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.

 

WTC fires that burned for 100 days

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
What fueled these fires? A very small amount of radioactive isotopes that continued to incinerate the materials in the rubble of ground zero, this is most likely why there was molten steel and why the fires were so damn hard to extinguish. Everything these isotopes come into contact with will burn and melt including the steel, hence the underground foundry.

Come on people, when have you ever heard of fires that have continued to burn this long, they poured so much water into ground zero it was like creating a man made lake, they flooded the area! This was indeed a great help into taming the fires from getting further out of control, this is not unlike a nuclear reactor which uses vast quantities of water to maintain a consistant temperature on the nuclear rods, without water to cool the rods nuclear reactors destabilize and melt down, its an essential component to their workings. Look at what caused 3 mile island incident - quite simply a valve that releases the water into the core got jammed and the temperature soared.

The rubble from the WTC itself went a long way into smothering these fires also, not unlike Chernobyl where by they tamed the fires by smothering the reactor with lead, boron and other materials. Its a pity Chernobyl didn't have a 110 stories worth of building dumped onto it, it would of gone a long way to help!

A big difference between Chernobyl and WTC is the amount of deadly radiation being released, Chernobyls core was exposed to the outside, the reactors structure is relatively small so any collapsing material would of been incinerated pretty quickly, where as the isotopes at WTC were buried under huge quantities of rubble and were also made up of different elements (there was almost a much smaller quantity of these isotopes).

I don't know exactly what type of isotopes these were but they were way less potent than a nuclear reactor rod yet still hot and energetic enough to continue to fuel these fires for up to 100 days and melting anything they came into contact with.

Check out Chernobyl lava and molten steel and the fires at Chernobyl, you will find some very interesting correlations. Also take note to the pattern of damage and how the reactors steel structure is some what wilted and distorted in a circular fashion, it looks awfully reminicent of the damage at WTC and surrounding buildings, almost like small amounts of isotopes were thrown into the surrounding WTCs.

video.google.com...

also worth noting Chernobyl was a long time ago and way out of control, the nuclear devices used at WTC were used for an exact purpose and calculated appropriately.



Fueled by the white-hot graphite core of one of Chernobyl's four reactors, the runaway blaze burned at temperatures of up to 5000 degrees , or twice that of molten steel. The crippled reactor itself was unapproachable--too hot from the fire ravaging it, too dangerous radioactively. ''No one knows how to stop it,'' said one U.S. expert. ''It could take weeks to burn itself out.''


compare to:



Firefighters have extinguished almost all but the last remnants of underground fires that have burned at the World Trade Center site for more than three months since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

The fires that began with the Sept. 11 attacks had been strong enough that firetrucks had to spray a nearly constant jet of water on them. At times, the flames slowed the work of clearing the site.

"You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."




[edit on 2-1-2007 by Insolubrious]




posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Hi Insol.... There are explinations as to why the fires burned so long. If you do a little research I'm sure you will find the appropriate information.

You will find that hot steel will continue to undergo "exotheric oxidation reactions" while explosed to air, causing Iron to increase its temperature until it melts forming pools of molten Iron.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
You will find that hot steel will continue to undergo "exotheric oxidation reactions" while explosed to air, causing Iron to increase its temperature until it melts forming pools of molten Iron.



Huh what?
Explosed?



Insolubrious, I have the same question as you.
How did those fires form, and continue to burn, at the oxygen starved bottom of all the rubble?



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
You will find that hot steel will continue to undergo "exotheric oxidation reactions" while explosed to air, causing Iron to increase its temperature until it melts forming pools of molten Iron.


Sources?

Iron oxidizing with air is called rusting. As far as I know, if this is exothermic, it is extremely minimal, as I've seen many rusted objects and none of them appeared to have been melted.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Hi Insol.... There are explinations as to why the fires burned so long. If you do a little research I'm sure you will find the appropriate information.

You will find that hot steel will continue to undergo "exotheric oxidation reactions" while explosed to air, causing Iron to increase its temperature until it melts forming pools of molten Iron.



