767 as Thermite in WTC?

[JoeyDonuts]

I've read some of the reports of thermite residue in the wreckage. Seems a lot of the folks espousing controlled demolition say this.

I don't claim to be an expert on either demolition or chemical combustion agents, but here's what I do know:

Back in my Navy days, they taught us all about the four different classes of fire. Alpha being combustible organic matter (anything that leaves ash), Bravo is a fuel fire leaving thick black smoke, Charlie is an electrical fire, and Delta is a metal/ordnance fire.

Of these, the Delta is the absolute worst since it can involve aircraft materials which contain magnesium/aluminum etc.

A 767 with plenty of aluminum impacts the towers, and you have a large fuel fire in an environment with a lot of dissimilar metals - one of them being magnesium which has an autoignition temperature of about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Could the magnesium ignition have produced a reaction with the aluminum in the aircraft frame and the steel alloys in the building?

It seems to me if you had a thermite-type reaction brought about by the plane impact and the high temperatures associated with it, that would negate the "jet fuel can't melt steel" argument completely, because a thermite reaction certainly can. It would also seem to explain the gutting of the supports in the top ten floors as well as the "presence of thermite" in the wreckage.

I'm hoping someone who is more well read on this particular aspect of it can help me out here.

[Zipster]

Not only the aluminum and magnesium, the titanium parts in the 767s can also cause a "thermite-like" reaction if a piece of them were turned into a shavings form. The thermal reaction of a high-speed impact can also cause titanium to ignite if its oxidized surface comes into contact with liquid oxygen (most likely from the oxygen mask system).

Titanium fires are one of the biggest hazards we have in our blade spar sanding zones. All the workers are briefed on it and there are special Class D fire extinguishers all over the place. Water and regular foam fire extinguishers will do nothing to put out a titanium fire.

[JoeyDonuts]

Devil's Advocate: " Could the impact have made them into shavings? Seems like they'd be more voliatile that way."

[Travis]

Even if it did happen the most it would have done is bake the floor slab and cut through some of the floor trusses. It still wouldn't account for the massive deformation of floor trusses on multiple floors and the bowing of the exterior columns.

[JoeyDonuts]

Originally Posted by Travis

Even if it did happen the most it would have done is bake the floor slab and cut through some of the floor trusses. It still wouldn't account for the massive deformation of floor trusses on multiple floors and the bowing of the exterior columns.

So what explains that? KE/air displacement from the impact? It was angled downward slightly when it hit.

It seems to me that a combustible metal fire as large as a fragged 767 might do a lot more than that. Not being a structural or fire engineer I'm mostly talking out of my nalgas, homes.

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, before anyone goes too far down this path here, let's understand the original myth: Truthers say that evidence of thermite was found. To be kind, this is a stretch. The only person that's tried any sort of actual analysis on recovered material - dust taken from a nearby apartment - is Steven Jones, and to say that his microspheres work points to thermite use is to ignore all the alternate sources that could have produced such iron-rich particles. That has been discussed at length in this forum already, and to be blunt, it still doesn't explain the lack of gross physical characteristics on the recovered steel.

As far as any other claims: None of them are chemically or physically based. The only people who've brought up thermite have insisted that evidence of molten steel exists, and they make the leap from that to the fact that thermite - being an incendiary capable of melting steel - was used. Note the inductive conclusion: They leap from molten steel to thermite. They do not actually produce positive evidence of its existence. Now while that's not necessarily fallacious in and of itself, it is a leap that demands support, and the problem is that only one such supporting argument exists, and that it's Steven Jones's work. And as said above, and before in previous forums posts, that work itself only really demonstrates the presence of iron microspheres; the conclusion that thermite produced them is unsupported, and frankly, is itself a leap (not to mention that I don't recall the paper actually mentioning thermite; that leap is made by readers predisposed to a conclusion. It's certainly not directly mentioned by the paper).

Considering the fact that there was tons of aluminum facade, as well as much aircraft grade aluminum present, the lack of anyone saying they found thermite itself is rather amazing. But, as NIST pointed out, such a chemical analysis on the rubble would be useless precisely because it would be inconclusive. Remember: Thermite at heart is merely aluminum and a metal oxide. "Finding" the constituent components of thermite would be like finding moisture in the ocean. The key to determining if thermite was used would be to take Steven Jones's tack of discovering by-products of high-temperature reactions (that's his whole argument: The microspheres could only be produced at higher temperatures than what existed in the fires), or look for really obvious signs of it's use, such as steel beams being molten at the points the separated at. The first ignores alternate origins for the presence of the supposedly definitive particle, and the second is just plain lacking.

