, I added 20 psf to the steel component of the CDL for the core floors 107-110 which adds approx 470 tons or 80% of the floor steel itself. The floor steel from these floors can support a design live load of approx 3,500 tons. My reasoning was that it was probably overkill to support a 340 tonne antenna but that the frame stiffening aspect would require extra strength. Also, NIST added 20 psf to their model for hat truss members that weren't actually modelled. (Sounds strange huh?)
I do have another objectionto what you're suggesting.
Some of the FEMA images show (or appear to show) people standing in the gash in the side of the building before it collapsed (I think it's south tower, not 100% sure) for the temperatures that you're talking about, the fire should not have abated to that point in the 'short' amount of time involved.
Some of the FEMA images show (or appear to show) people standing in the gash in the side of the building before it collapsed (I think it's south tower, not 100% sure) for the temperatures that you're talking about, the fire should not have abated to that point in the 'short' amount of time involved.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 19 2007, 02:40 AM)
I do have another objectionto what you're suggesting.
Some of the FEMA images show (or appear to show) people standing in the gash in the side of the building before it collapsed (I think it's south tower, not 100% sure) for the temperatures that you're talking about, the fire should not have abated to that point in the 'short' amount of time involved.
Hi Trippy!
About the above. I don't know to whom it was directed, so excuse me if I've butted in there!....but I think what you referred to was almost/about an hour SINCE first impact/fires/processes. And that was also on the wind-side so that the ingress of air there would have reduced local AIR-TEMPS and Infra-Red Radiation to 'momentarily survivable' but still probably 'eventually fatal' burns on the back (witness how burns victims can run for some time before the burn shock and fluid loss downs them).
About our continuing conversation re the Aluminium behaviour etc; please note:
(1) There was totaldamage done to the water riser pipes over all those impact levels (both firefighting and office-use water pipes)....
.........so the initially friction/impact heated aluminium 'fines' (from shredded plane and entrained building cladding) would have reacted with the superheated steam immediately produced by the jet kero-fuel conflagration, and would have added to that initial conflagration somewhat.
(2) That initial jet kero-fuel and metal-fuel conflagration would have driven all sorts of 'atomised particles (of ALL SORTS of organic and metalic compounds/elements) into any micro-gaps/fissures and rubbing/joint contact surfaces and welds and bolts damaged/distorted/cracked/abraded/fissured etc ALREADY by decades of building movements and THEN the plane impact itself......
.........so these 'micro-mixes' would FURTHER react in a myriad of ways depending on what they 'met' and what they 'entrained' in getting 'blasted' into those 'thin end of the wedge' points which could compromise those MARGINALLY' ("last straw broke camel's back" sense) to the extent that it gave more/better 'access' to fissuring/weakening etc STRESSESPROCESSES LATER as the whole event unfolded over the hour to collapse. We are talking 'start' points for further damage process 'fascilitation' here, and NOT 'bulk' damage/weakening per se.
(3) The actual 'possible' aluminium-related reaction possibilities...
-----a----- Aluminium starts to reduce SILICATES (especially GLASS from the windows brought in by the plane, and office lighting/panels, comp-screen etc glasses, and in-plane glass lighting/materials)------>>>
..........and THIS HAPPENS at WELL BELOW MELTING POINT of aluminium. So that's NEXT 'probably immediate' thermite-LIKE reaction.
-----b----- Aluminium combines with incandescant Carbon (soot) to produce Aluminium Carbide....which further reacts later when contacting superheated steam to give ACETYLENE....which latter burns to steam/CO2 and then reacts with more aluminium to produce HYDROGEN and Al2O3 and AlCarbide......which HYDROGEN then meets more incoming/shaft/conduit AIR to burn and heat MORE materials and aluminium etc etc etc.
.......Worth noting that when any of the aluminium met pooled water it reacts EXPLOSIVELY and further compromises whatever oxidised 'film it may have produced....so NO protection at all while the alumin and Water explosions are taking place.....and the STEAM EXPLOSION effects may ADD to that peri-impact SERIES of 'mini-explosions' whose combined effects were 'observed' as a GENERALISED MERGED 'FIREBALL'...the actual 'details' of which were readily overlooked and deemed 'not important' because of the jet-fule blast would have been enough to produce a SIMILAR TYPE/SIZE/DURATION 'fireball'.....and since it would take a LITTLE agitated/separated MASS of reacting aluminium in a BIG POOL of already hot/steaming water to give a steam explosion, the white radiation from that aluminium would NOT be detected AS SUCH....because the oxidation is using some energy to 'dissociate the H2O molecules AND to drive the expansion of steam AND the re-igniting HYDROGEN would have been BLUER and swamped any litt;e white 'specks' here and there....PLUS any INCANDESCENT CARBON (soot) would further swamp the aluminium reaction radiation in all that great expanse/soot.
-----c----- Splattering/flowing Aluminium will react with:
........the 'cracked' and 'porous/lightweight' concrete to steal the Oxygen and Carbon component in the mainly Calcium Carbonate.....
........the DRYWALL sulphate (SO4) component to give Aluminiuum Sulfates/Sulfides...
.......the Nitrogen and Chlorine in AIR/GASES and MATERIALS to give Nitrides/Chlorides.....and THEN go on to further reactions 'downhill' from their as the opportunity presented with air/water/CO2.....
-----d----- Even AFTER the initial and subsequent'reactions/detonations of the 'trali-end' of the first 'fireball', the CONTUINING WATER coming from broken water pipes in the impact levels and above levels would have 'pooled' and DISSOLVED ALL SORTS OF PRODUCTS.....BOTH ACID and ALKALINE and LEWIS-ACID/BASE and CATALYTIC ORGANIC/INORGANIC and CARBONYL (FeCO and etc) which would have created a CAULDRON OF UNCONTROLLED CHEMISTRY ATTACKS ON ANY METALS/CRACKS'GAPS IT FLOWED OVER/INTO....so 'etching' FURTHER 'PREDISPOSING' achilles heels at critical connections/contact syrfaces.....FOR MANY MORE MINUTES after the initial fireball.
SO....these things may have been 'unspectacular' and 'marginal-overall' as to TOTAL ENERGY involved in peri-and-post effects, but thye may have been SIGNIFICANT' facilitators FOR THE LATER DAMAGE THAT THE GREATER FIRES did....and so may have 'expedited' (probably only by ten minutes"...just a guess, so don't 'roast' me, heh!).
Oh, and Trip; Ive noticed you sometimes describe metal/other thermo-dynamic and general chemistry/physical behaviour/properties from 'handbooks' that give details observed/produced under various/ranges/mixes under 'controlled conditions'. It should be first and foremost realised that the QUANTITIES and ENERGIES and area/volumes and possible VIOLENT MIXING and CYCLING of what went on in those towers has as far as I know not been 'seen' nor since 'dupplicated' at that scale and under those plane/aluminium IMPACT and jet fire on MULIPLE LEVELS AT ONCE with NO firefighting and practically NO fireproofing at the impact/fire levels FOR AN HOUR. So no 'straightforward' out-of-the-textbook information PIECEMEAL is going to 'tell' you what was POSSIBLY/REALLY going on in there.
Hence I personally applaud Chainsaw's and NF's researches because I AM CURIOUS TO KNOW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE what went on....PLUS it MAY be critically important for future high-rise steel OR OTHER designs which suffer catastrophic impact damage and fuel explosions over many levels at one, especially if firefighting/proofing and evacuation SYSTEMS are COMPROMISED/NEUTRALISED.
Rushed and a bit short of time for a day or so. That's all I'm going to post here for awhile, mateys! (See ya in the New Theories forums, Trip!)
Cheers al!
RC.
.
Some of the FEMA images show (or appear to show) people standing in the gash in the side of the building before it collapsed (I think it's south tower, not 100% sure) for the temperatures that you're talking about, the fire should not have abated to that point in the 'short' amount of time involved.
Hi Trippy!
About the above. I don't know to whom it was directed, so excuse me if I've butted in there!....but I think what you referred to was almost/about an hour SINCE first impact/fires/processes. And that was also on the wind-side so that the ingress of air there would have reduced local AIR-TEMPS and Infra-Red Radiation to 'momentarily survivable' but still probably 'eventually fatal' burns on the back (witness how burns victims can run for some time before the burn shock and fluid loss downs them).
About our continuing conversation re the Aluminium behaviour etc; please note:
(1) There was totaldamage done to the water riser pipes over all those impact levels (both firefighting and office-use water pipes)....
.........so the initially friction/impact heated aluminium 'fines' (from shredded plane and entrained building cladding) would have reacted with the superheated steam immediately produced by the jet kero-fuel conflagration, and would have added to that initial conflagration somewhat.
(2) That initial jet kero-fuel and metal-fuel conflagration would have driven all sorts of 'atomised particles (of ALL SORTS of organic and metalic compounds/elements) into any micro-gaps/fissures and rubbing/joint contact surfaces and welds and bolts damaged/distorted/cracked/abraded/fissured etc ALREADY by decades of building movements and THEN the plane impact itself......
.........so these 'micro-mixes' would FURTHER react in a myriad of ways depending on what they 'met' and what they 'entrained' in getting 'blasted' into those 'thin end of the wedge' points which could compromise those MARGINALLY' ("last straw broke camel's back" sense) to the extent that it gave more/better 'access' to fissuring/weakening etc STRESSESPROCESSES LATER as the whole event unfolded over the hour to collapse. We are talking 'start' points for further damage process 'fascilitation' here, and NOT 'bulk' damage/weakening per se.
(3) The actual 'possible' aluminium-related reaction possibilities...
-----a----- Aluminium starts to reduce SILICATES (especially GLASS from the windows brought in by the plane, and office lighting/panels, comp-screen etc glasses, and in-plane glass lighting/materials)------>>>
..........and THIS HAPPENS at WELL BELOW MELTING POINT of aluminium. So that's NEXT 'probably immediate' thermite-LIKE reaction.
-----b----- Aluminium combines with incandescant Carbon (soot) to produce Aluminium Carbide....which further reacts later when contacting superheated steam to give ACETYLENE....which latter burns to steam/CO2 and then reacts with more aluminium to produce HYDROGEN and Al2O3 and AlCarbide......which HYDROGEN then meets more incoming/shaft/conduit AIR to burn and heat MORE materials and aluminium etc etc etc.
.......Worth noting that when any of the aluminium met pooled water it reacts EXPLOSIVELY and further compromises whatever oxidised 'film it may have produced....so NO protection at all while the alumin and Water explosions are taking place.....and the STEAM EXPLOSION effects may ADD to that peri-impact SERIES of 'mini-explosions' whose combined effects were 'observed' as a GENERALISED MERGED 'FIREBALL'...the actual 'details' of which were readily overlooked and deemed 'not important' because of the jet-fule blast would have been enough to produce a SIMILAR TYPE/SIZE/DURATION 'fireball'.....and since it would take a LITTLE agitated/separated MASS of reacting aluminium in a BIG POOL of already hot/steaming water to give a steam explosion, the white radiation from that aluminium would NOT be detected AS SUCH....because the oxidation is using some energy to 'dissociate the H2O molecules AND to drive the expansion of steam AND the re-igniting HYDROGEN would have been BLUER and swamped any litt;e white 'specks' here and there....PLUS any INCANDESCENT CARBON (soot) would further swamp the aluminium reaction radiation in all that great expanse/soot.
