WTC Hotspots how did they form and sustained for so long?

[George B]

The existence of the WTC Hotspots have IMO not been thoroughly explained as to how they formed and how they were sustained for several weeks . . .

 

[Oxymoron]

The existence of the WTC Hotspots have IMO not been thoroughly explained as to how they formed and how the we're sustained for several weeks . . .

There is a perfectly logical explanation... thermite... and that's it .

Some people fail to comprehend concepts like the same amount of heat which raises a pint of water to boiling is only going to raise 8 pints to 1/8th of boiling max. And even that is dependent on the rate it is heated. If applied at the same rate as needed to raise 1 pint to boiling in five minutes, and it was then applied to 8 pints at the same rate, it would only heat the 8 pints an extremely small amount due to heat dissipation, (in the greater volume) and heat radiation from a larger surface area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fauld_explosion

The RAF Fauld explosion was a military accident which occurred at 11:11am on Monday, 27 November 1944 at the RAF Fauld underground munitions storage depot. The RAF Fauld explosion was one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history and the largest to occur on UK soil.

Between 3,500 and 4,000 tonnes of ordnance exploded — mostly comprising high explosive (HE)-filled bombs, but including a variety of other types of weapons and including 500 million rounds of rifle ammunition. The resulting crater was 120 metres (400 ft) deep and 1,200 metres (0.75 miles) across and is still clearly visible just south of the village of Fauld, to the west of Hanbury Hill in Staffordshire, England. A nearby reservoir containing 450,000 cubic metres of water was obliterated in the incident, along with a number of buildings including a complete farm. Flooding caused by destruction of the reservoir added to the damage directly caused by the explosion.[1]

​Two huge explosions were witnessed at RAF No. 21 M.U. Bomb Storage dump on 27 November 1944 at 11.15 hours. Eye witnesses reported seeing two distinct columns of black smoke in the form of a mushroom cloud ascending several thousand feet, and saw a blaze at the foot of the column. According to the Commanding Officer of M.U. 21 (Group Captain Storrar) an open dump of incendiary bombs caught fire and it was allowed to burn itself out without damage or casualties. Property was damaged within a radius of 3/4 miles of the crater.[3]​Debris and damage occurred to all property within a circle extending for 1,420 yards (1,300 m). Upper Castle Hayes Farm completely disappeared and Messrs. Peter Ford's Lime and Gypsum works to the north of the village and Purse cottages were completely demolished. The lime works was destroyed by the destruction of the reservoir dam and the subsequent release of water into the works. Hanbury Fields Farm, Hare Holes Farm and also Croft Farm with adjacent cottages were all extensively damaged. Debris also damaged Hanbury village. The crater was some 900 by 700 feet (210 m) in length and 380 feet (120 m) deep covering 12 acres. Approximately one third of the RAF dump exploded, an area of 65000 square yards, but barriers of rock pillars between No. 3 and No. 4 sections held and prevented the other munition storage areas from exploding in a chain reaction. Damage from earth shock extended as far as Burton-upon-Tren

If that managed to extinguish itself in short time there is no reason why WTC's should burn for months at temperatures which melted steel in vast quantities.

 

[Oxymoron]

The bombing of Dresden is another case in point.

http://rense.com/general19/flame.htm

[SIZE=+1]More than 700.000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million people. One bomb for every 2 people. The temperature in the centre of the city reached 1600 o centigrade. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]
On the evening of February 13, 1945, an orgy of genocide and barbarism began against a defenseless German city, one of the greatest cultural centers of northern Europe. Within less than 14 hours not only was it reduced to flaming ruins, but an estimated one-third of its inhabitants, possibly as many as a half a million, had perished in what was the worst single event massacre of all time.

[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Dresden's citizens barely had time to reach their shelters. The first bomb fell at 10:09 p.m. The attack lasted 24 minutes, leaving the inner city a raging sea of fire. "Precision saturation bombing" had created the desired firestorm.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]A firestorm is caused when hundreds of smaller fires join in one vast conflagration. Huge masses of air are sucked in to feed the inferno, causing an artificial tornado. Those persons unlucky enough to be caught in the rush of wind are hurled down entire streets into the flames. Those who seek refuge underground often suffocate as oxygen is pulled from the air to feed the blaze, or they perish in a blast of white heat--heat intense enough to melt human flesh.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]One eyewitness who survived told of seeing "young women carrying babies running up and down the streets, their dresses and hair on fire, screaming until they fell down, or the collapsing buildings fell on top of them."

[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]There was a three-hour pause between the first and second raids. The lull had been calculated to lure civilians from their shelters into the open again. To escape the flames, tens of thousands of civilians had crowded into the Grosser Garten, a magnificent park nearly one and a half miles square.

The second raid came at 1:22 a.m. with no warning. Twice as many bombers returned with a massive load of incendiary bombs. The second wave was designed to spread the raging firestorm into the Grosser Garten.

It was a complete "success." Within a few minutes a sheet of flame ripped across the grass, uprooting trees and littering the branches of others with everything from bicycles to human limbs. For days afterward, they remained bizarrely strewn about as grim reminders of Allied sadism.