In short, there is no affirmative finding of thermite; evidence of its use is an interpretation of existing facts which have other more plausible explanations. On top of that, claims of it being used are contradicted by many other observations.

[Reality Believer]

Originally Posted by Zipster

...... liquid oxygen (most likely from the oxygen mask system).
..

A technical correction on aircraft oxygen. The crew breathes gaseous bottled oxygen, and the passengers get it from oxygen generators called chlorate candles in the overhead PSU. When you pull the mask, it fires an ignitor that causes the chlorate candle to burn to produce oxygen.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

It seems to me if you had a thermite-type reaction brought about by the plane impact and the high temperatures associated with it

But a thermite reaction needs lots of iron oxide, not metal alloys. It releases lots of energy because the oxygen atoms are much happier paired with aluminum that with iron.

And by the way, there was more aluminum in the building itself than there was in the plane.

[Zipster]

Originally Posted by Reality Believer

A technical correction on aircraft oxygen. The crew breathes gaseous bottled oxygen, and the passengers get it from oxygen generators called chlorate candles in the overhead PSU. When you pull the mask, it fires an ignitor that causes the chlorate candle to burn to produce oxygen.

Yep, I thought there was something odd about using LOX tanks. I'll stand corrected by your explanation.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by Zipster

Not only the aluminum and magnesium, the titanium parts in the 767s can also cause a "thermite-like" reaction if a piece of them were turned into a shavings form. .

Gee i brought this up in the ATS forum and was insulted for suggesting that the planes could have casued a thermite like reaction.

Since the fires were hot enough in the building to make molten aluminum (which becomes a very high HAZMAT) it could have set off the other HAZMATs from the aircraft.


http://www.firehouse.com/training/ha.../05_molten.htm
Molten aluminum has a 4-digit UN identification number of 9260. When referenced in the ERG it refers to guide 77 for hazards of the material. Guide 77 was an addition to the 1993 version of the ERG. Molten aluminum is the only material that refers to this guide. The guide indicates that the material is above 1300� F, and will react violently with water, which may cause an explosion, and release a flammable gas. The molten material in contact with combustible materials may cause ignition, if the molten material is above the ignition temperature of the combustible material. For example, gasoline has an average ignition temperature of around 800� F. Diesel fuel has an average ignition temperature of around 400� F, depending on the blend, and additives. In an accident gasoline or diesel fuel could be spilled. The molten material could be an ignition source for the gasoline or diesel fuel if it came in contact. When contacting concrete on a roadway, or at a fixed facility, molten materials could cause spalling and small pops. This could cause pieces of concrete to become projectiles. Contact with the skin would cause severe thermal burns. There is no personnel protective clothing that would adequately protect responders from contact with molten materials.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by Zipster

Yep, I thought there was something odd about using LOX tanks. I'll stand corrected by your explanation.

LOX is used in military aircraft like fighters and small aircraft that do not have the room for oxygen tanks.

[Zipster]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Gee i brought this up in the ATS forum and was insulted for suggesting that the planes could have casued a thermite like reaction.

Since the fires were hot enough in the building to make molten aluminum (which becomes a very high HAZMAT) it could have set off the other HAZMATs from the aircraft.


http://www.firehouse.com/training/ha.../05_molten.htm
Molten aluminum has a 4-digit UN identification number of 9260. When referenced in the ERG it refers to guide 77 for hazards of the material. Guide 77 was an addition to the 1993 version of the ERG. Molten aluminum is the only material that refers to this guide. The guide indicates that the material is above 1300� F, and will react violently with water, which may cause an explosion, and release a flammable gas. The molten material in contact with combustible materials may cause ignition, if the molten material is above the ignition temperature of the combustible material. For example, gasoline has an average ignition temperature of around 800� F. Diesel fuel has an average ignition temperature of around 400� F, depending on the blend, and additives. In an accident gasoline or diesel fuel could be spilled. The molten material could be an ignition source for the gasoline or diesel fuel if it came in contact. When contacting concrete on a roadway, or at a fixed facility, molten materials could cause spalling and small pops. This could cause pieces of concrete to become projectiles. Contact with the skin would cause severe thermal burns. There is no personnel protective clothing that would adequately protect responders from contact with molten materials.

