It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed on their own taking WTC 7 without explosives

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by gordonross
If it was possible to disassociate the sulphur and calcium then hot corrosion could take place between sulphur and steel but sustained temperatures above 970 C are required for this phenomenon to take place.


Thank you Gordon. That's why I asked. Seeing as though a PERFECT hydrocarbon fire will only get to about 850C or so, I would say this reaction didn't take place. But now I'm going to hear that temperature and heat are different things. But then I'll come back with the fact of heat transfer in the steel and it taking a heck of a lot more heat energy than is capable by hydrocarbon fires to produce those types of temperatures in steel.

p.s. Gordon...if you have a link to the information on 970C, I'd appreciate it. I don't want to use that number and not be able to source it. Thanks.




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Yes, when you heat gypsum, you drive off the water molecules. This is an endothermic reaction, in other words it absorbs heat. That is why drywall is used as firewalls. It absorbs the heat of a fire for a couple of hours (or at least until all the water is driven off.

If you are convinced that calcium sulfate can not initiate a hot corrosion attack on steel, then maybe you can help these scientists out. They are studying the effects of calcium sulfate on various alloys used in turbines.



Based upon industrial gas turbine experience and laboratory tests, calcium and magnesium sulfates are, at temperatures up to 1500 F (815 C), relatively innocuous salts. In this study it is found that at 1650 F (900 C) and above, calcium sulfate becomes an aggressive corrodent.

source

In any case, there were clearly many different materials, salts ashes, etc. present in the dust and debris. To make the claim that the hot corrosion of the steel indicates anything other than the fact that the steel was heated for a long time in a chemically active environment is rather pointless. You can not categorically exclude the effects of the gypsum dust.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Show me where NIST found any evidence of the steel heating to 900C and I'll give your gypsum theory credit. Especially the pieces that had the sulfide residues.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Well the microstructural analysis of the erode pieces of steel indicated the temperature they were subjected to. Is that what you are asking for?


Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.




www.tms.org...





[edit on 24-3-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Note that some research also indicates that calcium sulfate undergoes thermal decomposition to sulfur dioxide at temperatures in the range we are talking about, especially in the presence of iron oxide.


www.santafesymposium.org...

www.ath.aegean.gr...



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Howard,

You do know that you are giving a circular arguement. You are saying that a eutectic reaction occured. I say show me the proof that the temperatures where high enough for this reaction to occur. You give me something that says because of evidence of the eutectic reaction it is assumed that the temps were in the ~1000C range. That's circular logic if ever. I'm asking for something that shows evidence of temperatures in the upper 900C....not something that concludes the temperatures were this high because of the sulfidation.

That's like starting with the theory of plane damage and fires bringing the towers down and comming up with science to support that theory. Oh, wait...that's exactly what the government did.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
It's not a circular argument.

You asked for evidence that the steel was heated to a certain temperature in the presence of sulfur.

The analysis of the steel inticated certain structrues that can only form at certain temperatures.

Thus the minimum temperature that the steel was exposed to can be determined based on the anaylis of that steel.

If you are asking how were these temperatures reached, then that is a different question. (one that has alrady been argued about here on ATS)



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Let me ask this. Did this eutectic reaction occur before, during or after the fall? Plus, how can a hydrocarbon fire produce temperatures in excess of 900C? We have discussed this before, but let's rehash for old times sake.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
THis is a view that is not accepted by many in this community, but hopefully with it all together in one place, some of the conspiracy cloud may be lifted, and we can concentrate on proving that flight 93 was shot down. That is another thread.


Nope i don't think any of the cloud has been lifted, and i think there is less chance of proving anything with the flight 93. If Silversteinstien said "we took the decision to pull it" and we still discuss what caused wt7 to fall what chance has anybody proving anything with flight 93 when there is very little evidence of anything at all.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by The Links]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Let me ask this. Did this eutectic reaction occur before, during or after the fall?


A good question. I believe that the steel was buried in the rubble for a couple of weeks before it was pulled out. Based on that, my gut reaction would be that it occurred in the period after the collapse.




Originally posted by Griff
Plus, how can a hydrocarbon fire produce temperatures in excess of 900C? We have discussed this before, but let's rehash for old times sake.


I’ll tell you what.

Why don’t you post, and not as a link, but in your own words, or at least as a reasonable C&P, the science that says that a hydrocarbon fire can not exceed 800 C.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Seeing as though a PERFECT hydrocarbon fire will only get to about 850C or so


Please provide the science to back up this claim.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

The starting point for discussing this topic can be the work of the late Dr. McCaffrey, who made extensive measurements [4] of temperatures in turbulent diffusion flames. He used gas burners in a "pool fire" mode (i.e., non-premixed) and studied various characteristics of such fire plumes. He described three different regimes in such a fire plume:

1. Slightly above the base of the fire begins the continuous flame region. Here the temperatures are constant and are slightly below 900°C.
2. Above the solid flame region is the intermittent flame region. Here the temperatures are continuously dropping as one moves up the plume. The visible flame tips correspond to a temperature of about 320°C.
3. Finally, beyond the flame tips is the thermal plume region, where no more flames are visible and temperature continually drop with height.


Source: www.doctorfire.com...

I may be standing corrected Howard. In researching your question, I may have found that open flame fires can reach excess of 850C. So, with that said, I have to conceed to you Howard that your gypsum theory might hold some water (no pun intended).



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
OK. To start with, that quote, while accurate, omits some very important facts.

Mainly that those tests were conducted under controlled laboratory conditions.

What do you think the temperature of the reactants (the fuel and the oxygen) were in Dr. McCaffrey’s experiment?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Is that a trick question or am I not getting what you're asking? In the quote I provided it shows what temps he got.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What do you think the temperature of the reactants (the fuel and the oxygen) were in Dr. McCaffrey’s experiment?