At the start of the second air assault, many were still huddled in tunnels and cellars, waiting for the fires of the first attack to die down. At 1:30 a.m. an ominous rumble reached the ears of the commander of a Labor Service convoy sent into the city on a rescue mission. He described it this way:

"The detonation shook the cellar walls. The sound of the explosions mingled with a new, stranger sound which seemed to come closer and closer, the sound of a thundering waterfall; it was the sound of the mighty tornado howling in the inner city."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]MELTING HUMAN FLESH[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Others hiding below ground died. But they died painlessly--they simply glowed bright orange and blue in the darkness. As the heat intensified, they either disintegrated into cinders or melted into a thick liquid--often three or four feet deep in spots.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]However, what distinguished this raid was the cold-blooded ruthlessness with which it was carried out. U.S. Mustangs appeared low over the city, strafing anything that moved, including a column of rescue vehicles rushing to the city to evacuate survivors. One assault was aimed at the banks of the Elbe River, where refugees had huddled during the horrible night.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]When the last plane left the sky, Dresden was a scorched ruin, its blackened streets filled with corpses. The city was spared no horror. A flock of vultures escaped from the zoo and fattened on the carnage. Rats swarmed over the piles of corpses.A Swiss citizen described his visit to Dresden two weeks after the raid: "I could see torn-off arms and legs, mutilated torsos and heads which had been wrenched from their bodies and rolled away. In places the corpses were still lying so densely that I had to clear a path through them in order not to tread on arms and legs."[/SIZE]

No mention of fires still burning even 2 weeks later, even after all that. And yet a few office fires on 7 burn for months at gzero
Although there is an account which states:

The city burned for seven days and smoldered for weeks.

http://proliberty.com/observer/20030402.htm

 

[Jazzy]

The existence of the WTC Hotspots have IMO not been thoroughly explained as to how they formed and how they were sustained for several weeks

That is false, George.

This Post has been altered by mistake . . . by George B

Where do you think this explanation exists?.

 

[Jazzy]

Really hot George. Or really warm. Or even when cold. Even when acid. Even when alkaline. Even when neither alkaline nor acid.

Don't excite yourself that the first reduction of water was done through an incandescent iron pipe.

That was an instantaneous process, to produce large amounts of hydrogen quickly. By slowing down the process by reducing the temperature and by adding ions to the steam and water one would will get a respectable accelerated rusting process which could produce reasonable amounts of hydrogen at steady rates for weeks. I bet you've seen the rusting evidence too.

Here, facts:

Anaerobic corrosion
Hydrogen corrosion is a form of metal corrosion occurring in the presence of anoxic water. Hydrogen corrosion involves a redox reaction that reduces hydrogen ions, forming molecular hydrogen. Metals enter aqueous solution and are oxidized.

Oxidation reaction (pH independent):View attachment 2890

Reduction reaction in acid solution:View attachment 2891
In an acidic solution, the water molecules are protonated and the hydronium ions (H3O+) are directly reduced into H2.

Reduction reaction in neutral or slightly alkaline solution:View attachment 2892
In a neutral or slightly alkaline solution, the protons of water are reduced into molecular hydrogen giving rise to the production of hydroxide ions responsible of the precipitation of the slightly soluble ferrous hydroxide (Fe(OH)2).
This finally leads to the global reaction of the anaerobic corrosion of iron in water:

Transformation of ferrous hydroxide into magnetite
Under anaerobic conditions, the ferrous hydroxide (Fe(OH)2 ) can be oxidized by the protons of water to form magnetite and molecular hydrogen. This process is described by the Schikorr reaction:

3 Fe(OH)2 → Fe3O4 + H2 + 2 H2O
ferrous hydroxide → magnetite + hydrogen + water

The well crystallized magnetite (Fe3O4) is thermodynamically more stable than the ferrous hydroxide (Fe(OH)2 ). This process also occurs during the anaerobic corrosion of iron and steel in oxygen-free groundwater and in reducing soils below the water table.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_corrosion

RUSTING to you, George... ... ... ...


INSULATION.

PS. There is a serious disinformation video on this on the web. The guy is cousin to ALIEN SCIENTIST. Both he and his uncle block serious argument immediately it is presented to them. He conducts an "experiment" which in no way matches the requirements described above, especially that part highlighted in red. More-or-less as he did with thermite.

 

[Oxymoron]

The only subterranean fires to 'carry on burning' are in coal mines with unlimited fuel and oxygen via vents and cracks.

http://www.treehugger.com/clean-tec...l-fire-started-in-1962-still-burns-today.html

You may have already heard the story of Centralia, PA, a coal mining town that had some 1,000 inhabitants at its peak. Now, that population is down to 9. It's become a ghost town for one of the most bizarre reasons imaginable--a fire started in 1962 to burn trash in a dump inadvertently spread to a coal seam underground and has simply never stopped burning. The most recent report, published Dec. 1st in the Bismarck Tribune, confirms that the fire continues to this day--it's lasted an incredible 47 years so far.