I don't know who over there laughed at you and am not responsible, so please don't be condecending towards me. As stated by ElMondoHummus, a "thermite-like" reaction is nothing more than aluminum - metal oxide reaction and there was plenty of aluminum and other metals present.

I like his analogy of saying that testing for a thermite reaction from the rubble is like testing for moisture in the ocean. There are much better explanations than thermite bombs.

I would expect all molten metals to be catagorized as a HazMat. I'm pretty sure there isn't a single molten metal that's good for humans to be near (high heat, toxic fumes, what's not to love?).

[JoeyDonuts]

@ElMondoHummus and CurtC:

Well. That settles that. That's just about as conclusive as it gets. Thanks!

Kinda refreshing. I asked for light-shedding and I got it. And only 1 woo merchant
posted! All in all, not too shabby.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by Zipster

a "thermite-like" reaction is nothing more than aluminum - metal oxide reaction and there was plenty of aluminum and other metals present.

Well not just metals but flammable or combustable metals like tungsten, magnesium.

Also materials that will give off small particles when burned that can be ingested like the graphite composites.

Let me get your thoughts, do you think that the following video shows some thermite reactions casued by the molten aluminum and other materials.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptvqq...026A11&index=4

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Gee i brought this up in the ATS forum and was insulted for suggesting that the planes could have casued a thermite like reaction.

Since the fires were hot enough in the building to make molten aluminum (which becomes a very high HAZMAT) it could have set off the other HAZMATs from the aircraft.


http://www.firehouse.com/training/ha.../05_molten.htm
Molten aluminum has a 4-digit UN identification number of 9260. When referenced in the ERG it refers to guide 77 for hazards of the material. Guide 77 was an addition to the 1993 version of the ERG. Molten aluminum is the only material that refers to this guide. The guide indicates that the material is above 1300� F, and will react violently with water, which may cause an explosion, and release a flammable gas. The molten material in contact with combustible materials may cause ignition, if the molten material is above the ignition temperature of the combustible material. For example, gasoline has an average ignition temperature of around 800� F. Diesel fuel has an average ignition temperature of around 400� F, depending on the blend, and additives. In an accident gasoline or diesel fuel could be spilled. The molten material could be an ignition source for the gasoline or diesel fuel if it came in contact. When contacting concrete on a roadway, or at a fixed facility, molten materials could cause spalling and small pops. This could cause pieces of concrete to become projectiles. Contact with the skin would cause severe thermal burns. There is no personnel protective clothing that would adequately protect responders from contact with molten materials.

So this confirms there were big fires in the WTC. Good job debunking the 9/11 truth movement. You do it with ease.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by beachnut

So this confirms there were big fires in the WTC. Good job debunking the 9/11 truth movement. You do it with ease.

Are you really serious. You have just proven that the beleivers are the biggest joke on the forum.

There does not need to be that big of a fire to cause molten aluminum.

Also as the photos and videos show the fire was buring out well before the collaspe and the thick black smoke means fire is burning at low temps.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Also as the photos and videos show the fire was buring out well before the collaspe and the thick black smoke means fire is burning at low temps.

That is not true.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

That is not true.

Gee, it is so fun and easy to prove poeple wrong when they only listen to the media and do not do any research.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal.../severity.html
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.


http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
The smoke emitted by the fire at times seriously interferes with the transfer of heat by radiant energy within the fire building. Test fires use smokeless natural gas, so radiant heat transfer is important in tests.(Brannigan p206). A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Gee, it is so fun and easy to prove poeple wrong when they only listen to the media and do not do any research.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal.../severity.html
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

Actually, the color of the smoke depends on what's being combusted, not if there's abundant oxygen or not.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Gee, it is so fun and easy to prove poeple wrong when they only listen to the media and do not do any research.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal.../severity.html
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.


http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
The smoke emitted by the fire at times seriously interferes with the transfer of heat by radiant energy within the fire building. Test fires use smokeless natural gas, so radiant heat transfer is important in tests.(Brannigan p206). A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)

Oh, good Lord, not the "oxygen starved low temperatures" myth again...