I heard mention of the exothermic reaction before which I didn't buy, I have a few issues with that mainly because of the content of the rubble doesn't really go in the favour of such a reaction, also it can take much time for such a reaction to take place. It requires volatile gases and time for substances to break down yet the temperatures were more or less immediate. Don't you think the gas supply to WTC would of been cut off due to fire hazard? Also, were talking extremely high temps here - remember the thermal hotspots? I would like to see some sources for this, exothermic reactions still wouldn't explain molten steel unless there was some really potent chemicals in very large quantities in the rubble, I do not believe the material content is justified for the reaction.

[edit on 2-1-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

Iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

There was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" that is refferred to.

Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.

The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots. As seen in this pic:
www.tms.org...


More on this iron-H2O reaction:

Modern Commercial Hydrogen generation:

"steam contacts molten iron to form iron oxide and release hydrogen....
The hydrogen production step is the same chemical reaction that occurs in the steam-iron process which was used to produce hydrogen commercially 100 years ago. In that technology steam was passed over iron particles to produce hydrogen and iron oxide. However, the rate of hydrogen production declined as the iron oxidized and was covered with rust and the cost of replenishing iron ultimately rendered this process uneconomical"
www.alchemix.net... or www.alchemix.us...


Hydrogen generation from "steam" and iron Performed as a school-lab experiment without "molten" iron:
64.233.187.104...:pdpu-...us&ct=clnk&cd=8


Patent involving the process, without "molten" iron:
"The generation of hydrogen by passing steam at or about 700.degree. C. over a bed of iron is well known in the art."
"a hydrogen-generating process wherein H.sub.2 O is passed over a bed of iron material. The hydrogen generating process uses a catalyst, or freshly-ground iron material, or both, and generates the hydrogen for the fuel cell in situ at lower-than-normal temperatures when the H.sub.2 O reacts with the iron material." www.freepatentsonline.com...



[edit on 2-1-2007 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!


Iron and steel are not the same things. Also, you explicitly pointed out oxidation of iron by air. Based on this confusing of terminology, why should I trust you to go further, into more complicated chemistry?


But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.


And when was this accomplished by catching hydrocarbons on fire and then throwing the materials into a hole in the ground with the fire?

Remember for all of these processes you describe, there are certain conditions that have to be present. It isn't as simple as 1 + 1 = 2, or chemical x + chemical y = reaction z.

I'm no chemist, but I have seen chemists review these kinds of theories and explain the implications and requirements, and it seems they all come back to something as ridiculous as the theories of thermite being created naturally within the towers: it would take an act of Allah to get them to actually work in the real world, because the coincidences that would be required are numerous and unlikely.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
tsk tsk tsk.

There you guys went and did it again. Haven't you learned yet? When you start digging for the truth in the rubble known as 9/11, these creatures of confusion come slithering out of scenery.



Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!


If you haven't noticed, this is quite a combination of imaginative and enthusiastic ultra new hokey pseudo-science type jive talking that you might encounter in these uncertain waters.



The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.




The subject of 9/11 is also capable of producing heavy localized BS, as you might have realized by now. Let's hope that we possess the collective ability to separate one hot stinking pile from another!


[edit on 1/2/2007 by HaveSeen4Myself]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
HAHAHA I have to post cause Cameron Fox is just the GHEYNESS.. sorry I will take the warn..

Look dude. You do know in the beginning of the industrial era that it was so so simple to make steel right? That same stuff that built the WTC. Actually manufactured in Homestead PA. ANYWAY....

The reason why we call it the Industrial Era is because the invention of the Blast Furnace is what got things rolling.

See before this time it was a literal bitch to make steel, iron, and so on.. Reason for this was because typical fires.. You know the ones that were in the towers... Could not substain enough heat to make steel in high quantities. That is why only a few things were made from steel and iron.

Now not even giving science a test I used history. Check your facts son.. cause what he says is absolute BS.



::EDIT:: Spelling/Grammar issues..

Next Christmas I will ask for a speak and spell and grammar checker.