Photo credit: J.D. Abolins via Flickr/CC BYNow, a mere 9 people continue to live on the hazardous lands, while the fire is now thought to have spread to an area of over 500 acres. Some worst-case scenario estimates fear the fire could eventually spread to an area of 3700 acres, and burn for another 100 years. Centralia's history was the inspiration for the horror film Silent Hill.

 

[George B]

INSULATION

Jazzy, can you give me some real world example of heat being retained at the temperatures and duration in the manner of the WTC . . . ?

 

[Oxymoron]

Even the West Texas fertiliser explosion on April 17th was out the next day virtually with the caveat:

On April 20, some residents who tried to return to their destroyed homes were turned away, because leaking gas tanks were causing small fires.[36]​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion


Even in Hiroshima and Nagasaki there are no reports of underground fires or of fires enduring for extensive or surprising periods of time.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp09.asp

Underground air raid shelters with earth cover roofs immediately below the explosion had their roofs caved in; but beyond 1/2 mile from X they suffered no damage.

In Nagasaki, 1500 feet from X high quality steel frame buildings were not completely collapsed, but the entire buildings suffered mass distortion and all panels and roofs were blown in.
In Nagasaki, 2,000 feet from X, reinforced concrete buildings with 10" walls and 6" floors were collapsed; reinforced concrete buildings with 4" walls and roofs were standing but were badly damaged. At 2,000 feet some 9" concrete walls were completely destroyed.

In Nagasaki, 3,500 feet from X, church buildings with 18" brick walls were completely destroyed. 12" brick walls were severely cracked as far as 5,000 feet.
In Hiroshima, 4,400 feet from X, multi-story brick buildings were completely demolished. In Nagasaki, similar buildings were destroyed to 5,300 feet.
In Hiroshima, roof tiles were bubbled (melted) by the flash heat out to 4,000 feet from X; in Nagasaki, the same effect was observed to 6,500 feet.
In Hiroshima, steel frame buildings were destroyed 4,200 feet from X, and to 4,800 feet in Nagasaki.
In both cities, the mass distortion of large steel buildings was observed out to 4,500 feet from X.
In Nagasaki, reinforced concrete smoke stacks with 8" walls, specially designed to withstand earthquake shocks, were overturned up to 4,000 feet from X.

 

[Oxymoron]

Bridge collapses due to 'slow fire' aka rust.... no fires reported, even after collapses into river. Scientists amazed.... Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mianus_River_Bridge

The collapse was caused by the failure of two pin and hanger assemblies that held the deck in place on the outer side of the bridge. The hanger on the inside part of the expansion joint at the southeast corner was forced from the pin that was holding it, and the load was shifted to the only other pin in the joint. The problem was caused by rust formation within the bearing on the pin, exerting a force on the hanger which was beyond design limits. The extra load on the remaining pin started a fatigue crack at a sharp corner on the pin. When it failed catastrophically, the deck was supported at just three corners. When two heavy trucks and a car entered the section, the remaining expansion joint failed, and the deck crashed into the river below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust

Rust is composed of iron oxides. In colloquial usage, the term is applied to red oxides, formed by the reaction of iron and oxygen in the presence of water or air moisture. Other forms of rust exist, like the result of reactions between iron and chloride in an environment deprived of oxygen – rebar used in underwater concrete pillars is an example – which generates green rust. Several forms of rust are distinguishable visually and by spectroscopy, and form under different circumstances.[1]​ Rust consists of hydrated iron(III) oxides Fe2​O3​·nH2​O and iron(III) oxide-hydroxide FeO(OH)·Fe(OH)3​.
Given sufficient time, oxygen, and water, any iron mass will eventually convert entirely to rust and disintegrate. Surface rust is flaky and friable, and provides no protection to the underlying iron, unlike the formation of patina on copper surfaces. Rusting is the common term for corrosion of iron and its alloys, such as steel. Many other metals undergo equivalent corrosion, but the resulting oxides are not commonly called rust.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090123094225AAIyvg5

When something burns the material that is burning is oxidizing. Iron in its fully reduced state is Fe. When fully oxidized it is Fe2O3 (rust) and water adds oxygen to the iron to make it rust. Another "slow fire" is when we digest food. The food oxidizes to CO2 and water (among other things) and we derive energy from that. So you are a slow burning fire.

Not a bright spark but call 911 anyway.

 

[Jazzy]

The presence of which would have been confirmed by the copious presence of a brilliant white refractory powder, alumina. Which wasn't found.


This maybe due to their lack of education, or even commonsense. It doesn't apply to thermodynamicists.

An is a very quick event. In the oil industry they are used to extinguish flames.


Nice inversion of causality there.

There weren't fires because there wasn't any air to be found deep inside a pile of compacted rubble. There was simply hot insulated metal, heated by its own kinetic energy.

Remember Occam's motto: "Be simple and straightforward". If you can.


desperate diversion.


With their own magic supply of oxygen fed down to them using pipes?

View attachment 2893

Bridge collapses due to rust.... no fires reported, even after collapse.

That's the thing about rivers.