A high ratio of fuel to oxygen - i.e. supposedly being oxygen "starved" - does not mean that the fire is burning at a low temperature or near the end of its combustion cycle. It is true that the coloration may - may - be due to excess soot in the smoke, it is also true that soot has the ability to carry heat away. Which one of these actually refers to the temperature of the combustion itself? Or the fact that the fire is about to go out? Your post merely discusses one possible way for combustion to occur; as firefighters and chemists on this board have pointed out to countless conspiracy peddlers, the coloration is not indicative of temperature, and in fact is not always even indicative of relative oxygen to fuel ratios.

Tell us which ones of the following fires are oxygen starved. While you're at it, tell us which ones are low temperatures:

Pic
Pic
Pic
Pic
Pic

This myth was dealt with on this forum years ago:

Quote:

While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~tflan/documents/FPM712/Basic_Fire_Science-NFPA_Std-921-2004.pdf

Furthermore, your first link is just plain wrong on this topic, and your second link is an article citing why the fires were indeed the cause of the collapse. Which is an odd choice for someone trying to argue the points of the conspiracy fantasy. And last, but not least, the proposition that the tower fires were about to go out is directly contradicted by the fact that those same fires actually continued for several months, well after the collapse of the towers. They continued to burn in the rubble piles, and were not extinguished until December 2001.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Actually, the color of the smoke depends on what's being combusted, not if there's abundant oxygen or not.

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Oh, good Lord, not the "oxygen starved low temperatures" myth again...

So do you have evidence from a source to debate my evidence, YES or NO ?

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Gee, it is so fun and easy to prove poeple wrong when they only listen to the media and do not do any research.

Where Does Black Smoke Come From?

Quote:

In general, a hotter fire will convert more fuel into elemental carbon, which forms into tiny particles that absorb light and appear in the sky as black smoke. A cooler combustion—or one that doesn't work as efficiently—yields less-pure forms of carbon. These tend to reflect light, making the smoke look white.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

I've read some of the reports of thermite residue in the wreckage. Seems a lot of the folks espousing controlled demolition say this.

I don't claim to be an expert on either demolition or chemical combustion agents, but here's what I do know:

Back in my Navy days, they taught us all about the four different classes of fire. Alpha being combustible organic matter (anything that leaves ash), Bravo is a fuel fire leaving thick black smoke, Charlie is an electrical fire, and Delta is a metal/ordnance fire.

Of these, the Delta is the absolute worst since it can involve aircraft materials which contain magnesium/aluminum etc.

A 767 with plenty of aluminum impacts the towers, and you have a large fuel fire in an environment with a lot of dissimilar metals - one of them being magnesium which has an autoignition temperature of about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Could the magnesium ignition have produced a reaction with the aluminum in the aircraft frame and the steel alloys in the building?

It seems to me if you had a thermite-type reaction brought about by the plane impact and the high temperatures associated with it, that would negate the "jet fuel can't melt steel" argument completely, because a thermite reaction certainly can. It would also seem to explain the gutting of the supports in the top ten floors as well as the "presence of thermite" in the wreckage.

I'm hoping someone who is more well read on this particular aspect of it can help me out here.

There is evidence for the ignition-Oxidation of metals in the world trade center to a limited extent.

Aluminum, magnesium, Titanium, Chromium, Molybdenum, and other metals including thin steels.

There is also some evidence for other chemical effects, sulfidication, for formation of AlN, and for zinc embrittlement and hydrogen embrittlement on a limited extent from the action of both zinc and sulfides from sulfate reduction with carbon, effecting micro fissures formed in the steel though cold working action over time as during the life of the structure.

Interesting Zinc can have an effect on aged A36 steel if the right chemical coattail is present, for the production of sulfide pyrite crystals in the steel giving the Zinc chloride and zinc sulfide and entry point.

I did test the Idea, Now the usual crowd can jump all over this post for suggesting it, however the Idea does not come from applying stainless steel characteristics to A36 but from testing a chemical effect on actual A36 steel itself.

Does anyone know of anymore chemical tests that were done on A36 that might help in this?

The effect would be most prevalent in cold worked welds from motion induced micro fractures over time, or from microfactures left from the welding process itself.

Since tests for similar effects are not usually done on A36 steel for good reason, this might have gone over looked It would have greatly affected weld stability in the impact zone.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

So do you have evidence from a source to debate my evidence, YES or NO ?

Good grief, read my post! A link is right there! It's from the Basic Fire Science section of the National Fire Protection Association's "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations".


--------


Your post is erroneous for the reasons I stated in my previous post. Also, regarding your previous statement:

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Also as the photos and videos show the fire was buring out well before the collaspe and the thick black smoke means fire is burning at low temps.