-----c----- Splattering/flowing Aluminium will react with:
........the 'cracked' and 'porous/lightweight' concrete to steal the Oxygen and Carbon component in the mainly Calcium Carbonate.....
........the DRYWALL sulphate (SO4) component to give Aluminiuum Sulfates/Sulfides...
.......the Nitrogen and Chlorine in AIR/GASES and MATERIALS to give Nitrides/Chlorides.....and THEN go on to further reactions 'downhill' from their as the opportunity presented with air/water/CO2.....
-----d----- Even AFTER the initial and subsequent'reactions/detonations of the 'trali-end' of the first 'fireball', the CONTUINING WATER coming from broken water pipes in the impact levels and above levels would have 'pooled' and DISSOLVED ALL SORTS OF PRODUCTS.....BOTH ACID and ALKALINE and LEWIS-ACID/BASE and CATALYTIC ORGANIC/INORGANIC and CARBONYL (FeCO and etc) which would have created a CAULDRON OF UNCONTROLLED CHEMISTRY ATTACKS ON ANY METALS/CRACKS'GAPS IT FLOWED OVER/INTO....so 'etching' FURTHER 'PREDISPOSING' achilles heels at critical connections/contact syrfaces.....FOR MANY MORE MINUTES after the initial fireball.
SO....these things may have been 'unspectacular' and 'marginal-overall' as to TOTAL ENERGY involved in peri-and-post effects, but thye may have been SIGNIFICANT' facilitators FOR THE LATER DAMAGE THAT THE GREATER FIRES did....and so may have 'expedited' (probably only by ten minutes"...just a guess, so don't 'roast' me, heh!).
Oh, and Trip; Ive noticed you sometimes describe metal/other thermo-dynamic and general chemistry/physical behaviour/properties from 'handbooks' that give details observed/produced under various/ranges/mixes under 'controlled conditions'. It should be first and foremost realised that the QUANTITIES and ENERGIES and area/volumes and possible VIOLENT MIXING and CYCLING of what went on in those towers has as far as I know not been 'seen' nor since 'dupplicated' at that scale and under those plane/aluminium IMPACT and jet fire on MULIPLE LEVELS AT ONCE with NO firefighting and practically NO fireproofing at the impact/fire levels FOR AN HOUR. So no 'straightforward' out-of-the-textbook information PIECEMEAL is going to 'tell' you what was POSSIBLY/REALLY going on in there.
Hence I personally applaud Chainsaw's and NF's researches because I AM CURIOUS TO KNOW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE what went on....PLUS it MAY be critically important for future high-rise steel OR OTHER designs which suffer catastrophic impact damage and fuel explosions over many levels at one, especially if firefighting/proofing and evacuation SYSTEMS are COMPROMISED/NEUTRALISED.
Rushed and a bit short of time for a day or so. That's all I'm going to post here for awhile, mateys! (See ya in the New Theories forums, Trip!)
Cheers al!
RC.
.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 17 2007, 08:22 PM)
If WTC 1 or 2 had diesel backup generators, such would surely be placed in a low sub-basement.
The additional power wiring put in shortly before had leads from WTC 6 to WTC 1. So it is possible that there were backup generators in low basement levels of WTC 6.
However, it was only a short distance to the ConEd station underneath WTC 6, which did have diesel generators. So I currently see no reason for backup generators. The ones in WTC 6 appear to me to be a typical government boondoggle.
To clear up the question of the location of the emergency backup power for the towers, I submit the following :
"While they were working on the security, E-J picked up some other jobs, such as working on the fire-alarm system and setting generators on the top of Tower 5 to feed the Twin Towers with emergency power.
"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."
To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.
"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.
Calabro said E-J is fortunate to have a maintenance contract along with some other jobs for the World Trade Center.
"Security was the original contract that got us in the building and then we were fortunate enough to get these other jobs," Calabro said. "The generator job is up to about $6.5 million right now."
Source: http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...ity_2/index.htm
So four generators set on top of WTC 5 had cable run through the sub-basement level parking garages of WTC I & II and then up to the roof of each tower. Note, this article referenced was published on 1/1/01, well before the attacks occurred. This job was a very substantial project for E-J Electric that provided them with a great financial payoff when completed.
We also have this passage concerning primary and backup power to the twins. This article was published in July 1997:
"We have our primary power source, our emergency diesel generators and our battery packs," says Karpiloff, "but we have something new as well: We've run a power line through the PATH system from New Jersey to New York to use as a backup for electricity. We are the only commercial building in New York City with such a system."
Source: http://securitysolutions.com/mag/security_...nter/index.html
Hopefully this helps to answer some questions for people here concernoing backup power and the location of the generators. WTC 5 was critical in this aspect.
The additional power wiring put in shortly before had leads from WTC 6 to WTC 1. So it is possible that there were backup generators in low basement levels of WTC 6.
However, it was only a short distance to the ConEd station underneath WTC 6, which did have diesel generators. So I currently see no reason for backup generators. The ones in WTC 6 appear to me to be a typical government boondoggle.
To clear up the question of the location of the emergency backup power for the towers, I submit the following :
"While they were working on the security, E-J picked up some other jobs, such as working on the fire-alarm system and setting generators on the top of Tower 5 to feed the Twin Towers with emergency power.
"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."
To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.
"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.
Calabro said E-J is fortunate to have a maintenance contract along with some other jobs for the World Trade Center.
"Security was the original contract that got us in the building and then we were fortunate enough to get these other jobs," Calabro said. "The generator job is up to about $6.5 million right now."
Source: http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...ity_2/index.htm
So four generators set on top of WTC 5 had cable run through the sub-basement level parking garages of WTC I & II and then up to the roof of each tower. Note, this article referenced was published on 1/1/01, well before the attacks occurred. This job was a very substantial project for E-J Electric that provided them with a great financial payoff when completed.
We also have this passage concerning primary and backup power to the twins. This article was published in July 1997:
"We have our primary power source, our emergency diesel generators and our battery packs," says Karpiloff, "but we have something new as well: We've run a power line through the PATH system from New Jersey to New York to use as a backup for electricity. We are the only commercial building in New York City with such a system."
Source: http://securitysolutions.com/mag/security_...nter/index.html
Hopefully this helps to answer some questions for people here concernoing backup power and the location of the generators. WTC 5 was critical in this aspect.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 18 2007, 08:17 PM)
Arthur:
I have great respect for your knowledge of the NIST Report. You are THE BEST NIST REPORT EXPERT I KNOW!
So I always defer to your knowledge of the NIST Report.
However, having said that, I do find you are too defensive of this document, excellent as it may be.
In my humble opinion, the NIST Report is weak on chemistry...
And, by the way, having worked with nuclear engineers for 25 years, I know engineers are very thick skinned, so I am amazed that you are so sensitive to my claimed "put downs" of engineers - they are done in jest I can assure you.
Arthur, you can put down chemists all you want .... I don't care ... I would probably agree with you. Chemists can be jerks too!
Anyway, let's hope we can maintain some level of healthy dialogue here at PHYSORG, and avoid the ugly rhetoric and innuendo typical of other 9/11 forums such as JREF where controversial views about 9/11 are met with derision and, worse yet, (as I can attest to), censorship.
My present position with regard to the WTC collapse is that:
1. There were no pre-planted explosives in the towers.
2. The NIST Report could be improved by a closer look at the chemistry of the collapse and, if the appropriate research was carried out, I believe the loss of thermal insulation would prove to be a non-issue.
Neu,
The NIST report is DONE.
It won't be improved.
They had their periods when they were publishing drafts and taking comments, unfortunately, during this time NONE of these contentious issues came up.
I think that HAD you or others raised questions about the sphericals or the Chemistry than its quite possible that NIST would have at least addressed them or maybe why they DIDN'T go into much detail (they did in some of the later 1-5 chapters, but not on any of the reactions that you and Chainsaw bring up) on the chemistry and how the plane itself may have changed normal fire chemistry.
But no one asked and they didn't address it.
And being a govt agency with a FIXED budget for this project they have apparently closed the books on it.
My view of the NIST report is quite simple. It is an AMAZING document that dissects the buildings, the impacts and the resulting fires in a level of detail and modeling that is extraordinary.
Could they have done more?
Sure, give them another 10 million (just imagine their monthly Run Rate) and I don't doubt they could add a chapter or two on the unique chemistry of the tower fires and another on the impact of the corrosive combustion products on the structure.
But they had a limited budget and clearly focused on the KEY elements.
For example, how much do you think they would have THOUGHT it would have cost to assign a team to figure out what that metal was that was flowing out of WTC 2? My guess is a hundred thou or so. They wrote about the flow and showed pictures of it and described it and how it changed over time, so clearly they were curious about it, but -my guess- they didn't have the money to allocate to a team to do the research to figure it out.
So we got what little they had, a guess that it was molten aluminum.
Turns out, later research done independently on the web, indicates it was more likely molten lead.
So they missed it.
But was it a KEY element?
No
Is it possible though that they missed a KEY element?
Yes, but here's where I draw the line.
NIST clearly tried to focus on the KEY elements and so I object to anyone claiming they missed a key element without proof.
I do KNOW that proof is hard to come by.
Who has the time and resources to attempt even a small FRACTION of what NIST did?
And I know that you and others are probably pissed off that NIST didn't study areas that concern or interest you, but clearly there are bounds to everything.
So its like Christmas, sure you wish for everything, but when you get as much as in the NIST report, we shouldn't really complain that what we DID get was bad when in reality what we are really angry about is what we didn't get.
Frank, I've NEVER doubted for a second that your issues with the NIST report in any way put you in with the CT'er crowd, but likewise I'd appreciate less frivolous "NIST blew it" comments since the CT'er crowd will be quick to send around the internet the out of context statement that: "Dr Frank Greening believes that NIST blew it", See guys, even Dr Greening is now a CTer.
Please remember their are a lot of impressionable people out there who pay attention to what you write.
Now remember that the draft and comment period for the WTC 7 report should be coming up soon.
DON'T miss your chance to ask questions.
Arthur
I have great respect for your knowledge of the NIST Report. You are THE BEST NIST REPORT EXPERT I KNOW!
So I always defer to your knowledge of the NIST Report.
However, having said that, I do find you are too defensive of this document, excellent as it may be.
In my humble opinion, the NIST Report is weak on chemistry...
And, by the way, having worked with nuclear engineers for 25 years, I know engineers are very thick skinned, so I am amazed that you are so sensitive to my claimed "put downs" of engineers - they are done in jest I can assure you.
Arthur, you can put down chemists all you want .... I don't care ... I would probably agree with you. Chemists can be jerks too!
Anyway, let's hope we can maintain some level of healthy dialogue here at PHYSORG, and avoid the ugly rhetoric and innuendo typical of other 9/11 forums such as JREF where controversial views about 9/11 are met with derision and, worse yet, (as I can attest to), censorship.
My present position with regard to the WTC collapse is that:
1. There were no pre-planted explosives in the towers.
2. The NIST Report could be improved by a closer look at the chemistry of the collapse and, if the appropriate research was carried out, I believe the loss of thermal insulation would prove to be a non-issue.
Neu,
The NIST report is DONE.
It won't be improved.
They had their periods when they were publishing drafts and taking comments, unfortunately, during this time NONE of these contentious issues came up.
I think that HAD you or others raised questions about the sphericals or the Chemistry than its quite possible that NIST would have at least addressed them or maybe why they DIDN'T go into much detail (they did in some of the later 1-5 chapters, but not on any of the reactions that you and Chainsaw bring up) on the chemistry and how the plane itself may have changed normal fire chemistry.