 

[Jazzy]

The only subterranean fires to 'carry on burning' are in coal mines with unlimited fuel and oxygen via vents and cracks.

You are on to something here.

If WTCs 1, 2, and 7 were secret coal repositories that could explain it. (This is not for your ears, George). Except of course, the fact the mines are made of shafts and tunnels, perhaps, whereas rubbish heaps aren't.

 

[Jazzy]

.

Air flow through the Ground Zero pile is found to be more than three orders of magnitude short of that required to sustain smoldering combustion
http://www.takeourworldback.com/911demolished.htm

Confirms that there were no fires.

The interesting thing about these so-called "fires" is how the heat was consistently concentrated in the steel.

Confirms that the kinetic energy was within the steel.

Larry Keating said "Sometimes the steel could explode when the buried ends were exposed to the air.

Confirms the presence of hydrogen.

You saw some of the thickest steel I've ever seen bent like a pretzel, and you just couldn't imagine the force that that took.

Confirms the transmission of kinetic energy by impact into the base of the stack.

They would hit the air and burst into flames, which was pretty spooky to see."

Confirms they met atmospheric oxygen at a temperature high enough to ignite the hydrogen.

Great post, Lee.

 

[Oxymoron]

Jazzy, can you give me some real world example of heat being retained at the temperatures and duration in the manner of the WTC . . . ?

There aren't any George, unless it is from a nuclear reactor such as in the earths core or Chernobyl etc or an underground fire with massive fuel sources like a coal mine etc, or an ongoing chemical reaction. ... it's a fiction, other than @ gzero, which is unique.

There are false excuses for it like the kinetic energy was within the (buried and motionless) steel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.[1]​ It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The adjective kinetic has its roots in the Greek word κίνησις (kinesis) meaning motion. The dichotomy between kinetic energy and potential energy can be traced back to Aristotle's concepts of actuality and potentiality.

An object which was in motion and therefore had kinetic energy, loses it when it comes to rest. It cannot be stored within the object at rest and then 'burst into flame' when it is exposed to air because of 'stored kinetic energy'. It is fallacious in the extreme and anyone who says kinetic energy can be stored within an object at rest is either a bare faced liar or ignorant in the extreme. Defacto, anything else they say should be treated with the utmost suspicion.

 

[Cairenn]

I am wondering if some of the fires that erupted, later, were fires that had 'died' because of the lack of oxygen, then restarted when oxygen was reintroduced?

I know this is not the same but it does illustrate that a fire can restart after some time. Some years ago, a group of us were clearing a site of brush, so we could camp there. We were burning a lot of small brush/vines/rotted wood. One Sat, we just covered the fire pit, when we left, because we intended to come back on Sun. Sun morning instead brought us about 2 inches of snow, so we called off the workday. No one went back and quenched the covered fire. The next Sat, we went back out, and as soon as we raked the dirt off the fire pit, the fire restarted. There is a reason that they tell you to drench campfires with water.

 

[David Fraser]

There was a tyre fire in Wales that smouldered on for 13 years or so. The fire brigade read high temperatures below the surface, and as the tires where tightly packed that would suggest restricted air supply yet there was still enough heat to keep them going.

The tyres - all 10m of them - lie in a deep wooded valley in the Welsh borders. They are packed too densely for firefighters to extinguish and there are no flames, but temperature readings confirm the intense heat generated below the surface. Wisps of acrid black smoke occasionally drift up from the mass of rubber

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/may/15/environment.waste (for some strange reason my return key will not work on these forums.)

 

[Oxymoron]

I am wondering if some of the fires that erupted, later, were fires that had 'died' because of the lack of oxygen, then restarted when oxygen was reintroduced?

I know this is not the same but it does illustrate that a fire can restart after some time. Some years ago, a group of us were clearing a site of brush, so we could camp there. We were burning a lot of small brush/vines/rotted wood. One Sat, we just covered the fire pit, when we left, because we intended to come back on Sun. Sun morning instead brought us about 2 inches of snow, so we called off the workday. No one went back and quenched the covered fire. The next Sat, we went back out, and as soon as we raked the dirt off the fire pit, the fire restarted. There is a reason that they tell you to drench campfires with water.

That's interesting Cairenn, basically you are talking about a fire pit or even a kiln. Do you have any more info on how long heat can be retained underground in such a device? I am really surprised that it stayed hot enough to self ignite a week later. Thinking about it there must have been combustible material still ready to burn so it must have just been smoldering.

Kilns only get really hot when they have good draw through don't they?

House fires are also known to reignite sometimes after being quenched but I thought that unlikely after 24 or 36 hours. Unless there is a hidden fire buried with fuel source and enough air to keep it hot.

I think the main difference here is that we are talking about red hot steel and molten metal which has had millions of gallons of water over it for up to 2 months. What do you think?

 

[Oxymoron]

There was a tyre fire in Wales that smouldered on for 13 years or so. The fire brigade read high temperatures below the surface, and as the tires where tightly packed that would suggest restricted air supply yet there was still enough heat to keep them going.