That analysis was indeed made by some - they watched video and examined photographs - but it is an early opinion, and is incomplete. It is not honest to state it as if it's the final word on how the fire acted. Further investigation revealed how the fire progressed and how it affected the structure. Simply stating things as "the fire was burning out well before the collapse" and "burning at low temps" is incorrect; the fire spread to different locations within the compromised floors (NCSTAR 1-5 & 1-6) and while it was indeed "burning out" in some locations, it was engulfing others. And it was affecting the steel structure in the areas it was burning. Your oversimplification of the situation amounts to a distortion of what actually occurred.

Instead of relying on conspiratorial talking points like "black smoke=low temps" and "the fire was burning out", try actually understanding what happened. You seem to be subscribing to some long refuted myths in your posts. The evidence nullifying the notion that the fires were going out overall is in the NCSTAR reports I mention; the evidence that your characterization of black smoke is erroneous is in the NFPA document I linked. And the evidence that refutes your implied assertion that the fires were insufficient to result in the collapse is the very same second source you yourself linked, which was the Arthur Scheuerman article. Titled, appropriately enough, "IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE". You should perhaps read the entirety of the very source you choose to link. Note, too, that none of the sources I cite came from "the media", but are in fact original sources uncovered by the work of doing research. Whereas yours are not, and I doubt that you put much effort into doing your research. You should take your own advice.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

I've read some of the reports of thermite residue in the wreckage. Seems a lot of the folks espousing controlled demolition say this.

I don't claim to be an expert on either demolition or chemical combustion agents, but here's what I do know:

Back in my Navy days, they taught us all about the four different classes of fire. Alpha being combustible organic matter (anything that leaves ash), Bravo is a fuel fire leaving thick black smoke, Charlie is an electrical fire, and Delta is a metal/ordnance fire.

Of these, the Delta is the absolute worst since it can involve aircraft materials which contain magnesium/aluminum etc.

A 767 with plenty of aluminum impacts the towers, and you have a large fuel fire in an environment with a lot of dissimilar metals - one of them being magnesium which has an autoignition temperature of about 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Could the magnesium ignition have produced a reaction with the aluminum in the aircraft frame and the steel alloys in the building?

It seems to me if you had a thermite-type reaction brought about by the plane impact and the high temperatures associated with it, that would negate the "jet fuel can't melt steel" argument completely, because a thermite reaction certainly can. It would also seem to explain the gutting of the supports in the top ten floors as well as the "presence of thermite" in the wreckage.

I'm hoping someone who is more well read on this particular aspect of it can help me out here.

There is evidence for the ignition-Oxidation of metals in the world trade center to a limited extent.

Aluminum, magnesium, Titanium, Chromium, Molybdenum, and other metals including thin steels.

There is also some evidence for other chemical effects, sulfidication, for formation of AlN, and for zinc embrittlement and hydrogen embrittlement on a limited extent from the action of both zinc and sulfides from sulfate reduction with carbon, effecting micro fissures formed in the steel though cold working action over time as during the life of the structure.

Interesting Zinc can have an effect on aged A36 steel if the right chemical coattail is present, for the production of sulfide pyrite crystals in the steel giving the Zinc chloride and zinc sulfide and entry point.

I did test the Idea, Now the usual crowd can jump all over this post for suggesting it, however the Idea does not come from applying stainless steel characteristics to A36 but from testing a chemical effect on actual A36 steel itself.

Does anyone know of anymore chemical tests that were done on A36 that might help in this?

The effect would be most prevalent in cold worked welds from motion induced micro fractures over time, or from microfactures left from the welding process itself.

Since tests for similar effects are not usually done on A36 steel for good reason, this might have gone over looked It would have greatly affected weld stability in the impact zone.

It seems that the World Trade Center fires might have been as unique as the World Trade Centers were themselves however good data on the chemistry is lacking.

[Travis]

About the smoke. Since Truthers like home experiments here's one for you.

Place a tire in an open outdoor space. Pour gasoline on it. Light the fire and observe the smoke color. Note that being outside the fire has all the oxygen it needs and if you don't think it is hot then try to jump over it.

You might want to have some money set aside to pay the fine for polluting the air with all that smoke.


However if you don't want to do something like that then here:http://www.google.com/images?q=kuwai...L_enUS255US255

[Zipster]

Originally Posted by Travis

About the smoke. Since Truthers like home experiments here's one for you.