But no one asked and they didn't address it.
And being a govt agency with a FIXED budget for this project they have apparently closed the books on it.
My view of the NIST report is quite simple. It is an AMAZING document that dissects the buildings, the impacts and the resulting fires in a level of detail and modeling that is extraordinary.
Could they have done more?
Sure, give them another 10 million (just imagine their monthly Run Rate) and I don't doubt they could add a chapter or two on the unique chemistry of the tower fires and another on the impact of the corrosive combustion products on the structure.
But they had a limited budget and clearly focused on the KEY elements.
For example, how much do you think they would have THOUGHT it would have cost to assign a team to figure out what that metal was that was flowing out of WTC 2? My guess is a hundred thou or so. They wrote about the flow and showed pictures of it and described it and how it changed over time, so clearly they were curious about it, but -my guess- they didn't have the money to allocate to a team to do the research to figure it out.
So we got what little they had, a guess that it was molten aluminum.
Turns out, later research done independently on the web, indicates it was more likely molten lead.
So they missed it.
But was it a KEY element?
No
Is it possible though that they missed a KEY element?
Yes, but here's where I draw the line.
NIST clearly tried to focus on the KEY elements and so I object to anyone claiming they missed a key element without proof.
I do KNOW that proof is hard to come by.
Who has the time and resources to attempt even a small FRACTION of what NIST did?
And I know that you and others are probably pissed off that NIST didn't study areas that concern or interest you, but clearly there are bounds to everything.
So its like Christmas, sure you wish for everything, but when you get as much as in the NIST report, we shouldn't really complain that what we DID get was bad when in reality what we are really angry about is what we didn't get.
Frank, I've NEVER doubted for a second that your issues with the NIST report in any way put you in with the CT'er crowd, but likewise I'd appreciate less frivolous "NIST blew it" comments since the CT'er crowd will be quick to send around the internet the out of context statement that: "Dr Frank Greening believes that NIST blew it", See guys, even Dr Greening is now a CTer.
Please remember their are a lot of impressionable people out there who pay attention to what you write.
Now remember that the draft and comment period for the WTC 7 report should be coming up soon.
DON'T miss your chance to ask questions.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette to NF+Jul 19 2007, 04:50 AM)
Neu,
The NIST report is DONE.
It won't be improved.
They had their periods when they were publishing drafts and taking comments, unfortunately, during this time NONE of these contentious issues came up.
I think that HAD you or others raised questions about the sphericals or the Chemistry than its quite possible that NIST would have at least addressed them or maybe why they DIDN'T go into much detail (they did in some of the later 1-5 chapters, but not on any of the reactions that you and Chainsaw bring up) on the chemistry and how the plane itself may have changed normal fire chemistry.
But no one asked and they didn't address it.
And being a govt agency with a FIXED budget for this project they have apparently closed the books on it.
My view of the NIST report is quite simple. It is an AMAZING document that dissects the buildings, the impacts and the resulting fires in a level of detail and modeling that is extraordinary.
Could they have done more?
Sure, give them another 10 million (just imagine their monthly Run Rate) and I don't doubt they could add a chapter or two on the unique chemistry of the tower fires and another on the impact of the corrosive combustion products on the structure.
But they had a limited budget and clearly focused on the KEY elements.
For example, how much do you think they would have THOUGHT it would have cost to assign a team to figure out what that metal was that was flowing out of WTC 2? My guess is a hundred thou or so. They wrote about the flow and showed pictures of it and described it and how it changed over time, so clearly they were curious about it, but -my guess- they didn't have the money to allocate to a team to do the research to figure it out.
So we got what little they had, a guess that it was molten aluminum.
Turns out, later research done independently on the web, indicates it was more likely molten lead.
So they missed it.
But was it a KEY element?
No
Is it possible though that they missed a KEY element?
Yes, but here's where I draw the line.
NIST clearly tried to focus on the KEY elements and so I object to anyone claiming they missed a key element without proof.
I do KNOW that proof is hard to come by.
Who has the time and resources to attempt even a small FRACTION of what NIST did?
And I know that you and others are probably pissed off that NIST didn't study areas that concern or interest you, but clearly there are bounds to everything.
So its like Christmas, sure you wish for everything, but when you get as much as in the NIST report, we shouldn't really complain that what we DID get was bad when in reality what we are really angry about is what we didn't get.
Frank, I've NEVER doubted for a second that your issues with the NIST report in any way put you in with the CT'er crowd, but likewise I'd appreciate less frivolous "NIST blew it" comments since the CT'er crowd will be quick to send around the internet the out of context statement that: "Dr Frank Greening believes that NIST blew it", See guys, even Dr Greening is now a CTer.
Please remember their are a lot of impressionable people out there who pay attention to what you write.
Now remember that the draft and comment period for the WTC 7 report should be coming up soon.
DON'T miss your chance to ask questions.
Arthur
Hehehe. You're so right about 'twisting' by Cters, adoucette!
Just see how a few posts back newton tried to imply that these 'detailed' discussions about NATURAL plane/building material processes/fires were somehow talking of his CTer 'demo' processes! hehehe.
If CTers twist NATURAL PROCESS discussions into 'un-natural' ones, what will they do with 'careless phrases'?
I agree with adoucette here Chaps, let's be more circumspect about disparaging comments that WILL FOR CERTAIN be twisted out of context by 'unscrupulous' T-SHIRT sellers for the sheep-masses, hehehe.
BUT CONTINUE the researches, guys....I'm fascinated with the results so far!
Prudent language though....everyone!
RC.
.
The NIST report is DONE.
It won't be improved.
They had their periods when they were publishing drafts and taking comments, unfortunately, during this time NONE of these contentious issues came up.
I think that HAD you or others raised questions about the sphericals or the Chemistry than its quite possible that NIST would have at least addressed them or maybe why they DIDN'T go into much detail (they did in some of the later 1-5 chapters, but not on any of the reactions that you and Chainsaw bring up) on the chemistry and how the plane itself may have changed normal fire chemistry.
But no one asked and they didn't address it.
And being a govt agency with a FIXED budget for this project they have apparently closed the books on it.
My view of the NIST report is quite simple. It is an AMAZING document that dissects the buildings, the impacts and the resulting fires in a level of detail and modeling that is extraordinary.
Could they have done more?
Sure, give them another 10 million (just imagine their monthly Run Rate) and I don't doubt they could add a chapter or two on the unique chemistry of the tower fires and another on the impact of the corrosive combustion products on the structure.
But they had a limited budget and clearly focused on the KEY elements.
For example, how much do you think they would have THOUGHT it would have cost to assign a team to figure out what that metal was that was flowing out of WTC 2? My guess is a hundred thou or so. They wrote about the flow and showed pictures of it and described it and how it changed over time, so clearly they were curious about it, but -my guess- they didn't have the money to allocate to a team to do the research to figure it out.
So we got what little they had, a guess that it was molten aluminum.
Turns out, later research done independently on the web, indicates it was more likely molten lead.
So they missed it.
But was it a KEY element?
No
Is it possible though that they missed a KEY element?
Yes, but here's where I draw the line.
NIST clearly tried to focus on the KEY elements and so I object to anyone claiming they missed a key element without proof.
I do KNOW that proof is hard to come by.
Who has the time and resources to attempt even a small FRACTION of what NIST did?
And I know that you and others are probably pissed off that NIST didn't study areas that concern or interest you, but clearly there are bounds to everything.
So its like Christmas, sure you wish for everything, but when you get as much as in the NIST report, we shouldn't really complain that what we DID get was bad when in reality what we are really angry about is what we didn't get.
Frank, I've NEVER doubted for a second that your issues with the NIST report in any way put you in with the CT'er crowd, but likewise I'd appreciate less frivolous "NIST blew it" comments since the CT'er crowd will be quick to send around the internet the out of context statement that: "Dr Frank Greening believes that NIST blew it", See guys, even Dr Greening is now a CTer.
Please remember their are a lot of impressionable people out there who pay attention to what you write.
Now remember that the draft and comment period for the WTC 7 report should be coming up soon.
DON'T miss your chance to ask questions.
Arthur
Hehehe. You're so right about 'twisting' by Cters, adoucette!
Just see how a few posts back newton tried to imply that these 'detailed' discussions about NATURAL plane/building material processes/fires were somehow talking of his CTer 'demo' processes! hehehe.
If CTers twist NATURAL PROCESS discussions into 'un-natural' ones, what will they do with 'careless phrases'?
I agree with adoucette here Chaps, let's be more circumspect about disparaging comments that WILL FOR CERTAIN be twisted out of context by 'unscrupulous' T-SHIRT sellers for the sheep-masses, hehehe.
BUT CONTINUE the researches, guys....I'm fascinated with the results so far!
Prudent language though....everyone!
RC.
.
QUOTE (carterelliott+Jul 18 2007, 08:51 PM)
Did the WTC cleanup (or subsequent processing efforts) make any attempt to separate the aircraft aluminum fragments from the rest of the debris?
Was there a big pile of aluminum left over, or was it all dumped in the same heap as the steel and concrete and ???
Was there a big pile of aluminum left over, or was it all dumped in the same heap as the steel and concrete and ???
I imagine since the aluminum elements of the buildings weren't considered structurally significant, they were probably quickly processed for recycling.
At the time of the WTC collapses, a well organized building disaster investigation body was not in place to adequately insure an ideal collection of material evidence. This realized shortcoming led to the creation of the National Construction Safety Team. Like the NTSB does for transportation disasters, the NCST quickly mobilizes to ensure an efficient, thorough investigation occurs with major building disasters. Had such an organization existed on 9/11, the mechanics of the collapses would be much better understood.
The data collection systems, or Black Boxes, used by the NTSB in transportation accidents, could also be placed into buildings to allow building investigators to better assess failure modes. Just think of the loss of debate in this forum alone that would have resulted from such a system.
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session5/5Couch.pdf
At the time of the WTC collapses, a well organized building disaster investigation body was not in place to adequately insure an ideal collection of material evidence. This realized shortcoming led to the creation of the National Construction Safety Team. Like the NTSB does for transportation disasters, the NCST quickly mobilizes to ensure an efficient, thorough investigation occurs with major building disasters. Had such an organization existed on 9/11, the mechanics of the collapses would be much better understood.
The data collection systems, or Black Boxes, used by the NTSB in transportation accidents, could also be placed into buildings to allow building investigators to better assess failure modes. Just think of the loss of debate in this forum alone that would have resulted from such a system.
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session5/5Couch.pdf
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 19 2007, 04:25 PM)
Hi Trippy!
About the above. I don't know to whom it was directed, so excuse me if I've butted in there!....but I think what you referred to was almost/about an hour SINCE first impact/fires/processes. And that was also on the wind-side so that the ingress of air there would have reduced local AIR-TEMPS and Infra-Red Radiation to 'momentarily survivable' but still probably 'eventually fatal' burns on the back (witness how burns victims can run for some time before the burn shock and fluid loss downs them).
About our continuing conversation re the Aluminium behaviour etc; please note:
(1) There was totaldamage done to the water riser pipes over all those impact levels (both firefighting and office-use water pipes)....
.........so the initially friction/impact heated aluminium 'fines' (from shredded plane and entrained building cladding) would have reacted with the superheated steam immediately produced by the jet kero-fuel conflagration, and would have added to that initial conflagration somewhat.