The tyres - all 10m of them - lie in a deep wooded valley in the Welsh borders. They are packed too densely for firefighters to extinguish and there are no flames, but temperature readings confirm the intense heat generated below the surface. Wisps of acrid black smoke occasionally drift up from the mass of rubber

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/may/15/environment.waste (for some strange reason my return key will not work on these forums.)

I think that is probably the same principle as the coal mine fires, massive highly combustible fuel source but instead of the mine tunnels and vents there would be lots of air trapped in the cavities of the tyres which would also facilitate air currents to provide sufficient oxygen keep them at least smoldering. Presumably heat building up quicker than it can dissipate as well.

That was back in 2002. They have many different methods for recycling or destroying tyres now and there is a tax payable on the new tyres to subsidise the cost of dealing with the old ones.

A friend of mine was heavily involved in an clean burn incinerator which produced electricity from all sorts of waste inc tyres. It burned at extremely high temp and the filters were so efficient you could breathe the emissions.

 

[SR1419]

Not sure if this has been posted or not but here is an article on the fires:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/nyregion/19FIRE.html?pagewanted=all

As in a stubborn coal mine fire, the combustion taking place deep below the surface is in many places not a fire at all. Instead, oxygen is charring the surfaces of buried fuels in a slow burn more akin to what is seen in the glowing coals of a raked-over campfire. But the scale of the trade center burning is vast, with thousands of plastic computers, acres of flammable carpet, tons of office furniture and steel and reservoirs of hydraulic oil and other fuels piled upon one another......"When you have a huge mass of materials deeply buried like this, it's sort of analogous to the Centralia mine fire," said Dr. Thomas J. Ohlemiller, a chemical engineer and fire expert at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md. "Very little heat is lost, so the reaction can keep going at relatively low temperatures, provided you have a weak supply of oxygen coming through the debris."

 

[SR1419]

Here is a report on the aerosols of the debris fires at GZ:

http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm#An...Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001

When the trade center towers burned and collapsed, tons of concrete, glass, furniture, carpets, insulation, computers and paper were reduced to enormous, oxygen-poor debris piles that slowly burned until Dec. 19, 2001.

In that hot pile, some of the debris' constituent elements combined with organic matter and abundant chlorine from papers and plastics, and then escaped to the surface as metal-rich gases. These then either burned or chemically decomposed into very fine particles capable of penetrating deeply into human lungs.

 

[SR1419]

another Debris pile fire:

http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Crews-expect-to-extinguish-Concord-fire-Thursday-night-111215084.html

Officials believe spontaneous combustion may have caused the fire. The debris pile was roughly 50-feet deep.

Officials say it could have been burning for days, even weeks, before the smoldering reached the top, and the oxygen.

 

[Pete Tar]

When did Jazzy delete a 'perfectly good rational post'? He's not a moderator.

 

[George B]

To all POSTERS the fighting is over on this THREAD from this Post forward . . . I will continue to delete ANY POST referring to anything other than the facts or evidence . . . any reference to a person or personality will be deleted as soon as I find it . . .

 

[Pete Tar]

But there was a wealth of good information in jazzy's post, pertinent to the situation, that's not fair. Ignorance should be free to be pointed out. Those on the receiving end of claimed ignorance should counter with examples to the contrary, if they can, or concede.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

To all POSTERS the fighting is over on this THREAD from this Post forward . . . I will continue to delete ANY POST referring to anything other than the facts or evidence . . . any reference to a person or personality will be deleted as soon as I find it . . .

Uh, oh.

 

[Jazzy]

To all POSTERS the fighting is over on this THREAD from this Post forward. I will continue to delete ANY POST referring to anything other than the facts or evidence. any reference to a person or personality will be deleted as soon as I find it.

George, I was writing about the facts, evidence and the science. Replace my post immediately. Message to Mick next.

[video=youtube_share;ZXhHFgDRNBQ]http://youtu.be/ZXhHFgDRNBQ[/video]

 

[George B]

But there was a wealth of good information in jazzy's post, pertinent to the situation, that's not fair. Ignorance should be free to be pointed out. Those on the receiving end of claimed ignorance should counter with examples to the contrary, if they can, or concede.

Anyone is free to do so but without demeaning verbage and demeaning graphics. . . .

 

[Pete Tar]

Well I don't envy you your position. There is a lot of barely concealed contempt in these threads, but I have always viewed Jazzy's approach as that of a zen master liberally applying the keisaku for appropriate emphasis, by using acerbic humour as his hitting stick. I enjoy the way he puts things, but as a fan of satire that is a biased opinion.

 

[David Fraser]

Well I don't envy you your position. There is a lot of barely concealed contempt in these threads, but I have always viewed Jazzy's approach as that of a zen master liberally applying the keisaku for appropriate emphasis, by using acerbic humour as his hitting stick. I enjoy the way he puts things, but as a fan of satire that is a biased opinion.

I totally agree. He is like that wise uncle that everyone has. However I don't think I would have him round for Christmas as I will have to hide the Crème de menthe.

 

[Cairenn]

It was not a kiln, it was not really a fire pit either. It was a shallow trench, most likely natural. We had bordered it with rocks I think, In fact I think some folks used it to roast weenies and marshmallows.