Do you mean before they started combustion? Are you trying to slip me up? I've already conceeded that you could be correct.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Let me ask this. Did this eutectic reaction occur before, during or after the fall? Plus, how can a hydrocarbon fire produce temperatures in excess of 900C? We have discussed this before, but let's rehash for old times sake.


Oh, not just a hydrocarbon fire producing beyond those temps at the WTC, but transferring ALL of that energy directly to the steel to heat the steel to the same temperatures! How does that happen?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Maybe this can help you to understand this a little better.

Let’s start by agreeing on some basic concepts and terms.

First of all there are the two terms “heat” and “temperature.” Many people use these interchangeably, but in scientific terms they are not the same thing. They are related, but they are two different concepts.

Temperature is measurement of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in a material.

Heat is a measure of the total energy of a substance. This includes not only the kinetic energy, but also the potential energy.

The difference is somewhat subtle, but it is important to understand when looking at the temperature that can be produced by a given reaction.

A good way to look at this is to look at water. Let’s say you have an ice cube and its temperature is at -1 C. You add an appropriate amount of heat to the ice cube and raise the temperature to exactly 0C. Now let’s add the same amount of heat one more time. What happens? Does the entire ice cube turn to water? What is its temperature?

Well it turns out that only part of the ice cube turns into water. In fact, you check the temperature of the ice and the water and find that both are still at 0 C. They will both remain at 0C until you add enough heat to overcome the heat of fusion for ice and convert it all to water. At that point, the excess heat will begin to raise the temperature of the water.

So clearly in this case heat is not the same as temperature.

If you add heat to a substance, one of two things happens, the temperature either goes up, or you have a change of state (i.e. melting).

Now let’s talk about heat of combustion. Heat of combustion is defined as:


the amount of heat released when a given amount (usually 1 mole) of a combustible pure substance is burned to form incombustible products (e.g., water and carbon dioxide); this amount of heat is a characteristic of the substance.

www.bartleby.com...

Note the part that states: this amount of heat is a characteristic of the substance.

This is where many people make their mistake. They think that because the heat of combustion for a given fuel is fixed, then the temperature of that combustion is also fixed.

That is not the case.

If the amount of heat released for a given reaction is fixed, then there should be a theoretical maximum temperature rise for that reaction with a given starting temperature.

For instance, let’s say that your reactants are at 20 C, and your ideal combustion of that fuel releases x amount of calories of heat which in turn raises the temperature to 500 C.

What if the initial temperature of those reactants was 499 C? Would the same amount of heat released by the combustion only raise the temperature 1 C? At that temperature, we are not going to change the state of the products, so the temperature has to go up. (It will actually go up proportional to the change in the energy as measured in Kelvin). Will it go up 1 C or will it go up higher?

So, that is why if you read something like the blurb you posted from the Dr. Fire site, you have to realize that the initial experiment was done with the reactants and a standard atmosphere and temperature (20 C).

Extrapolating this to the WTC situation, you should be able to realize that not all of the heat would have dissipated before it had a chance to raise the temperature of the fuel and air feeding the fires. Thus the claim that it was impossible for a hydrocarbon fire to exceed what ever temperature they claim based on standard heats of combustion from a starting point of 20C is just plain bad science.

The thing is, a lot of the people who argue from the conspiracy corner know this (or should know this).

You should be asking yourself why they never make any attempt to correct this mischaracterization of science.




posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I’ll tell you what.

Why don’t you post, and not as a link, but in your own words, or at least as a reasonable C&P, the science that says that a hydrocarbon fire can not exceed 800 C.


Howard, why don't you email Professor Eager and ask him why he agrees that hydrocarbon fires could not have been that hot in the WTC. He's on your side of things after all.

The information you're asking for is unreasonably technical and I've tried looking for it online in the past to find absolutely no good information on the subject. So what you're asking for is, like I said, unreasonable.

It stands that the fires in the WTC could not have exceeding a sustained 825 C, as agreed upon by researchers from both sides of the aisle, until someone can prove otherwise.

Flashovers are excluded because they aren't sustained; they're very brief.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

The starting point for discussing this topic can be the work of the late Dr. McCaffrey, who made extensive measurements [4] of temperatures in turbulent diffusion flames. He used gas burners in a "pool fire" mode (i.e., non-premixed) and studied various characteristics of such fire plumes. He described three different regimes in such a fire plume:

1. Slightly above the base of the fire begins the continuous flame region. Here the temperatures are constant and are slightly below 900°C.
2. Above the solid flame region is the intermittent flame region. Here the temperatures are continuously dropping as one moves up the plume. The visible flame tips correspond to a temperature of about 320°C.
3. Finally, beyond the flame tips is the thermal plume region, where no more flames are visible and temperature continually drop with height.


Source: www.doctorfire.com...

I may be standing corrected Howard.


I don't really think so, Griff.

First, the temperatures needed are in excess of a sustained 970 C, while this source provides the temperatures will be steady, slightly below 900 C (who's to say 825 or 850 C isn't "slightly" below 900 C anyway?
).

Second, this guy was getting this temperatures from a fire was controlled and likely in the best conditions possible for supporting a fire (good fuel/air mix, etc.), which couldn't be expected at the WTC.

And Gordon still has some unaddressed points in how this would all result from just throwing the material together in a fire and expecting it to sort itself out without human intervention.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
this guy was getting this temperatures from a fire was controlled and likely in the best conditions possible for supporting a fire (good fuel/air mix, etc.), which couldn't be expected at the WTC.



Exactly. He had to be sure that the temperature of his initial reactants wasn’t being raised by the heat being given off in the combustion process.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join