(2) That initial jet kero-fuel and metal-fuel conflagration would have driven all sorts of 'atomised particles (of ALL SORTS of organic and metalic compounds/elements) into any micro-gaps/fissures and rubbing/joint contact surfaces and welds and bolts damaged/distorted/cracked/abraded/fissured etc ALREADY by decades of building movements and THEN the plane impact itself......
.........so these 'micro-mixes' would FURTHER react in a myriad of ways depending on what they 'met' and what they 'entrained' in getting 'blasted' into those 'thin end of the wedge' points which could compromise those MARGINALLY' ("last straw broke camel's back" sense) to the extent that it gave more/better 'access' to fissuring/weakening etc STRESSESPROCESSES LATER as the whole event unfolded over the hour to collapse. We are talking 'start' points for further damage process 'fascilitation' here, and NOT 'bulk' damage/weakening per se.
(3) The actual 'possible' aluminium-related reaction possibilities...
-----a----- Aluminium starts to reduce SILICATES (especially GLASS from the windows brought in by the plane, and office lighting/panels, comp-screen etc glasses, and in-plane glass lighting/materials)------>>>
..........and THIS HAPPENS at WELL BELOW MELTING POINT of aluminium. So that's NEXT 'probably immediate' thermite-LIKE reaction.
-----b----- Aluminium combines with incandescant Carbon (soot) to produce Aluminium Carbide....which further reacts later when contacting superheated steam to give ACETYLENE....which latter burns to steam/CO2 and then reacts with more aluminium to produce HYDROGEN and Al2O3 and AlCarbide......which HYDROGEN then meets more incoming/shaft/conduit AIR to burn and heat MORE materials and aluminium etc etc etc.
.......Worth noting that when any of the aluminium met pooled water it reacts EXPLOSIVELY and further compromises whatever oxidised 'film it may have produced....so NO protection at all while the alumin and Water explosions are taking place.....and the STEAM EXPLOSION effects may ADD to that peri-impact SERIES of 'mini-explosions' whose combined effects were 'observed' as a GENERALISED MERGED 'FIREBALL'...the actual 'details' of which were readily overlooked and deemed 'not important' because of the jet-fule blast would have been enough to produce a SIMILAR TYPE/SIZE/DURATION 'fireball'.....and since it would take a LITTLE agitated/separated MASS of reacting aluminium in a BIG POOL of already hot/steaming water to give a steam explosion, the white radiation from that aluminium would NOT be detected AS SUCH....because the oxidation is using some energy to 'dissociate the H2O molecules AND to drive the expansion of steam AND the re-igniting HYDROGEN would have been BLUER and swamped any litt;e white 'specks' here and there....PLUS any INCANDESCENT CARBON (soot) would further swamp the aluminium reaction radiation in all that great expanse/soot.
-----c----- Splattering/flowing Aluminium will react with:
........the 'cracked' and 'porous/lightweight' concrete to steal the Oxygen and Carbon component in the mainly Calcium Carbonate.....
........the DRYWALL sulphate (SO4) component to give Aluminiuum Sulfates/Sulfides...
.......the Nitrogen and Chlorine in AIR/GASES and MATERIALS to give Nitrides/Chlorides.....and THEN go on to further reactions 'downhill' from their as the opportunity presented with air/water/CO2.....
-----d----- Even AFTER the initial and subsequent'reactions/detonations of the 'trali-end' of the first 'fireball', the CONTUINING WATER coming from broken water pipes in the impact levels and above levels would have 'pooled' and DISSOLVED ALL SORTS OF PRODUCTS.....BOTH ACID and ALKALINE and LEWIS-ACID/BASE and CATALYTIC ORGANIC/INORGANIC and CARBONYL (FeCO and etc) which would have created a CAULDRON OF UNCONTROLLED CHEMISTRY ATTACKS ON ANY METALS/CRACKS'GAPS IT FLOWED OVER/INTO....so 'etching' FURTHER 'PREDISPOSING' achilles heels at critical connections/contact syrfaces.....FOR MANY MORE MINUTES after the initial fireball.
SO....these things may have been 'unspectacular' and 'marginal-overall' as to TOTAL ENERGY involved in peri-and-post effects, but thye may have been SIGNIFICANT' facilitators FOR THE LATER DAMAGE THAT THE GREATER FIRES did....and so may have 'expedited' (probably only by ten minutes"...just a guess, so don't 'roast' me, heh!).
Oh, and Trip; Ive noticed you sometimes describe metal/other thermo-dynamic and general chemistry/physical behaviour/properties from 'handbooks' that give details observed/produced under various/ranges/mixes under 'controlled conditions'. It should be first and foremost realised that the QUANTITIES and ENERGIES and area/volumes and possible VIOLENT MIXING and CYCLING of what went on in those towers has as far as I know not been 'seen' nor since 'dupplicated' at that scale and under those plane/aluminium IMPACT and jet fire on MULIPLE LEVELS AT ONCE with NO firefighting and practically NO fireproofing at the impact/fire levels FOR AN HOUR. So no 'straightforward' out-of-the-textbook information PIECEMEAL is going to 'tell' you what was POSSIBLY/REALLY going on in there.
Hence I personally applaud Chainsaw's and NF's researches because I AM CURIOUS TO KNOW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE what went on....PLUS it MAY be critically important for future high-rise steel OR OTHER designs which suffer catastrophic impact damage and fuel explosions over many levels at one, especially if firefighting/proofing and evacuation SYSTEMS are COMPROMISED/NEUTRALISED.
Rushed and a bit short of time for a day or so. That's all I'm going to post here for awhile, mateys! (See ya in the New Theories forums, Trip!)
Cheers al!
RC.
And suddenly my motivation for trying to discuss this, and inject some 'rationality' into the conversation.
Once again, YOU RC are heading, once again, down the road of "You've been indoctrinated into the cult of science, you only know the textbooks, therefore everything you know is wrong", and frankly it's bugging the heck out of me.
The fact that I may be able to quote things chapter and verse from textbooks is a reflection of the depth of my understanding of chemistry and chemical processes.
My intrest is in APPLIED chemistry, not PURE chemistry, as you seem to be implying.
The fact that I have in my lap while I type this the course material for the postgrad paper I am doing this semester that deals with things such as chemical weapons of mass destruction, and how to deal with them should they be released into the environment should tell you something.
I have been discussing things in this thread in GOOD FAITH.
Right now, you are showing very BAD FAITH RC, and I am NOT impressed.
Once again, you are demonstrating that you are unwilling to listen to someone who actually knows what they're talking about on the subject, apparently preferring to believe whatever is convenient.
First point: You are, and have been adovacting Furnace like conditions in the floors, the heat held in the steel and the concrete of the walls and floor doesn't simply 'vanish' the hot air doesn't simply vanish, it doesn't work that way. You can't invoke furnace like conditions for part of the scenario, and then have them 'vanish' when it's convenient. The comment in relation to the photo is that it was taken between the impact and the collapse, and it was taken early, rather then late in the footage. Also, it's in the first tower to stand, which survived 55 minutes between the impact and collapse.
Second point: Close inspection of the impact footage reveals three flashes when the aircraft strikes the cladding, the three flashes are when the three densest parts of the aircraft strike the cladding. These flashes are the Al powder generated by the impact igniting.
Third point: Heating due to friction would be extremely localized, and it's obvious from the footage that the plane did not (appear) to slow down significantly as it entered the building, so it's fairly safe to assume that most of the impact energy would have been released in the impacts with the central columns.
Fourth point: Combustion of Hydrocarbons does not release super heated steam, it releases water in the gas phase. Steam is water in the liquid phase (in very small droplets). This is why it's possible to superheat it, and before you go and try and contradict this point, take a careful look at pictures of steam being vented at Geothermal plants, there is a space between the steam and the nozzle, in this space, water exists in the gas phase.
Fifth point: I don't have the data at my fingertips right at this instant, and to be honest, given the responses I have received, I'm feeling far from motivated to go and look it up, but you're assigning much higher explosion velocities to the fireball then 1. Are generally observed in comparable fireballs, and 2. Were observed in this particular fireball.
Sixth point: Did I, or did I not explicitly state, or at least imply in one of my posts to chainsaw about his experiments that there is/was the posibility for small scale localized thermite reactions.
Seventh point: I'm aware of the reactions between Aluminium and Silicates.
Eighth point: I'm feeling to lazy to go and look up the thermochemical data on Aluminium carbide and it's reactions, I may do it later, but there's something that seems not quite right about what you've said in that respect - but i'm not able to put my finger on it right now.
Ninth point: Most of what you say about the Carbon or what ever swamping any light or effects from whatever explosions, is, IMO, bogus. One of the aircraft effectively occupied a corner of the building, some fragments even exited IIRC, this means that all of the effects that you are claiming should have been noticable, but, nothing.
10th point: I'm not sure how to address what you 'claim' wrt the splattering/flowing Aluminium, again, there's something in there that strikes me as being wrong, but i can't quite put my finger on it.
11th point: I don't think that the aqueous processes you're talking about are as important as you seem to think they are. Agaom, there seems to me to be something inherently wrong with some of those things, but I can'r put my finger on it.
Question.
Where's the information? It's not that hard to find. Take the PVC discussion, what use is all this discussion about HCl, if you don't know how fast it's generated, and you don't know how much was generated.
I've already pointed out some of the potential problems with the experiments chainsaw's doing, and I get criticized for doing this? What's the deal with that? How is Chainsaw supposed to conduct better experiments to prove his point my reliably and more emphaticaly, if nobody points out the (potential) problems in his experiments? (Or anyone elses experiments). You know? You're so quick to jump on the 'thinking outside the box' bandwagon that you manage to completely overlook the simple, obvious truths.
And you overlook the obvious questions:
Why is it that the tower that took the most glancing blow fell first?
Why is it that the tower with the shortest lived fires fell first?
I can offer explanations for both of those without invoking exotic chemistry, but, if the fire was responsible, then the other tower should have collapsed first. It really is that simple.
I have other observations I can offer, but I find myself asking it is really worth it? Because so far, nobody (except maybe Arthur, and one or two others) actually seems interested in having a seriouse and rational discussion.
Oh, and one other thing.
I was talking to a Fireman with twenty+ years experience in the service who has dealt first hand with Metal fires.
It's his recollection that they used water to cool molten aluminium without any explosions or mishaps, so...
I was talking to a Fireman with twenty+ years experience in the service who has dealt first hand with Metal fires.
It's his recollection that they used water to cool molten aluminium without any explosions or mishaps, so...
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 19 2007, 02:40 AM)
I do have another objectionto what you're suggesting.
Some of the FEMA images show (or appear to show) people standing in the gash in the side of the building before it collapsed (I think it's south tower, not 100% sure) for the temperatures that you're talking about, the fire should not have abated to that point in the 'short' amount of time involved.
Actually the expansion and oxidation rate of all the elements inside the buildings would have increased, so the fires actually burn the fuel faster, and since the planes impacts drive the combustibles away from the opening, it pulls in cool air and is in fact probably the only place a person could survive had they come down one of the stair ways to the impact zone.
As Arthur has pointed out, hot gasses flow upward not down.
Some of the FEMA images show (or appear to show) people standing in the gash in the side of the building before it collapsed (I think it's south tower, not 100% sure) for the temperatures that you're talking about, the fire should not have abated to that point in the 'short' amount of time involved.