It was not designed to hold heat.

Kilns are made so they will. I also make clay sculptures, so I have a good idea of what it takes to make even the most simple kiln. I have built one in my yard.

 

[George B]

George, I was writing about the facts, evidence and the science. Replace my post immediately. Message to Mick next.

Be my guest Jazzy . .

 

[Jazzy]

Be my guest Jazzy . .

OK.... I give in..... Give me my post back...... Off we go........................

.

Air flow through the Ground Zero pile is found to be more than three orders of magnitude short of that required to sustain smoldering combustion
http://www.takeourworldback.com/911demolished.htm

Confirms that there were no fires.

The interesting thing about these so-called "fires" is how the heat was consistently concentrated in the steel.

Confirms that the kinetic energy was within the steel.

Larry Keating said "Sometimes the steel could explode when the buried ends were exposed to the air.

Confirms the presence of hydrogen.

You saw some of the thickest steel I've ever seen bent like a pretzel, and you just couldn't imagine the force that that took.

Confirms the transmission of kinetic energy by impact into the base of the stack.

They would hit the air and burst into flames, which was pretty spooky to see."

Confirms they met atmospheric oxygen at a temperature high enough to ignite the hydrogen.

Great post, Lee. I see you haven't answered this yet. Perhaps you forgot it in all the excitement.

It comes with an Oxywhizzbang: KINETIC ENERGY IS HEAT.

Energy occurs in many forms, including chemical energy, thermal energy, electromagnetic radiation, gravitational energy, electric energy, elastic energy, nuclear energy, and rest energy. These can be categorized in two main classes: potential energy and kinetic energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Thermal energy is the part of the total potential energy and kinetic energy of an object or sample of matter that results in the system temperature. This quantity may be difficult to determine or even meaningless unless the system has attained its temperature only through warming, and not been subjected to work input or output, or any other energy-changing processes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy

Having shown the energy available and how it is directed to the base of the wreckage, one only has to venture a guess as to what proportion of the whole energy ended up in hotspots.

I reckon a tenth of it - which is enough to show multiple hotspots within and around where the buildings stood.

Lee, it isn't sensible to come up with a figure for destroying the tower concrete in excess of the towers potential energy unless you can find something better than paint and primer in the dust.

As you cannot, perhaps you can show me your calcs and figures on the energy required to destroy the floors?

 

[Jazzy]

I totally agree. He is like that wise uncle that everyone has. However I don't think I would have him round for Christmas as I will have to hide the Crème de menthe.

I went off Starboard Lights in a big way (after having too many of them) in Fontainebleau 1965. Self-administered aversion therapy. Your creme de menthe is perfectly safe. Honest.

 

[Jazzy]

But there was a wealth of good information in jazzy's post, pertinent to the situation, that's not fair. Ignorance should be free to be pointed out. Those on the receiving end of claimed ignorance should counter with examples to the contrary, if they can, or concede.

Thanks, Pete. If there were to be a formal structure for that, it would be a good idea.

My "awards" were in lieu of its absence. I'm in favor of rules/no rules. Either way. "Rules" would clean up and shorten debate. "No rules" is more entertaining.

"Slanted rules" arguing against an agitprop street gang including a moderator out of the muppets, on the other hand, is - [...]

 

[lee h oswald]

serious disinformation

Misdirection.

Yes. Caveat emptor.

Originally Posted by lee h oswald


There was approximately 80,000 tons of structural steel per tower. That figure is not disputed and a most basic fact. Maybe some of your other numbers are also grossly misrepresentative?

Jazzy:

Except that I have never said that was the weight of the steelwork. I said it was the weight of the towers.

Like Grieves, your reading skills are at fault once again.

But:

Jazzy:

....the PE couldn't melt ALL the steelwork (450,000 tons of it!) then the foundations couldn't have...

Lee:

So when you said all the steelwork was 450000 tons you didn't say that the steelwork was 450000 tons? Is that about right?

Jazzy:

The structural steel work isn't ALL the steelwork. ....
There is much more ancillary steelwork in the ....blah.....

Then there were architectural, furnishing, and office fittings for a hundred floors.....

Lee:

...you've made a serious error in your estimate of how much steel was present in the buildings. First you claim you never said such a thing (my poor reading skills, apparently), but when it's shown that you did say just such a thing, you try to bluff your way out by claiming that 450,000 tons of steel is correct. Let's go over those numbers again. Two towers with 80,000 tons of structural steel per tower = 160,000 tons. This figure is an approximation, but a generally accepted one (by most everyone but you, apparently). You make the claim that the total amount of steel for two towers is 450,000 when you include all the lifts, ducting, furniture. So, 450,000 - 160,000 = 290,000. That's 290,000 tons more steel in two towers - just steel, no wood, plasterboard, aluminium, zinc, ply etc etc - just steel, 290,000 more tons of it. So you think that the steel structure of each tower @ 80,000 tons was added to by another 145,000 tons of steel in the form of lifts, three floors of plant, ducting, furniture etc.? One doesn't really need to be any kind of engineer to understand that this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality. But maybe you'd like to share your source on this figure? I doubt that will be forthcoming.