[edit on 1/3/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I'm no chemist nor do I have any kind of college degree,but I do have a little common sense.There is NO way the steel that was melted came from the fires that were burning at ground zero.That stuff was glowing red hot and burned for a long ,long time.What would cause all that molten steel to be there in the first place?Like I said before ,I'm not the brightest guy in the world but I do know that the fires on 9/11 were not hot enough to turn steel into a pool of molten metal.This is just one of MANY questions I have about that fateful day.


kix

posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Tomorrow I am buying steel iron some water and oxigen and pour it in my cars Tank...

"they" say the heat last 3 or more months ON ONE THANK and Ill get hidrogen, so maybe I can tap that and use it for my house heat system!!!

This agents of disinfo are getting ridiculous...that will the say next..that the tower colapsed in a pancake fashion? SUPER LOL



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
There was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" that is refferred to.


I'm no chemist either, but what I heard & saw when I was there was that most of the rubble pile was compacted into the following;

Each floor of WTC = 15 inches of highly compacted material.

They had to use hammer-tooth demolition machines just to loosen said material to expose the structural steel, which was then inspected & cut with torches to be carted away. Then the whole process was started all over again.

These rubble piles were 4 storeys/80 ft. thick even above ground! If this was so then how would air have a place to accumulate? How would water also penetrate this highly compacted material to cause these entombed reactions?


Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.


Wouldn't the steel have already be oxidized when it was exposed to air & water vapor during construction in the 60's & 70's?




posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
The EPA asked NASA to fly over the WTC with a AVIRIS (Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer) system to check on thermal hotspots and any toxic or radiaion problems.

They made 2 flights on the 16th and 23rd of September. The first flight on the 16th recorded temps from 800 degrees to 1000 degrees (K) up to 1300 degrees (F)

pubs.usgs.gov...




Hot Spot (Kelvin)
A 1000
B 830
C 900
D 790
E 710
F 700
G 1020
H 820



[edit on 3-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 3-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]


kix

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Id love to go to NY, and go to the ground Zero spot and close streets amd have a geiger counter with me and put some samples, I bet Id find a lot of Asbestos and weird readings totally unexplainable with the "official" explanations...

Unfortunatelly I cant...



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Id love to go to NY, and go to the ground Zero spot and close streets amd have a geiger counter with me and put some samples, I bet Id find a lot of Asbestos and weird readings totally unexplainable with the "official" explanations...

Unfortunatelly I cant...


1 report blamed radiation at the sites on depleted uranium form the planes. Only problem is that the 757 and 767 do not carry depleted uranium, they carry Tungsten for counterweights. They stop using depleted uranium on the later 747s due to a crash that caused some radiation problems.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
From what i've seen about 9/11 i think that 9/11 was just a ploy for the guy who owned the towers to make a huge amount of money off the insurance and for Bush to have a reason to go into Iraq for the oil.

I don't know why the guy would blow the towers up with a radio active material if he just wanted to collect the insurance money, except if he really wanted it to look authentic with minimal radio active contamination so he could re-develop one of the most valuble pieces of property in the state and possibly the country.

Although it could be that it actually was a terrorist attack. I would also be interested in taking a gieger counter to ground zero because the only proof i have that there is radio active material at ground zero is Insolubrious' theory. But how much radio active dust could their have been if the people living and working in the area arent getting radiation sickness. If the intent of the attack was to kill more people with radiation sickness, why use so little that it hasn't really done any harm that we know of yet and if it has, where are all the people dying. I know that there were tons of dust with carcinogens like asbestos getting people sick.

Still no explanation for the fires burning so long except that the the stuff that was burning was everything in the building except for glass, concrete and steel. like Wiring, papers, plastics, wood, and composite material. It all had to go somewhere. In the pictures I saw papers but no computers and desks or wiring from the building so it seem the logical answer everything else ended up in the basement burning and keeping the fires going hot. If you've seen certain documentaries the idea that whom ever planned the destruction of the towers, used thermite charges to cut the supporting beams, causing pools of melted iron.