Actually the expansion and oxidation rate of all the elements inside the buildings would have increased, so the fires actually burn the fuel faster, and since the planes impacts drive the combustibles away from the opening, it pulls in cool air and is in fact probably the only place a person could survive had they come down one of the stair ways to the impact zone.
As Arthur has pointed out, hot gasses flow upward not down.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 19 2007, 11:23 AM)
Oh, and one other thing.
I was talking to a Fireman with twenty+ years experience in the service who has dealt first hand with Metal fires.
It's his recollection that they used water to cool molten aluminium without any explosions or mishaps, so...
Of course, you can cool Molten aluminum with water, however drop aluminum though a grating place above the water line in a pan of water and you could loose an arm to the hydrogen reaction created.
That is what Dr. Steven Jones did not understand, he sprayed Aluminum with high pressure water in a furnace and got no reaction, so he said the claims of hydrogen reactions from aluminum were false.
I proved that wrong and lost my eye brows.
Spraying molten aluminum with water cools the aluminum below the oxide layer reinforcing the oxide layer, as long as the oxide layer remains intact it is possible but one crack in the oxide layer can quickly lead to a very big and energetic boom.
I was talking to a Fireman with twenty+ years experience in the service who has dealt first hand with Metal fires.
It's his recollection that they used water to cool molten aluminium without any explosions or mishaps, so...
Of course, you can cool Molten aluminum with water, however drop aluminum though a grating place above the water line in a pan of water and you could loose an arm to the hydrogen reaction created.
That is what Dr. Steven Jones did not understand, he sprayed Aluminum with high pressure water in a furnace and got no reaction, so he said the claims of hydrogen reactions from aluminum were false.
I proved that wrong and lost my eye brows.
Spraying molten aluminum with water cools the aluminum below the oxide layer reinforcing the oxide layer, as long as the oxide layer remains intact it is possible but one crack in the oxide layer can quickly lead to a very big and energetic boom.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 18 2007, 09:33 PM)
The reason I am so confused that NIST missed or did not include these reaction is because I have great respect for the Scientist engineers of NIST and the hard work they have done.
However when I went to researching the spheres I found reactions and conditions that just do not fit what NIST is saying, I want to be intellectually honest I have to be, but something just does not add up.
I emailed Nist and got no reply, probably because I like you said have little training. I do however have and open mind, and the need to discover though logical investigation using the Scientific method.
However I guess that means nothing any more!
Please, continue with your experiments. I find your willingness to put ideas to the test very commendable, just, as I said before, do so safely.
I will say that I have learned, that when I'm working in an area where I'm not an expert and I find something that APPEARS to contradict the experts in the field that it is usually not the experts who are wrong.
Keep this in mind when you compare what you find out with what the experts in the field say. Its NOT that the experts can't be wrong, its just that they aren't that often, and particularly on KEY aspects of their specialty.
For example, lets say you are right and the thermal energy released at impact from chemical reactions was 1/3 greater than NIST thought, that STILL wouldn't make NIST's overall conclusions wrong, since that would still be so little of the total energy released during the fires.
Still, even if additional chemical energy may not significantly affect the overall conclusions that NIST arrived at, it COULD explain things like the spericals, so by all means, continue your investigation into the chemical nature of the fires. But DO try to start quantifying the amount of energy released and then compare it to the 8,500 GJ of energy that was released by the fire before assuming you have found a source of additional energy large enough to affect NIST's conclusions.
As an aside, I think that the reason many people underestimate the sheer magnitude of the fires is because of the scale of the buildings. One floor of the WTC had an area ~ equal to the playing area of a football field and was loaded with over 125,000 lbs of combustible material. Imagine fires raging on 6 or so of those huge floors and you start to get the idea of how massive the WTC fires were.
Consider what 8,500 Gigajoules of energy from the fires represents. Its equal to ALL the energy (and then some) that two LARGE Nuclear power plants could produce over the same time the fire was burning.
So the point is, unless you come up with an energy source GREATER than ~800 Gigajoules, then it would easily fit within the error bars of NIST's Impact models, Fire Dynamics Simulator and the Fire Structure Interface.
So IF you DID find an unaccounted for energy source even half that size, even though it wouldn't invalidate NIST, it WOULD be an exciting find, and might very well help explain some of the mysteries that still remain, so by all means keep looking, experimenting and questioning.
All I ask is that you don't PRESUME to have found that NIST made a significant error, or "fudged the model" etc without presenting quantifiable evidence to support that position.
Arthur
However when I went to researching the spheres I found reactions and conditions that just do not fit what NIST is saying, I want to be intellectually honest I have to be, but something just does not add up.
I emailed Nist and got no reply, probably because I like you said have little training. I do however have and open mind, and the need to discover though logical investigation using the Scientific method.
However I guess that means nothing any more!
Please, continue with your experiments. I find your willingness to put ideas to the test very commendable, just, as I said before, do so safely.
I will say that I have learned, that when I'm working in an area where I'm not an expert and I find something that APPEARS to contradict the experts in the field that it is usually not the experts who are wrong.
Keep this in mind when you compare what you find out with what the experts in the field say. Its NOT that the experts can't be wrong, its just that they aren't that often, and particularly on KEY aspects of their specialty.
For example, lets say you are right and the thermal energy released at impact from chemical reactions was 1/3 greater than NIST thought, that STILL wouldn't make NIST's overall conclusions wrong, since that would still be so little of the total energy released during the fires.
Still, even if additional chemical energy may not significantly affect the overall conclusions that NIST arrived at, it COULD explain things like the spericals, so by all means, continue your investigation into the chemical nature of the fires. But DO try to start quantifying the amount of energy released and then compare it to the 8,500 GJ of energy that was released by the fire before assuming you have found a source of additional energy large enough to affect NIST's conclusions.
As an aside, I think that the reason many people underestimate the sheer magnitude of the fires is because of the scale of the buildings. One floor of the WTC had an area ~ equal to the playing area of a football field and was loaded with over 125,000 lbs of combustible material. Imagine fires raging on 6 or so of those huge floors and you start to get the idea of how massive the WTC fires were.
Consider what 8,500 Gigajoules of energy from the fires represents. Its equal to ALL the energy (and then some) that two LARGE Nuclear power plants could produce over the same time the fire was burning.
So the point is, unless you come up with an energy source GREATER than ~800 Gigajoules, then it would easily fit within the error bars of NIST's Impact models, Fire Dynamics Simulator and the Fire Structure Interface.
So IF you DID find an unaccounted for energy source even half that size, even though it wouldn't invalidate NIST, it WOULD be an exciting find, and might very well help explain some of the mysteries that still remain, so by all means keep looking, experimenting and questioning.
All I ask is that you don't PRESUME to have found that NIST made a significant error, or "fudged the model" etc without presenting quantifiable evidence to support that position.
Arthur
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 19 2007, 09:05 AM)
And suddenly my motivation for trying to discuss this, and inject some 'rationality' into the conversation.
Once again, YOU RC are heading, once again, down the road of "You've been indoctrinated into the cult of science, you only know the textbooks, therefore everything you know is wrong", and frankly it's bugging the heck out of me.
The fact that I may be able to quote things chapter and verse from textbooks is a reflection of the depth of my understanding of chemistry and chemical processes.
My intrest is in APPLIED chemistry, not PURE chemistry, as you seem to be implying.
The fact that I have in my lap while I type this the course material for the postgrad paper I am doing this semester that deals with things such as chemical weapons of mass destruction, and how to deal with them should they be released into the environment should tell you something.
I have been discussing things in this thread in GOOD FAITH.
Right now, you are showing very BAD FAITH RC, and I am NOT impressed.
Once again, you are demonstrating that you are unwilling to listen to someone who actually knows what they're talking about on the subject, apparently preferring to believe whatever is convenient.
First point: You are, and have been adovacting Furnace like conditions in the floors, the heat held in the steel and the concrete of the walls and floor doesn't simply 'vanish' the hot air doesn't simply vanish, it doesn't work that way. You can't invoke furnace like conditions for part of the scenario, and then have them 'vanish' when it's convenient. The comment in relation to the photo is that it was taken between the impact and the collapse, and it was taken early, rather then late in the footage. Also, it's in the first tower to stand, which survived 55 minutes between the impact and collapse.
Second point: Close inspection of the impact footage reveals three flashes when the aircraft strikes the cladding, the three flashes are when the three densest parts of the aircraft strike the cladding. These flashes are the Al powder generated by the impact igniting.
Third point: Heating due to friction would be extremely localized, and it's obvious from the footage that the plane did not (appear) to slow down significantly as it entered the building, so it's fairly safe to assume that most of the impact energy would have been released in the impacts with the central columns.
Fourth point: Combustion of Hydrocarbons does not release super heated steam, it releases water in the gas phase. Steam is water in the liquid phase (in very small droplets). This is why it's possible to superheat it, and before you go and try and contradict this point, take a careful look at pictures of steam being vented at Geothermal plants, there is a space between the steam and the nozzle, in this space, water exists in the gas phase.
Fifth point: I don't have the data at my fingertips right at this instant, and to be honest, given the responses I have received, I'm feeling far from motivated to go and look it up, but you're assigning much higher explosion velocities to the fireball then 1. Are generally observed in comparable fireballs, and 2. Were observed in this particular fireball.
Sixth point: Did I, or did I not explicitly state, or at least imply in one of my posts to chainsaw about his experiments that there is/was the posibility for small scale localized thermite reactions.
Seventh point: I'm aware of the reactions between Aluminium and Silicates.
Eighth point: I'm feeling to lazy to go and look up the thermochemical data on Aluminium carbide and it's reactions, I may do it later, but there's something that seems not quite right about what you've said in that respect - but i'm not able to put my finger on it right now.
Ninth point: Most of what you say about the Carbon or what ever swamping any light or effects from whatever explosions, is, IMO, bogus. One of the aircraft effectively occupied a corner of the building, some fragments even exited IIRC, this means that all of the effects that you are claiming should have been noticable, but, nothing.
10th point: I'm not sure how to address what you 'claim' wrt the splattering/flowing Aluminium, again, there's something in there that strikes me as being wrong, but i can't quite put my finger on it.
11th point: I don't think that the aqueous processes you're talking about are as important as you seem to think they are. Agaom, there seems to me to be something inherently wrong with some of those things, but I can'r put my finger on it.
Question.
Where's the information? It's not that hard to find. Take the PVC discussion, what use is all this discussion about HCl, if you don't know how fast it's generated, and you don't know how much was generated.
I've already pointed out some of the potential problems with the experiments chainsaw's doing, and I get criticized for doing this? What's the deal with that? How is Chainsaw supposed to conduct better experiments to prove his point my reliably and more emphaticaly, if nobody points out the (potential) problems in his experiments? (Or anyone elses experiments). You know? You're so quick to jump on the 'thinking outside the box' bandwagon that you manage to completely overlook the simple, obvious truths.
And you overlook the obvious questions:
Why is it that the tower that took the most glancing blow fell first?
Why is it that the tower with the shortest lived fires fell first?
I can offer explanations for both of those without invoking exotic chemistry, but, if the fire was responsible, then the other tower should have collapsed first. It really is that simple.
I have other observations I can offer, but I find myself asking it is really worth it? Because so far, nobody (except maybe Arthur, and one or two others) actually seems interested in having a seriouse and rational discussion.
Trippy calm down, you proposed problems with an experiment that you did not understand I was not critizing you, You simply did not know what the objective of the experiment was.