Lee:

FEMA actually gave the calculation of PE in each building as 4 x 10^11 joules and that is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower. So your calculation on that wasn't bad

Jazzy:

I'm glad you're happy about that. So let's work that back, shall we? 4 x 10^11 joules = 0.5 x M x g x h, right? Then M = 2 x 4 x 10^11 / 9.81 x 387 = 211,000 TONNES for one building.

Were there two towers? Then you'll have to multiply by two. Can you manage that? Now tell me, what exactly did .... I get wrong?

OK. You've claimed various different figures for the weight of the buildings and elements thereof, changing them dependent on which 'argument' you were trying to fake at the time. When you scoffed at my ball park figure of 240,500 tons for the weight of one tower, you quoted estimates of the towers' weight vary from 450k to 500k. But the figure - as worked back from the 111k KWH of energy as set out by the FEMA building performance study, shows 211k - see above. These figures have been pretty freely available for years and years, so the question is then - why do you keep mixing it up? It can only either be from ignorance, or it's deliberate. This post is just a tiny sample of dozens of similar instances of you playing fast and loose with the known facts. The above exchanges speak for themselves. That'll do for me. No more time wasted on your 'theories'.

So, now I'm going to take DR DADE's prescription (Don't Read, Don't Answer, Don't Engage) - and, maybe it's the placebo thingy, but I feel much better already.

PS

Jazzy:

Frankly, you leave me at a loss, here. I am absolutely unable to answer you. Except that "all the energy put in to raise the building" isn't what I said - once again

So you didn't say that 'the PE of any building is the energy put into it to raise it to its structural position'? But we can all see that's exactly what you said. You also didn't say there was just 34,000 tonnes of concrete per tower, I suppose - at the time you were telling everyone how little energy was required to pulverise the concrete.

 

[lee h oswald]

Well I don't envy you your position. There is a lot of barely concealed contempt in these threads, but I have always viewed Jazzy's approach as that of a zen master liberally applying the keisaku for appropriate emphasis, by using acerbic humour as his hitting stick. I enjoy the way he puts things, but as a fan of satire that is a biased opinion.

Zen master?!! Now that's satire.

Never mind the facts, eh?

 

[George B]

Zen master?!! Now that's satire.

Never mind the facts, eh?

Lee. . . .Please don't throw gas on the fire. . . .this thread needs to cool down and remain totally non attributional . . .

 

[Jazzy]

Yes, etc.

This is another of your diversions, Lee, like when you attacked Cairenn over precisely what the annealing of steel entailed.

That had no bearing on the fact that the towers' steel softened over the course of their fires, and was no argument at all against that.

Your tower steelwork weight argument carries no weight. What fell down, the tower steelwork, or the whole tower?

It was the COMPLETE MASS of a tower that carried the POTENTIAL ENERGY, and the COMPLETE IMPACTING MASS of a tower that drove its KINETIC ENERGY towards the tower base through the impacted wreckage.

If you want to argue over the what the complete mass was, then take it up with the people that supplied this:

View attachment 2790

Single items impacting ground zero ALONE will indeed raise their temperature by only a few degrees.

But we are talking about the virtually lossless kinetic energy transfer of an impacting body into impacted wreckage which is predominantly composed of steel.

[video=youtube_share;JadO3RuOJGU]http://youtu.be/JadO3RuOJGU[/video]

Of course, some kinetic energy dissipated as steel hit the wreckage/rubble by friction*.

But every clean hit of steel on steel would send that remaining kinetic energy directly at the base, by CONTACT and IMPACT.

This is the concentrating process that so mystifies you, and which you deny.

You must deny, because it's one of the foundations of your faith. But this foundation is like all the other "foundations" of 911 truth - quicksand.

Yet you were keen to supply, obviously without understanding, confirmatory evidence, which demonstrates how far astray you find yourself, and how fatuous your attacks are.

Your argument is a losing position, and it won't be won by constant diversion and crude attacks on my credibility.

You, Oxy, and Grieves continuously supply me with rebuttal material, including the poor behavior of each of you.

Science isn't Agitprop. And science indicates the towers fell quite naturally.


* Friction translated directional kinetic energy into molecular vibrational kinetic energy, known as THERMAL ENERGY.

The pile warmed up without heat concentration at the base as the steel passed through it.

But the remaining kinetic energy in the steel transferred to to the next piece of steel it collided with, and so on, until motion ceased.

All the kinetic energies of the material impacting the wreckage resolved finally as HEAT, save for the mechanical work done on the steel.

Loss-free kinetic energy transmission by impact shifted the heat gain predominantly to ground zero.

The hot spots were the natural outcome.

 

[Oxymoron]

This is....

I am trying very hard to abide with Mick's politeness policy, (which I wholeheartedly endorse). I am also attempting to not overburden George with having to police the thread. I apologise to George for any lapses I have had by retaliating to provocation and I take this opportunity to express my thanks for his even handedness and calming influence under very difficult circumstances. Much respect to you George.

