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.

 

Could thermite have been natural accident?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I haven't read this study in its entirety yet (60 pages, of half I read), but it's implications, to me, open up a new theory into the WTC collapses.

Could the impact of the plane with its aluminum body against potentially rusted steel frame of the towers inadvertantly caused thermite explosions?

This paper seems to indicate it's a possibility. Although the paper makes no mention of 9/11, it simply talks about the "fire hazards" associated with impacts of aluminum against rusted steel (i.e. thermite fires).

I'm just extrapolating this to speculate on Doc Jones' "evidence" of thermite-molten steel from the WTC. A possible tragic, albeit, innocent explanation as to the steel structures' failures.

But I'm no scientist, so I may be way off base.

If anyone is interested, the document is here.

www.mms.gov...




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
No... no spontaneous thermite...

2,192F degree ignition temp would be required.
Proper particulate sizes.
Proper ratios of elements/compounds...

I answered this here...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: Fix ignition temp

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Its relatively low melting point (660°C, 1221°F) means that it is easy to melt the metal, so that the reaction can occur mainly in the liquid phase[1] and thus proceeds fairly quickly.

It boils a 4500 F. Sorry you posted the incorrect information.

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction.


This can be a major reason that the WTC 'burned' for so long and the pools of molten metal were found. It is a natural occuring reaction.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

It boils a 4500 F. Sorry you posted the incorrect information.



Sorry... you are right... 2,192 F. When did the fires reach this temp? Never according to your friends at the NIST.


Thermite: Contains iron scale (ferric oxide), aluminium, and oxygen-releasing compounds. Ignition temperature 1200 °C, flame temperature 2500 °C


forum.physorg.com...

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
No... no spontaneous thermite...

2,192F degree ignition temp would be required.
Proper particulate sizes.
Proper ratios of elements/compounds...

I answered this here...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: Fix ignition temp

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]


That's not the impression I got from the paper. In their tests, they dropped rusty steel onto aluminum in an enclosed area filled with combustable gasses. In those tests, there were thermite explosions 20% of the time.

They didn't use proper ratios of chemicals or proper distillations of powders. In fact, that's the point of the paper, that there is truely a thermite fire hazard when aluminum and rusty steel impact each other in some form.

So assuming the impact of the planes in the towers was on a magnitude 50 to 100x greater than just dropping a steel bar using gravity, could a thermite fire then have started?

I may be pulling the classic lone bullet theory here, but nothing needs to be discounted...

[edit on 8-9-2006 by behindthescenes]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
So assuming the impact of the planes in the towers was on a magnitude 50 to 100x greater than just dropping a steel bar using gravity, could a thermite fire then have started?


So, you propose the reaction started ON IMPACT?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by behindthescenes
So assuming the impact of the planes in the towers was on a magnitude 50 to 100x greater than just dropping a steel bar using gravity, could a thermite fire then have started?


So, you propose the reaction started ON IMPACT?


It could have, and then the reactions continued in an environment containing burning jet fuel and melting aluminum and other thermite materials.

But seriously, I have no scientific legs to stand on....just a hypothesis.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Its relatively low melting point (660°C, 1221°F) means that it is easy to melt the metal, so that the reaction can occur mainly in the liquid phase[1] and thus proceeds fairly quickly.

It boils a 4500 F. Sorry you posted the incorrect information.

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction.


This can be a major reason that the WTC 'burned' for so long and the pools of molten metal were found. It is a natural occuring reaction.



It could be a naturally occuring reaction, but does is occur that often, and in what settings, ( with respect to building fires )? My impression of this whole debate is the fact that this is an uncommon occurrence? That it only appears in CD's, and not in conventional building fires. I'm trying to find fire fighter records, etc. of other blazes that had aluminum & steel in their construction, and if this occured there also. If you can find anything like this could you post it. Thanx-



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
OK, I have looked fairly closely at the 60 or so pages... I think it is time to page our residnt chemisty expert... Labtop.. I will U2U him now and ask what he thinks of this as it is obvously over the heads of most here...

He will decipher this and hopefully give an answer as to it's relevance.

I do not see how this can acount for the 1,3-diphenylpropane, sulphur, manganese, flourine, etc...

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
OK, I have looked fairly closely at the 60 or so pages... I think it is time to page our residnt chemisty expert... Labtop.. I will U2U him now and ask what he thinks of this as it is obvously over the heads of most here...

He will decipher this and hopefully give an answer as to it's relevance.

I do not see how this can acount for the 1,3-diphenylpropane, sulphur, manganese, flourine, etc...

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]


Where have you read that 1,3-diphenylpropane, manganese, flourine were present in the wreckage? I've heard of the sulphur, but sulphur is so common as an additive to so much, that a number of explanations can be had for its presence at WTC.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Where have you read that 1,3-diphenylpropane, manganese, flourine were present in the wreckage? I've heard of the sulphur, but sulphur is so common as an additive to so much, that a number of explanations can be had for its presence at WTC.


1,3-diphenylpropane was found in the air and dustsamples by the EPA:


One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"


It is a byproduct of Aerogel/Solgel... Labtop explained it in another thread here when Howardroark tried to say it is a byproduct of burning plastics... IT IS NOT. I will search later. Funny, the EPA has never had it in samples before...

The manganese, flourine and sulfur were found via X-ray flouresence testing and electron microporbing of slag stuck to a WTC memorial by Steven Jones... results to be "published" soon, but you can find the preliminary results here:

worldtradecentertruth.com...

Look at page 80... believe the chain of custody and validty or don't... it has already been argued here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I read the majority of it, but there was really no need to beyond the first few pages once you understood the scope of the tests and the results from previously documented studies.

The study was to determine the sparking potential of impacts between rusted steel surfaces and aluminium/aluminium-coated surfaces, and to then determine the probability of those sparks to ignite ambient volatile gasses and cause a GAS explosion. The term explosivity was used in the paper to describe the potential for aluminium to spark, NOT the potential for it to "explode" and/or start an ongoing thermitic reaction when impacting with rusted steel.

No ongoing thermite reactions were perpetuated by rusted steel impacts with aluminium. In addition, when they couldn't get a high enough success rate for achieving just plain old sparks with mundane impact tests, they were forced to construct a rifle apparatus to fire rust-coated bullets into aluminium-coated steel at 400m/s (895mph
) just to get decent spark results.

Whether there was any thermite used in the towers to demolish them can be argued till the cows come home, but it's been said before and it's been proven by Prof. Jones: thermitic reactions do not occur spontaneously (beyond nanosecond-duration sparks at impact), and they only proceed as long as fine mesh aluminium is in direct contact with fine mesh iron oxide. Start a bonfire and throw as much rusty steel and aluminium onto it as you want, you're not going to get a thermitic reaction. Ram steel into aluminium or vice-versa as fast and hard as you want, and all you're going to get are a few measly sparks.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join