Place a tire in an open outdoor space. Pour gasoline on it. Light the fire and observe the smoke color. Note that being outside the fire has all the oxygen it needs and if you don't think it is hot then try to jump over it.

You might want to have some money set aside to pay the fine for polluting the air with all that smoke.


However if you don't want to do something like that then here:http://www.google.com/images?q=kuwai...L_enUS255US255

ULTIMA doing a real-world experiment? No... The internet is where the real facts and evidence are.

And because he knows that real-world experiments will prove him wrong.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Good grief, read my post! A link is right there! It's from the

Well i also have several sources that state the black smoke does mean low temps. How many do you need me to post?

[JoeyDonuts]

I smoked a nice fat rack of ribs this last weekend. No black smoke there, and that fire was certainly low-temperature. I think if I saw black smoke coming out of my hoss charbroiler I'd either reconsider the composition of my awesome dry rub...or quit using diesel fuel as an accelerant.

[Disenchanted]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Well i also have several sources that state the black smoke does mean low temps. How many do you need me to post?

His sources show that you and your sources are wrong. Quality of sources trump quantity.

He also included pics showing black smoke from fires that were not oxygen starved.

I guess you ignored them because they show that you are wrong, which is your MO.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Well i also have several sources that state the black smoke does mean low temps. How many do you need me to post?

It does not matter how many you post. The point is that black smoke meaning low temperatures is only one possible way for a combustion to occur. Black smoke does not always mean low temperatures, nor does it always mean that a fire is close to burning itself out. Again, my source admits that black smoke can indicate low oxygenation, or "post flashover" situations (i.e. after the fire really gets started, and is beginning to die down), or it can indicate what fuel is burning. But in neither case is temperature tied into smoke color; that is a function of what material is released into the smoke, the efficiency of combustion, etc. You cannot shoehorn "black smoke means low temperatures" into every situation because it does not apply to every situation. The firefighters in this forum can tell you that, and they have said that to the rest of us many times in the past.

When you cite a source that only discusses one possibility, and when you ignore the other evidence that the fires were indeed not relatively cool and not near completion at the time of collapse, then you discuss a situation other than what occurred in the Twin Towers. It's that simple. Again, you're oversimplifying, and trying to make one single situation apply where it does not fit.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

Gee, it is so fun and easy to prove poeple wrong when they only listen to the media and do not do any research.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal.../severity.html
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.


http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm
The smoke emitted by the fire at times seriously interferes with the transfer of heat by radiant energy within the fire building. Test fires use smokeless natural gas, so radiant heat transfer is important in tests.(Brannigan p206). A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)

I just need one link to distroy everything you posted,

http://science.nasa.gov/msl1/combustion_why.htm

Soot retains heat making the effects of he fire worse, it is caused by the fuels reaction to high temperatures in a chemical reaction, known as pyrosis.

Black soot like coke in a steel furnace is almost pure carbon black, it is a more energetic fuel than hydrocarbons.
Explosive carbon monoxide is also produced that can lead to dust and other explosions and can cause a reducing as well as an oxidizing environment where multiple chemical reactions, can take place including reduction of sulfates to sulfides and sulfidication effects can be seen.
Soot has no relationship to temperature combustion is a chemical Oxidation reaction, the fuel and the oxidant have more control over flame temperature than soot formation which is basically an after effect, a metal fire can burn hotter than any hydrocarbon and can lead to pyrosis of Hydrocarbons, and Carbohydrates the main fuels in the twin towers and the heavy black soot Produced from pyrosis of carbonate material that is not oxidizing in the metal fire itself, can absorb the white light and transmit it back as heat, though black body radiation.

Go back research and get it right next time.


PS. and do not take the word of laymen on the Scholars for truth website as fact they know less than you do!

You can not be sure of the specific chemical reactions taking place in the towers so the Idea of commenting on the fires being oxygen starved based solely on the smoke is well just stupid.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

http://jnocook.net/texts/wtcfire.htm

Although the "black smoke = low temperatures" canard has been as extensively refuted as it's possible to imagine, I'd just like to point out the most hilarious aspect of this debacle. The title of the article ULTIMA1 has cited to prove that the fire didn't cause the Twin Towers collapses?

(That is, apart from the one by well-known structural engineer, demolition expert, avionics engineer, firefighter and definitely-not-a-software-engineer-no-siree Jim Hoffman.)