I would like to discuss the facts and the science in a rational, civil and scientific manner, keeping personal references out of the discussion but you make it extremely difficult to do so with your bullying gaslighting attacks which clearly show you have no respect for the politeness policy and which are frankly disgraceful. You really should be ashamed of yourself. I believe I can say this within the terms of the politeness policy because it is proven fact, which even your highly edited and therefore greatly toned down posts attest to.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you will use every insulting, manipulative and corrupting device to further your cause and that you are fully prepared to corrupt science to suit your purpose. I suggest that you have acquitted yourself very badly throughout this discussion and that inadvertently you have seriously harmed your argument in so doing.

I suggest your derisory and oppressive attitude is exactly the type of fuel which stokes the fires of conspiracy theories and promulgates distrust.

I suggest this should be an end to the matter and we confine ourselves to the facts as has been requested repeatedly by George and Mick. Do you agree to such an undertaking?

 

[Jazzy]

I am etc.

I have confined myself to the "facts".

The fresh "fact" is that you are not replying to my post - again.

 

[Oxymoron]

Ok, we are sticking only to science.

Air flow through the Ground Zero pile is found to be more than three orders of magnitude short of that required to sustain smoldering combustion
http://www.takeourworldback.com/911demolished.htm

Confirms that there were no fires.

That seems reasonable, (but ironically it also appears to preclude smouldering which was self evident*) as does this quotation from the report issued by "The Energy Citations Database (1943 – Present) was developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) to improve access to Departmental and predecessor agency scientific and technical information (STI)." http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/about.jsp

* Perhaps the smouldering was confined to a limited depth or some areas which had sufficiency of oxygen to allow it.

"smoldering fires of much lower temperature than the explosive and high-temperature fires up in the Towers (with the exception of possibly the WTC 7 fire)", and (ii) their estimate of 0.1 for the air porosity in the debris pile: "Considering that the Bathtub was at least 50% destroyed and filled with the debris from the buildings (Post, 2001c), one could assume its air porosity of 0.1 (note: for instance, a porosity of close packed spheres is 0.26)." They go on to assume an air porosity of 0.3 for the B6 level with the PATH tunnel, "since the damage was less".

Also endorses the lack of subterranean fires.

Fire is: the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.[1]​ Slower oxidative processes like rusting or digestion are not included by this definition.

So from where does the localised heat which heated the hot spots, originate? I suggest the chemical reaction of buried thermite which produces temperatures of up to 3000oC.

The interesting thing about these so-called "fires" is how the heat was consistently concentrated in the steel.

Confirms that the kinetic energy was within the steel.

I would classify explanations such as the kinetic energy was within the (buried and motionless) steel. as false. Heat can be stored but it dissipates and reduces due to radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Content from external source:

In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.[1]​ It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The adjective kinetic has its roots in the Greek word κίνησις (kinesis) meaning motion. The dichotomy between kinetic energy and potential energy can be traced back to Aristotle's concepts of actuality and potentiality.

An object which was in motion and therefore had kinetic energy, loses it when it comes to rest. It cannot be stored within the object at rest and then 'burst into flame' when it is exposed to air because of 'stored kinetic energy'.

You suggest the energy was stored in the hyper-acceleration of the steel's molecules and atoms. This is known as heat. The first problem is 'how did the steel become so allegedly hot that it exceeded the melting point of steel. Secondly, why did the steel not cool over time as heat naturally dissipated into its surroundings?

Can you cite a real life comparable example which validates your theory that the kinetic energy was within the motionless steel.?

Larry Keating said "Sometimes the steel could explode when the buried ends were exposed to the air.

Confirms the presence of hydrogen.

Can you justify that as to most people it would confirm the presence of air, notably oxygen.

You saw some of the thickest steel I've ever seen bent like a pretzel, and you just couldn't imagine the force that that took.

Confirms the transmission of kinetic energy by impact into the base of the stack.

It merely confirms huge amounts kinetic energy was expended, (spent... gone... used), in bending the steel.

They would hit the air and burst into flames, which was pretty spooky to see."

Confirms they met atmospheric oxygen at a temperature high enough to ignite the hydrogen.

Confirms the steels were hot enough to flame once they had sufficient oxygen from the normal surrounding air to flame.

Energy occurs in many forms, including chemical energy, thermal energy, electromagnetic radiation, gravitational energy, electric energy, elastic energy, nuclear energy, and rest energy. These can be categorized in two main classes: potential energy and kinetic energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Thermal energy is the (Sic small) part of the total potential energy and kinetic energy of an object or sample of matter that results in the system temperature. This quantity may be difficult to determine or even meaningless unless the system has attained its temperature only through warming, and not been subjected to work input or output, or any other energy-changing processes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy

Having shown the energy available and how it is directed to the base of the wreckage, one only has to venture a guess as to what proportion of the whole energy ended up in hotspots.

Perhaps you could show how the energy is directed to the base of the wreckage whilst at the same time defining precisely what you mean by the 'base of the wreckage'.

A real life example would be helpful.