You believed it was a thermite spark, which it was but it was inside the oxide layer from an inclusion of Fe 304. not from the rust on the skillet but from a planned event with in the oxide layer.
The other pictures were of Aluminum oxidizing because of wave action induced by sound disrupting the bonds of the oxide on the Aluminum.
As for water in the gas phase, it is still reactive to metals, it is still H2O.
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/o.../om9810504.html
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4630...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
In fact the best reactant possible is a recycling hydrogen flame, trapped under a layer of steel.
I also need to point out that the part of the plane you mentioned was near a window and not engulfed in a fireball soot or smoke.
To claim it negates anything is bogus in itself.
First point: You are, and have been adovacting Furnace like conditions in the floors, the heat held in the steel and the concrete of the walls and floor doesn't simply 'vanish' the hot air doesn't simply vanish, it doesn't work that way. You can't invoke furnace like conditions for part of the scenario, and then have them 'vanish' when it's convenient. The comment in relation to the photo is that it was taken between the impact and the collapse, and it was taken early, rather then late in the footage. Also, it's in the first tower to stand, which survived 55 minutes between the impact and collapse.
Than Trippy I should point out that the conditions would not be evident much past the initial impact other than on the underside of the upper floor where heat dissipation in air would occur.
BY your statement I should be fried when ever I use my cutting torch, my oxygen lance, or perform experiments like this.
The experiment involved compressed air blown though a torch head, onto steel with a burning piece of Cannel Coal under it. The compressed air, heated the coal to the point that the steel itself burned, resulting in hot iron oxide reacting with the carbon in the coal and all the intense heat and sparking.
It is the same process that creates steel in the first place from Iron ore.
Once again, YOU RC are heading, once again, down the road of "You've been indoctrinated into the cult of science, you only know the textbooks, therefore everything you know is wrong", and frankly it's bugging the heck out of me.
The fact that I may be able to quote things chapter and verse from textbooks is a reflection of the depth of my understanding of chemistry and chemical processes.
My intrest is in APPLIED chemistry, not PURE chemistry, as you seem to be implying.
The fact that I have in my lap while I type this the course material for the postgrad paper I am doing this semester that deals with things such as chemical weapons of mass destruction, and how to deal with them should they be released into the environment should tell you something.
I have been discussing things in this thread in GOOD FAITH.
Right now, you are showing very BAD FAITH RC, and I am NOT impressed.
Once again, you are demonstrating that you are unwilling to listen to someone who actually knows what they're talking about on the subject, apparently preferring to believe whatever is convenient.
First point: You are, and have been adovacting Furnace like conditions in the floors, the heat held in the steel and the concrete of the walls and floor doesn't simply 'vanish' the hot air doesn't simply vanish, it doesn't work that way. You can't invoke furnace like conditions for part of the scenario, and then have them 'vanish' when it's convenient. The comment in relation to the photo is that it was taken between the impact and the collapse, and it was taken early, rather then late in the footage. Also, it's in the first tower to stand, which survived 55 minutes between the impact and collapse.
Second point: Close inspection of the impact footage reveals three flashes when the aircraft strikes the cladding, the three flashes are when the three densest parts of the aircraft strike the cladding. These flashes are the Al powder generated by the impact igniting.
Third point: Heating due to friction would be extremely localized, and it's obvious from the footage that the plane did not (appear) to slow down significantly as it entered the building, so it's fairly safe to assume that most of the impact energy would have been released in the impacts with the central columns.
Fourth point: Combustion of Hydrocarbons does not release super heated steam, it releases water in the gas phase. Steam is water in the liquid phase (in very small droplets). This is why it's possible to superheat it, and before you go and try and contradict this point, take a careful look at pictures of steam being vented at Geothermal plants, there is a space between the steam and the nozzle, in this space, water exists in the gas phase.
Fifth point: I don't have the data at my fingertips right at this instant, and to be honest, given the responses I have received, I'm feeling far from motivated to go and look it up, but you're assigning much higher explosion velocities to the fireball then 1. Are generally observed in comparable fireballs, and 2. Were observed in this particular fireball.
Sixth point: Did I, or did I not explicitly state, or at least imply in one of my posts to chainsaw about his experiments that there is/was the posibility for small scale localized thermite reactions.
Seventh point: I'm aware of the reactions between Aluminium and Silicates.
Eighth point: I'm feeling to lazy to go and look up the thermochemical data on Aluminium carbide and it's reactions, I may do it later, but there's something that seems not quite right about what you've said in that respect - but i'm not able to put my finger on it right now.
Ninth point: Most of what you say about the Carbon or what ever swamping any light or effects from whatever explosions, is, IMO, bogus. One of the aircraft effectively occupied a corner of the building, some fragments even exited IIRC, this means that all of the effects that you are claiming should have been noticable, but, nothing.
10th point: I'm not sure how to address what you 'claim' wrt the splattering/flowing Aluminium, again, there's something in there that strikes me as being wrong, but i can't quite put my finger on it.
11th point: I don't think that the aqueous processes you're talking about are as important as you seem to think they are. Agaom, there seems to me to be something inherently wrong with some of those things, but I can'r put my finger on it.
Question.
Where's the information? It's not that hard to find. Take the PVC discussion, what use is all this discussion about HCl, if you don't know how fast it's generated, and you don't know how much was generated.
I've already pointed out some of the potential problems with the experiments chainsaw's doing, and I get criticized for doing this? What's the deal with that? How is Chainsaw supposed to conduct better experiments to prove his point my reliably and more emphaticaly, if nobody points out the (potential) problems in his experiments? (Or anyone elses experiments). You know? You're so quick to jump on the 'thinking outside the box' bandwagon that you manage to completely overlook the simple, obvious truths.
And you overlook the obvious questions:
Why is it that the tower that took the most glancing blow fell first?
Why is it that the tower with the shortest lived fires fell first?
I can offer explanations for both of those without invoking exotic chemistry, but, if the fire was responsible, then the other tower should have collapsed first. It really is that simple.
I have other observations I can offer, but I find myself asking it is really worth it? Because so far, nobody (except maybe Arthur, and one or two others) actually seems interested in having a seriouse and rational discussion.
Trippy calm down, you proposed problems with an experiment that you did not understand I was not critizing you, You simply did not know what the objective of the experiment was.
You believed it was a thermite spark, which it was but it was inside the oxide layer from an inclusion of Fe 304. not from the rust on the skillet but from a planned event with in the oxide layer.
The other pictures were of Aluminum oxidizing because of wave action induced by sound disrupting the bonds of the oxide on the Aluminum.
As for water in the gas phase, it is still reactive to metals, it is still H2O.
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/o.../om9810504.html
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4630...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
In fact the best reactant possible is a recycling hydrogen flame, trapped under a layer of steel.
I also need to point out that the part of the plane you mentioned was near a window and not engulfed in a fireball soot or smoke.
To claim it negates anything is bogus in itself.
QUOTE
Ninth point: Most of what you say about the Carbon or what ever swamping any light or effects from whatever explosions, is, IMO, bogus. One of the aircraft effectively occupied a corner of the building, some fragments even exited IIRC, this means that all of the effects that you are claiming should have been noticable, but, nothing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ninth point: Most of what you say about the Carbon or what ever swamping any light or effects from whatever explosions, is, IMO, bogus. One of the aircraft effectively occupied a corner of the building, some fragments even exited IIRC, this means that all of the effects that you are claiming should have been noticable, but, nothing. |
First point: You are, and have been adovacting Furnace like conditions in the floors, the heat held in the steel and the concrete of the walls and floor doesn't simply 'vanish' the hot air doesn't simply vanish, it doesn't work that way. You can't invoke furnace like conditions for part of the scenario, and then have them 'vanish' when it's convenient. The comment in relation to the photo is that it was taken between the impact and the collapse, and it was taken early, rather then late in the footage. Also, it's in the first tower to stand, which survived 55 minutes between the impact and collapse.
Than Trippy I should point out that the conditions would not be evident much past the initial impact other than on the underside of the upper floor where heat dissipation in air would occur.
BY your statement I should be fried when ever I use my cutting torch, my oxygen lance, or perform experiments like this.
The experiment involved compressed air blown though a torch head, onto steel with a burning piece of Cannel Coal under it. The compressed air, heated the coal to the point that the steel itself burned, resulting in hot iron oxide reacting with the carbon in the coal and all the intense heat and sparking.
It is the same process that creates steel in the first place from Iron ore.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 19 2007, 02:17 PM)
Please, continue with your experiments. I find your willingness to put ideas to the test very commendable, just, as I said before, do so safely.
I will say that I have learned, that when I'm working in an area where I'm not an expert and I find something that APPEARS to contradict the experts in the field that it is usually not the experts who are wrong.
Keep this in mind when you compare what you find out with what the experts in the field say. Its NOT that the experts can't be wrong, its just that they aren't that often, and particularly on KEY aspects of their specialty.
For example, lets say you are right and the thermal energy released at impact from chemical reactions was 1/3 greater than NIST thought, that STILL wouldn't make NIST's overall conclusions wrong, since that would still be so little of the total energy released during the fires.
Still, even if additional chemical energy may not significantly affect the overall conclusions that NIST arrived at, it COULD explain things like the spericals, so by all means, continue your investigation into the chemical nature of the fires. But DO try to start quantifying the amount of energy released and then compare it to the 8,500 GJ of energy that was released by the fire before assuming you have found a source of additional energy large enough to affect NIST's conclusions.
As an aside, I think that the reason many people underestimate the sheer magnitude of the fires is because of the scale of the buildings. One floor of the WTC had an area ~ equal to the playing area of a football field and was loaded with over 125,000 lbs of combustible material. Imagine fires raging on 6 or so of those huge floors and you start to get the idea of how massive the WTC fires were.
Consider what 8,500 Gigajoules of energy from the fires represents. Its equal to ALL the energy (and then some) that two LARGE Nuclear power plants could produce over the same time the fire was burning.
So the point is, unless you come up with an energy source GREATER than ~800 Gigajoules, then it would easily fit within the error bars of NIST's Impact models, Fire Dynamics Simulator and the Fire Structure Interface.
So IF you DID find an unaccounted for energy source even half that size, even though it wouldn't invalidate NIST, it WOULD be an exciting find, and might very well help explain some of the mysteries that still remain, so by all means keep looking, experimenting and questioning.
All I ask is that you don't PRESUME to have found that NIST made a significant error, or "fudged the model" etc without presenting quantifiable evidence to support that position.
Arthur
The problem Arthur is I am getting to many reactions to fast with just a small added amount of energy in the impacts.
It is a very complex situation I do the large scale experiments then I have to break everything down into small scale tests so I can figure out what is happening.
A small change in impact energy generates a higher reaction rate and even more energy release in localized areas, such as the area of the buildings that Frank is referring too.
All the data from Nist, matches except at the first stages of the impact, and the later post collapse for which NIST gave no data.
Every expert I have contacted has said the same thing Read the NIST report, I have that is the problem.
I do not doubt that there are experts that know more than I do, one of them is Frank.
I just can not reconcile what they are telling me with what actually occurs, and with the physical evidence of the spiracles that Dr. Jones found.
What I have found is if the fire proofing was degraded to the point that NIST Claims the towers should have fallen even sooner than they did.
Like Frank I think that the fire proofing was not degraded to the degree claimed, I think the buildings would have fallen eventually anyway do to other Natural causes. Right conclusion, wrong method to collapse.