Originally Posted by Arthur Scheuerman

IT WAS THE FIRE,
CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE

Words fail me.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Yeah, Dave, I pointed that out too, up above. But it's worth repeating.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Yeah, Dave, I pointed that out too, up above. But it's worth repeating.

So you did, sorry. I think I tune out parts of some threads from sheer fatigue.

The black smoke is a perfect example of a well-known truther practice known as "rebunking". A claim is made by the truth movement. It's debunked so thoroughly that the slightest mention of it is an embarrassment to see. Then, for a while, everyone talks about a whole slew of new absurd claims. A few months later, when the truthers think we've forgotten, they repeat the original claim and try to pretend they honestly believe it.

Didn't someone mention pods under UA175 in another thread?

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, no, don't apologize. I was just underlining the fact that we both mentioned this for emphasis, that's all.

And yes, we all have seen the round robin of truther claims more than once. Free fall and explosions were the ones just a bit ago. And with DRG's book out in the past few months, I imagine we'll be seeing the voice morphing and fake calls myths brought up again here soon. Now I don't recall seeing a "pods" mention, but I might have missed that one. Anyway, yeah, it just seems to be a litany of the old, disproven myths over and over again.

That's why I have to give Steven Jones credit. As wrong as he is, at least his microspheres work was new ground.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

I just need one link to distroy everything you posted,

I only need 1 to destroy the official story.

Quote:

According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.(Elaboration..., p5)

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1

I only need 1 to destroy the official story.

date of that paper was Dec 2001, what data did he use to come to this conclusion? since the photos and video tapes NIST used had not even been accumulated yet. Also I see no mention of smoke color in that document.

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, Clifton did write that. And he based his opinions on observations in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. You truthers need to quit quoting statements made before the full extent of the evidence was evaluated; that's the equivalent of trying to falsify modern astronomy with Ptolemaic observations, or modern chemistry with medieval alchemy. Conclusions from new knowledge builds on and eventually supercedes old, incomplete observations. Clifton made those remarks in 2001 (source: http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/E...TC%20Paper.PDF), and additional information has been gathered and analyzed since then.

You also need to realize that Clifton did indeed cite sources available to him at the time saying that some beams never exceeded 600 degrees C, but you need to read his work to realize that he believes that was still enough to account for the tower collapsing. Unlike Arap/Edinburgh, Quintiere, and some other critics, he believes the structural damage was more relevant to the collapse than the fire, but he does not eliminate the fire as being a contributor to the problem:

Quote:

In my opinion, based on the available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-storey fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be. (More on this below). However, the observations show that fire temperatures of over 500oC would have been probable over enough of the core to cause an ongoing loss of compression load carrying capacity in the remaining core columns.

(My bolding for emphasis). And he continues this train of thought in his further works:

Quote:

I contend that, immediately following the impact, the core region of all the floors above the impact region would have sagged downwards due to the partial loss of vertical support in the core region. This sag would have progressively grown as the fire and ongoing yielding of the remaining damaged core columns reduced the core vertical load carrying capacity.

(http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wt...clifton/p5.htm... again, my own bolding).

Note that at no time does he try to state that the fires were insufficient to account for the collapse. Note also that his observations were made well before significant work on the NIST report was started, let alone finished, and that early observations cannot account for discoveries made after those observations were conducted.

The lesson here is that, once again, you attempt to oversimplify an event and shoehorn it into your preferred narrative in order to forward your stance. The oversimplification is grossly misrepresentative of the original source, and also fails to serve the overall narrative you push when simple review of the original source you yourself cite is done. In short, you once again demonstrate the opposite of your claim with the source you cite.

Lastly, let's also consider this: Clifton also did not say that the temperatures were low. Reread his statement. He mentioned that they were not as severe. He ended up being wrong, given that his observations were early ones, but if you'll note, he was discussing extent and severity, not temperature. As noted in his own article, he fully believed the fire was hot enough to contribute to the collapse.

Again, you really must read the entirety of your sources before you cite them. They directly contradict your assertions.

[ULTIMA1]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

You truthers need to quit quoting statements made before the full extent of the evidence was evaluated; that's the equivalent of trying to falsify modern astronomy with Ptolemaic observations, or modern chemistry with medieval alchemy. .

Well then you believers will have to stop using quotes from NIST wont you.

I mean since the original NIST model was made before the full extent of evidence was evaluated.