Im not saying Insolubrious is wrong, just telling you what i can think of as another possibility.

[edit on 3-1-2007 by cuda]

[edit on 3-1-2007 by cuda]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Hello all and thanks for all your feedback.

There seems to be some confusion so here are some more notes about the fallout that may interest you and are relevent to your postings and thoughts I hope it clears things up a little, so to speak. Here we go:

Officials tried to explain the fallout with tritium from emergency lighting and as previously mentioned DU used in the counter weights on the aircraft wings.

However, all WTC emergency signs were apparently based on the electroluminesence phenomenon, thus they contained no tritium at all, and the counter weights on the aircraft were made up of tungsten as ULTIMA1 previously mentioned.

Kix and Cuda - Did you know that pure H-bombs produces one hundreth of the pollution of an atomic bomb of comparable size? So you can imagine a micro h-bomb nuke would be rather insignificant!

Whats more they are really undetectable with a geiger counter (the alpha particles and tritium particles) at least not your normal type of geiger counter. You may actually need some rather expensive hi-tech equipment to correctly measure it (i forget the name of this particular device, anyone care to tell us?). So even if you did have access to the site you are unlikely to detect anything.

In addition these fallout particles can mostly be washed away with the high pressure water spraying, and we know there was plenty of that! The particles in question are very light, a type of hydrogen and helium. So really the land would not really be de-valued as one might think since it is more easily cured.

Also, when these particles are inhaled they are destructive. Hence the 'WTC cough' not only caused by asbestos. Asbestos can take many years before any noticable effects occur. The tiny fibres hook into the lungs promoting the growth of cancerous abscesses, yet here we have workers affected just hours after working on ground zero.

Mysterious 'WTC cough'..

www.medicalnewstoday.com...

Something else that might interest you is the correlations with the OKC bombing and WTC bombing. Check out this article from Alex Jones interview with Dr. William (Bill) Richard Deagle on 16 November 2004. There is an audio mp3 download available.

www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I saw a giant mulch fire on the news today. They said that it could actually burn for the next YEAR.

To me, the amount of time that fires lasted at ground zero really don't point to a conspiracy, in my opinion. Just think of all the items that could have ignited as time went on- from gasoline tanks in the many, many vehicles parked in the basement, to simple canisters and cans throughout the building.

Granted, I'm no expert. Then again, I don't think anyone is an expert on jetliners crashing into 110-story towers and the subsequent duration of small fires resulting from the collapse of said towers. Browsing the content of a few conspiracy websites won't make any of us experts either. So let's not jump to conclusions.



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
My two cents

My entire family consists of firefighters. So I asked them what they thought of this entire situation and what would cause a thermal hotspot for a hundred days or more. They ALL said that it had to be some type of fuel that was attached to the steel columns of the building which collapsed into the center. They also said that there are only two types of fuel known to man that could cause these types of temperatures. They are Thermite and Thermate. I also asked them about radiation being the cause of these hotspots. Their comment was if there was enough radiation to cause a hotspot of such high temperatures the effects of radiation would have been felt surrounding the area by hundreds if not thousands of people for those hundred days and all the rescuers in people who were at Ground Zero would be burned beyond recognition by the radioactive isotopes.just a little bit common sense and asking the right people will help you get your answers it is absolutely impossible to believe the story slammed down our throats by the establishment, as they were the ones that obviously perpetrated this horrible crime against the poor Americans. I got a funny feeling that this is going to turn out to be just like the Kennedy assassination where we will not find out what exactly happened for 70 or 80 years and when we do everybody involved will be dead and there will be nothing we can do about it.

I did some further research to back up the Thermite and Thermate conjecture.It turns out that several scientists have examined steel debris from Ground Zero and have proven conclusively that Thermate was used to cut the steel beams. Please look this up.

And do you know that most firefighters in Canada won't even talk about 9/11 because they are afraid of reprisals by the American government. Sickening



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I believe alot of the firefighters jobs were threatened after 9/11 if they didn't
"play along".But hey ,this is just my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join