It is backed up by physical evidence that NIST did not address such as the burned cars and the sustained heating in the rubble piles.
I have also received input from PHDs. that work at the local Aluminum plant as metallurgists, and they are confirming much of what I have addressed here, they however do not want to comment publicly because of the 9/11 controversy and they do not want to risk being thought of as contributing to the Cters.
After all I do live near a town built on the Aluminum industry.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-95...maining-20.html
I must also note that the experiments that have made me puzzled were conducted after the comment period had ended on the NIST report, so it was impossible for me to comment on something that I had not yet discovered, just as it was impossible for Frank to comment on his research for the same reason.
The experiments also Show why the core failed first, much Like RC. is explaining, and the whole thing could have been easily over looked.
I do not believe any more than 1/5th the total mass of the airplane was consumed in the impact, however that leads to a significant increase in thermal energy especially when the plane impacts the core, and thousands of super hot micro projectiles reflecting upward and downward though the elevator shafts.
I also note that the micro particles would do some damage to the fire proofing, but I am unsure how much they should simply pass though it.
I just feel that even though NIST is complete, that scientific research and discovery must continue.
I will say that I have learned, that when I'm working in an area where I'm not an expert and I find something that APPEARS to contradict the experts in the field that it is usually not the experts who are wrong.
Keep this in mind when you compare what you find out with what the experts in the field say. Its NOT that the experts can't be wrong, its just that they aren't that often, and particularly on KEY aspects of their specialty.
For example, lets say you are right and the thermal energy released at impact from chemical reactions was 1/3 greater than NIST thought, that STILL wouldn't make NIST's overall conclusions wrong, since that would still be so little of the total energy released during the fires.
Still, even if additional chemical energy may not significantly affect the overall conclusions that NIST arrived at, it COULD explain things like the spericals, so by all means, continue your investigation into the chemical nature of the fires. But DO try to start quantifying the amount of energy released and then compare it to the 8,500 GJ of energy that was released by the fire before assuming you have found a source of additional energy large enough to affect NIST's conclusions.
As an aside, I think that the reason many people underestimate the sheer magnitude of the fires is because of the scale of the buildings. One floor of the WTC had an area ~ equal to the playing area of a football field and was loaded with over 125,000 lbs of combustible material. Imagine fires raging on 6 or so of those huge floors and you start to get the idea of how massive the WTC fires were.
Consider what 8,500 Gigajoules of energy from the fires represents. Its equal to ALL the energy (and then some) that two LARGE Nuclear power plants could produce over the same time the fire was burning.
So the point is, unless you come up with an energy source GREATER than ~800 Gigajoules, then it would easily fit within the error bars of NIST's Impact models, Fire Dynamics Simulator and the Fire Structure Interface.
So IF you DID find an unaccounted for energy source even half that size, even though it wouldn't invalidate NIST, it WOULD be an exciting find, and might very well help explain some of the mysteries that still remain, so by all means keep looking, experimenting and questioning.
All I ask is that you don't PRESUME to have found that NIST made a significant error, or "fudged the model" etc without presenting quantifiable evidence to support that position.
Arthur
The problem Arthur is I am getting to many reactions to fast with just a small added amount of energy in the impacts.
It is a very complex situation I do the large scale experiments then I have to break everything down into small scale tests so I can figure out what is happening.
A small change in impact energy generates a higher reaction rate and even more energy release in localized areas, such as the area of the buildings that Frank is referring too.
All the data from Nist, matches except at the first stages of the impact, and the later post collapse for which NIST gave no data.
Every expert I have contacted has said the same thing Read the NIST report, I have that is the problem.
I do not doubt that there are experts that know more than I do, one of them is Frank.
I just can not reconcile what they are telling me with what actually occurs, and with the physical evidence of the spiracles that Dr. Jones found.
What I have found is if the fire proofing was degraded to the point that NIST Claims the towers should have fallen even sooner than they did.
Like Frank I think that the fire proofing was not degraded to the degree claimed, I think the buildings would have fallen eventually anyway do to other Natural causes. Right conclusion, wrong method to collapse.
It is backed up by physical evidence that NIST did not address such as the burned cars and the sustained heating in the rubble piles.
I have also received input from PHDs. that work at the local Aluminum plant as metallurgists, and they are confirming much of what I have addressed here, they however do not want to comment publicly because of the 9/11 controversy and they do not want to risk being thought of as contributing to the Cters.
After all I do live near a town built on the Aluminum industry.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-95...maining-20.html
I must also note that the experiments that have made me puzzled were conducted after the comment period had ended on the NIST report, so it was impossible for me to comment on something that I had not yet discovered, just as it was impossible for Frank to comment on his research for the same reason.
The experiments also Show why the core failed first, much Like RC. is explaining, and the whole thing could have been easily over looked.
I do not believe any more than 1/5th the total mass of the airplane was consumed in the impact, however that leads to a significant increase in thermal energy especially when the plane impacts the core, and thousands of super hot micro projectiles reflecting upward and downward though the elevator shafts.
I also note that the micro particles would do some damage to the fire proofing, but I am unsure how much they should simply pass though it.
I just feel that even though NIST is complete, that scientific research and discovery must continue.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+)
What I have found is if the fire proofing was degraded to the point that NIST Claims the towers should have fallen even sooner than they did.
Keep in mind that that is the same thing NIST found. Their models were "hot" in that either they over-estimated the amount of fire-proofing that was degraded or they over estimated the amount of heat that was released (or a bit of both), because the models reached the point of collapse a bit faster than the actual towers did.
BUT, NIST was not trying to find a set of input parameters to their model that would EXACTLY match the temporal behavior of the towers. The models were used to ILLUSTRATE the LIKELY DAMAGE to the interior structure from the plane crash, the LIKELY growth, spread and intensity of the ensuing fires and then the most likely overall BEHAVIOR of the main structural components of the towers under the impact/fire conditions.
The MOST accurate model compared to reality was the first few hundreths of a second after the INITIAL impact, the model then becomes less and less accurate as TIME goes on. Its easy to see how just varying the speed of the plane a bit, the angle of impact a bit etc causes quite a significant variation in results. From that point on, the various model's error bands can ONLY expand.
Which is why the NIST scientists say they are dealing with the most PROBABLE scenario for the collapse. Consider that NIST is aware that ALL their model results have fairly large margins of error.
Now, back to your claim:
Specifically:
How much additional energy have you found?
What was the source of this additional energy?
Over what time frame was this energy released?
How much sooner do you estimate that each of the towers would have fallen when using NIST's estimate of SFRM damage and your estimate of additional energy?
Arthur
Keep in mind that that is the same thing NIST found. Their models were "hot" in that either they over-estimated the amount of fire-proofing that was degraded or they over estimated the amount of heat that was released (or a bit of both), because the models reached the point of collapse a bit faster than the actual towers did.
BUT, NIST was not trying to find a set of input parameters to their model that would EXACTLY match the temporal behavior of the towers. The models were used to ILLUSTRATE the LIKELY DAMAGE to the interior structure from the plane crash, the LIKELY growth, spread and intensity of the ensuing fires and then the most likely overall BEHAVIOR of the main structural components of the towers under the impact/fire conditions.
The MOST accurate model compared to reality was the first few hundreths of a second after the INITIAL impact, the model then becomes less and less accurate as TIME goes on. Its easy to see how just varying the speed of the plane a bit, the angle of impact a bit etc causes quite a significant variation in results. From that point on, the various model's error bands can ONLY expand.
Which is why the NIST scientists say they are dealing with the most PROBABLE scenario for the collapse. Consider that NIST is aware that ALL their model results have fairly large margins of error.
Now, back to your claim:
Specifically:
How much additional energy have you found?
What was the source of this additional energy?
Over what time frame was this energy released?
How much sooner do you estimate that each of the towers would have fallen when using NIST's estimate of SFRM damage and your estimate of additional energy?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 19 2007, 03:45 PM)
QUOTE (Chainsaw+)
What I have found is if the fire proofing was degraded to the point that NIST Claims the towers should have fallen even sooner than they did.
Keep in mind that that is the same thing NIST found. Their models were "hot" in that either they over-estimated the amount of fire-proofing that was degraded or they over estimated the amount of heat that was released (or a bit of both), because the models reached the point of collapse a bit faster than the actual towers did.
BUT, NIST was not trying to find a set of input parameters to their model that would EXACTLY match the temporal behavior of the towers. The models were used to ILLUSTRATE the LIKELY DAMAGE to the interior structure from the plane crash, the LIKELY growth, spread and intensity of the ensuing fires and then the most likely overall BEHAVIOR of the main structural components of the towers under the impact/fire conditions.
The MOST accurate model compared to reality was the first few hundreths of a second after the INITIAL impact, the model then becomes less and less accurate as TIME goes on. Its easy to see how just varying the speed of the plane a bit, the angle of impact a bit etc causes quite a significant variation in results. From that point on, the various model's error bands can ONLY expand.
Which is why the NIST scientists say they are dealing with the most PROBABLE scenario for the collapse. Consider that NIST is aware that ALL their model results have fairly large margins of error.
Now, back to your claim:
Specifically:
How much additional energy have you found?
What was the source of this additional energy?
Over what time frame was this energy released?
How much sooner do you estimate that each of the towers would have fallen when using NIST's estimate of SFRM damage and your estimate of additional energy?
Arthur
Well as you said the initial impact energy of one third, equals ~100GJ I think however that is low for the thermal energy released by one fifth the planes aluminum, if more than one Fourth Oxidized, you would have a white super hot cloud as you indicated from what I have seen Carbon is good at absorbing the light a perfect black body radiation source, and Hydrocarbons vaporize faster absorbing heat as well this reduces the visible white light by absorbing it. The metal you refereed to as burning in the fire is near a window so that would be more noticeable.
I believe the energy would be closer to 3 GJ
That is not much but is enough to start and catalyze Neu's reaction, which reaches 50 GJ on the most effected area, the trusses, Other Reactions caused by Neu's reaction, such as reactions Catalyzed because of Aluminum Chloride and Chloride metal reactions would lead to an additional 20-30 Gj, Hydrogen reactions are hard to Quantify but could have added an additional 20 Gj.
So were looking at possibly and I must say Possibly 100-120 GJ of added energy, on the most effected areas, which would lead to about a 10- 20 minute error given Nists degree of fire proofing loss.
That might be within the error margin, of NIST, in fact I believe it is, the point is the fire proofing may not have had to have been degraded as much to cause the collapse.
One of the things that puzzled me about the NIST report is why it was so hot, they used video and other evidence to create the model, and with the fire proofing removed it was too hot.
The metals contain far more energy per weight than the Carbon based fuels, just most people believe they would always exhibit white light when burning, what I have found is,
One, the light can be absorbed and masked out.
Two, They can oxidize slowly over a large surface area and produce a gradual release that is still significant.
Three, They can recycle other compounds such as hydrogen that burns with an almost UN noticeable flame.
Just because you can not see a metal burning white does not mean it is not adding additional energy to the flame, a hydrogen flame is simply H20 in a low energy plasma form. It can react on metal surfaces, or inside of hollow metal tubes especially steel.
It think if I keep working on this even more energy can be found but the reactions are so hard to quantify, that it takes a long time to work them out. It is not something that is easy because every time I look I find something else that complicates the reactions such as the carbon-Iron-oxide reaction that could have provided more heat by recycling the oxygen from Neu's reaction.
I know it could have added aditional heat and probably the most additional heat, but I am finding it almost impossible to Quantify.
I wish that people as you say who are more trained, and smarter than I would look into these, However no one wishes to waste time on them or on Sept 11/2001, since the NIST report is complete.
I just wanted to find the source of the spheres, and I stumbled on to all this by accident, Like you I thought that they could be made simply by melting and that proved not to be the case, they are a result other reactions.
Its easy to see how just varying the speed of the plane a bit, the angle of impact a bit etc causes quite a significant variation in results.
Please note that these are two characteristics of *chaotic systems*, a point I tried to make in my first posts on this topic, some time back. (Maybe you'll remember my comment about how few fires look "boxy".)
It's a fundamental problem when attempting to characterize a chaotic system using linear assumptions.
Keep in mind that that is the same thing NIST found. Their models were "hot" in that either they over-estimated the amount of fire-proofing that was degraded or they over estimated the amount of heat that was released (or a bit of both), because the models reached the point of collapse a bit faster than the actual towers did.
BUT, NIST was not trying to find a set of input parameters to their model that would EXACTLY match the temporal behavior of the towers. The models were used to ILLUSTRATE the LIKELY DAMAGE to the interior structure from the plane crash, the LIKELY growth, spread and intensity of the ensuing fires and then the most likely overall BEHAVIOR of the main structural components of the towers under the impact/fire conditions.
The MOST accurate model compared to reality was the first few hundreths of a second after the INITIAL impact, the model then becomes less and less accurate as TIME goes on. Its easy to see how just varying the speed of the plane a bit, the angle of impact a bit etc causes quite a significant variation in results. From that point on, the various model's error bands can ONLY expand.
Which is why the NIST scientists say they are dealing with the most PROBABLE scenario for the collapse. Consider that NIST is aware that ALL their model results have fairly large margins of error.
Now, back to your claim:
Specifically:
How much additional energy have you found?
What was the source of this additional energy?
Over what time frame was this energy released?
How much sooner do you estimate that each of the towers would have fallen when using NIST's estimate of SFRM damage and your estimate of additional energy?
Arthur
Well as you said the initial impact energy of one third, equals ~100GJ I think however that is low for the thermal energy released by one fifth the planes aluminum, if more than one Fourth Oxidized, you would have a white super hot cloud as you indicated from what I have seen Carbon is good at absorbing the light a perfect black body radiation source, and Hydrocarbons vaporize faster absorbing heat as well this reduces the visible white light by absorbing it. The metal you refereed to as burning in the fire is near a window so that would be more noticeable.
I believe the energy would be closer to 3 GJ
That is not much but is enough to start and catalyze Neu's reaction, which reaches 50 GJ on the most effected area, the trusses, Other Reactions caused by Neu's reaction, such as reactions Catalyzed because of Aluminum Chloride and Chloride metal reactions would lead to an additional 20-30 Gj, Hydrogen reactions are hard to Quantify but could have added an additional 20 Gj.
So were looking at possibly and I must say Possibly 100-120 GJ of added energy, on the most effected areas, which would lead to about a 10- 20 minute error given Nists degree of fire proofing loss.
That might be within the error margin, of NIST, in fact I believe it is, the point is the fire proofing may not have had to have been degraded as much to cause the collapse.
One of the things that puzzled me about the NIST report is why it was so hot, they used video and other evidence to create the model, and with the fire proofing removed it was too hot.
The metals contain far more energy per weight than the Carbon based fuels, just most people believe they would always exhibit white light when burning, what I have found is,
One, the light can be absorbed and masked out.
Two, They can oxidize slowly over a large surface area and produce a gradual release that is still significant.
Three, They can recycle other compounds such as hydrogen that burns with an almost UN noticeable flame.
Just because you can not see a metal burning white does not mean it is not adding additional energy to the flame, a hydrogen flame is simply H20 in a low energy plasma form. It can react on metal surfaces, or inside of hollow metal tubes especially steel.
It think if I keep working on this even more energy can be found but the reactions are so hard to quantify, that it takes a long time to work them out. It is not something that is easy because every time I look I find something else that complicates the reactions such as the carbon-Iron-oxide reaction that could have provided more heat by recycling the oxygen from Neu's reaction.
I know it could have added aditional heat and probably the most additional heat, but I am finding it almost impossible to Quantify.
I wish that people as you say who are more trained, and smarter than I would look into these, However no one wishes to waste time on them or on Sept 11/2001, since the NIST report is complete.
I just wanted to find the source of the spheres, and I stumbled on to all this by accident, Like you I thought that they could be made simply by melting and that proved not to be the case, they are a result other reactions.
QUOTE
A small change in impact energy generates a higher reaction rate and even more energy release in localized areas, such as the area of the buildings that Frank is referring too.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A small change in impact energy generates a higher reaction rate and even more energy release in localized areas, such as the area of the buildings that Frank is referring too. |
Its easy to see how just varying the speed of the plane a bit, the angle of impact a bit etc causes quite a significant variation in results.
Please note that these are two characteristics of *chaotic systems*, a point I tried to make in my first posts on this topic, some time back. (Maybe you'll remember my comment about how few fires look "boxy".)
It's a fundamental problem when attempting to characterize a chaotic system using linear assumptions.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 19 2007, 01:28 PM)
So were looking at possibly and I must say Possibly 100-120 GJ of added energy, on the most effected areas, which would lead to about a 10- 20 minute error given Nists degree of fire proofing loss.
That might be within the error margin, of NIST, in fact I believe it is, the point is the fire proofing may not have had to have been degraded as much to cause the collapse.
Except even 120 GJ is only 1.4% of the total energy released by normal combustion, so even if this energy had 5 times the effect on the structure as the energy released by the fire, it STILL would probably not alter the timeline by even 10 minutes.
So my point would be, if one was to assume you are right about the additional energy, it would have an insignificant impact on the timeline.
If you were to assume you are right about the additional energy and you further assumed the energy had a five-fold impact on the structural elements of the tower, it STILL would not have a significant impact on the timeline or the NIST conclusions.
On the other hand, IF you can substantiate the claims that there was this much additional chemical energy released during the event then it might explain some of the chemical features you are researching.
Arthur
That might be within the error margin, of NIST, in fact I believe it is, the point is the fire proofing may not have had to have been degraded as much to cause the collapse.
Except even 120 GJ is only 1.4% of the total energy released by normal combustion, so even if this energy had 5 times the effect on the structure as the energy released by the fire, it STILL would probably not alter the timeline by even 10 minutes.
So my point would be, if one was to assume you are right about the additional energy, it would have an insignificant impact on the timeline.
If you were to assume you are right about the additional energy and you further assumed the energy had a five-fold impact on the structural elements of the tower, it STILL would not have a significant impact on the timeline or the NIST conclusions.
On the other hand, IF you can substantiate the claims that there was this much additional chemical energy released during the event then it might explain some of the chemical features you are researching.
Arthur
Arthur/Chainsaw:
Here is a simple calculation that illustrates the difference between generalized heating of a building vs. localized heating of a structure within the building:
Let's assume the fire in a WTC tower released 8000 GJ of heat and, (being very generous), also assume that ALL this heat was absorbed by the upper 15 floors having a total mass of 50,000 tonnes. In addition let's assume that the average heat capacity, Cp, of the building's structural materials was 1000 J/kg. The resultant temperature increase, Delta(T), is given by:
Delta(T) = [Total Heat Released] / [Mass x Cp]
= 8 x 10^12 / [50,000,000 x 1000] = 160 deg C
Now consider the case of 50 GJ of chemical reaction heat being delivered directly to the steel in the truss assemblies on one floor. The heat capacity of iron is about 500 J/kg and we shall take the mass of steel in the trusses on one floor as 75 tonnes. In this case:
Delta(T) = 50 x 10^9 / [75,000 x 500] = 1333 deg C
These numbers are, of course, very approximate but they do show that a little bit of LOCALIZED heating is much more effective than GENERALIZED heating and could easily heat a single building component to a temperature sufficient to melt steel.
Here is a simple calculation that illustrates the difference between generalized heating of a building vs. localized heating of a structure within the building:
Let's assume the fire in a WTC tower released 8000 GJ of heat and, (being very generous), also assume that ALL this heat was absorbed by the upper 15 floors having a total mass of 50,000 tonnes. In addition let's assume that the average heat capacity, Cp, of the building's structural materials was 1000 J/kg. The resultant temperature increase, Delta(T), is given by:
Delta(T) = [Total Heat Released] / [Mass x Cp]
= 8 x 10^12 / [50,000,000 x 1000] = 160 deg C
Now consider the case of 50 GJ of chemical reaction heat being delivered directly to the steel in the truss assemblies on one floor. The heat capacity of iron is about 500 J/kg and we shall take the mass of steel in the trusses on one floor as 75 tonnes. In this case:
Delta(T) = 50 x 10^9 / [75,000 x 500] = 1333 deg C
These numbers are, of course, very approximate but they do show that a little bit of LOCALIZED heating is much more effective than GENERALIZED heating and could easily heat a single building component to a temperature sufficient to melt steel.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 19 2007, 05:52 PM)
Except even 120 GJ is only 1.4% of the total energy released by normal combustion, so even if this energy had 5 times the effect on the structure as the energy released by the fire, it STILL would probably not alter the timeline by even 10 minutes.
So my point would be, if one was to assume you are right about the additional energy, it would have an insignificant impact on the timeline.
If you were to assume you are right about the additional energy and you further assumed the energy had a five-fold impact on the structural elements of the tower, it STILL would not have a significant impact on the timeline or the NIST conclusions.
On the other hand, IF you can substantiate the claims that there was this much additional chemical energy released during the event then it might explain some of the chemical features you are researching.
Arthur
That is the entire point, also the chemical reactions themselves also weaken and thin the trusses leading to a faster collapse by subtracting energy from them.
Any energy added from steel is subtracted from the strength of the building to resist collapse because the buildings support structure is itself fuel.
The energy is there it is just a matter of forming the reactions to convert it.
I also might add that of the total carbon combustion total of GJs most went out of the building as expanding gasses carbon dioxide and nitrogen along with other hot combustion byproducts, where this energy is mostly retained by the metals themselves because little vapor is created. Although air is expanded by the heating.
Also that Neu's reaction takes place in an Isolated and insulated location under a 4 inch concrete slam which would help insulate it, and trap the heat.
Thermal retention is more important than overall thermal release.
So my point would be, if one was to assume you are right about the additional energy, it would have an insignificant impact on the timeline.
If you were to assume you are right about the additional energy and you further assumed the energy had a five-fold impact on the structural elements of the tower, it STILL would not have a significant impact on the timeline or the NIST conclusions.
On the other hand, IF you can substantiate the claims that there was this much additional chemical energy released during the event then it might explain some of the chemical features you are researching.
Arthur
That is the entire point, also the chemical reactions themselves also weaken and thin the trusses leading to a faster collapse by subtracting energy from them.
Any energy added from steel is subtracted from the strength of the building to resist collapse because the buildings support structure is itself fuel.
The energy is there it is just a matter of forming the reactions to convert it.
I also might add that of the total carbon combustion total of GJs most went out of the building as expanding gasses carbon dioxide and nitrogen along with other hot combustion byproducts, where this energy is mostly retained by the metals themselves because little vapor is created. Although air is expanded by the heating.
Also that Neu's reaction takes place in an Isolated and insulated location under a 4 inch concrete slam which would help insulate it, and trap the heat.
Thermal retention is more important than overall thermal release.
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.