WTC: Molten Steel - Was there any? Why? What About the Hot Spots?

[RolandD]

Roland, the melting points of steel and iron are quite similar (depending on the type of steel, but without much variation) and is roughly 1500 centigrade. In fact, steel is essentially modified iron; iron that has been combined with other elements. If you're suggesting that the substance pouring out of the WTC is molten Iron, then you're suggesting temperatures were hot enough in the per-collapse fire to melt steel. If this is true, or even plausible, why does NIST insist its not even possible?

Here, you give a good example of how to intentionally misconstrue information and disrupt the discussion. In an earlier post, Mick suggested we find a way to estimate the volume of material shown in the WTC video. In a effort to play nice, I have attempted to do that by finding examples of molten pours. Although I now know how aluminum foil is made, I could not find a satisfactory video displaying a pour of aluminum from a refinery. I did find several videos of steel and iron. I posted the steel video because, even though it is not a very good comparison for flow rate, it does illustrate how steel throws off a shower of sparks when molten as we had discussed, previously. As for the iron pour video, the volume and flow rate being poured from the hand held crucibles appear, to me, to be similar to the amount of material seen in the WTC video, indicating that, most likely, we are seeing, at most, several hundred pounds of material. When I mentioned that iron behaves different than steel, I was referring to the fact that iron does not throw off sparks when molten, unlike steel. Nowhere did I suggest that the material in the WTC video was iron.

Mick, something you should note about your video of the fire-fall, and your various photographs of glowing orange embers: they are all universally night-time images. Embers do not glow that obviously in broad daylight. They still glow, but under direct sunlight the greys and blacks, and ash-whites of embers become the dominant color-features, even when blown upon.
At night the embers of this fire would be glowing a rather brilliant orange, but under direct sunlight the glow becomes a muted, almost pinkish hue.
The material pouring out of the WTC did not have the look of embers at all, considering the bright orange glow was consistent throughout under direct sunlight until they seemed to reach a cooling/solidifying point.

I believe, please correct me if I'm wrong, that Mick posted the video to illustrate that the behavior of the materials were similar between the two videos, not that he was proposing that the material in the WTC video was actually wood embers. In the WTC video, some of the material falls and some drifts away, just like in the fire-fall video.

 

[Grieves]

Mick directly stated a belief the material might have been embers. I was simply pointing out that embers don't glow a bright orange in direct sunlight.

Here, you give a good example of how to intentionally misconstrue information and disrupt the discussion.

That was by no means my intent.

In an earlier post, Mick suggested we find a way to estimate the volume of material shown in the WTC video. In a effort to play nice, I have attempted to do that by finding examples of molten pours.

Sincere apologies, I honestly wasn't entirely sure why you had posted the video of the iron-pour, hence the

If you're suggesting

please don't think I was making a willful effort to put words in your mouth. (or fingertips, I suppose.)

as to the hail of sparks steel throws off when poured, isn't the dripping substance coming out of the WTC surrounded by a hail of smaller spark-like particles traveling at different rates and trajectories than the rest?

As for the iron pour video, the volume and flow rate being poured from the hand held crucibles appear, to me, to be similar to the amount of material seen in the WTC video, indicating that, most likely, we are seeing, at most, several hundred pounds of material.

I think you might be misconstruing the scale a bit. Take another look at this video.
​
consider that the glowing hot orange-spot from which the substance is pouring alone appears to be rather larger than a human being, like the guy doing the pouring, is tall. That suggests to me the amounts of material involved go well beyond a couple of hundred pounds. Posting, or even looking at this image gives me an obvious sense of anxiety, but it's a good point of reference for the scales involved. Notice the vertical 'columns' and their size in relation to both images.

 

[Mick West]

Mick directly stated a belief the material might have been embers. I was simply pointing out that embers don't glow a bright orange in direct sunlight.

Well, I should perhaps change my suggestion to "burning embers". I'm not sure what else to call it? "Broken up burning debris"? Basically stuff like what is falling off the houses in the house fire videos above.

It's quite windy up there, the wind, and then the falling air resistance, would make things burn more brightly.

 

[Mick West]

Who to believe? Ofcourse, Mick pounces on this and re-posts the last two paras with the obligatory large-as-you-can-find-pic-to-make-the-fires-look-as-big-as-possible when really Jazzy should be corrected for making false claims. Again.

You mean this picture?

Since it shows the entire width of the building it shows EXACTLY how big the fires were. Actually, if anything it diminishes their size as the building itself is so large (208 feet across). I should really put something in there for scale, so you can really see how big the fire were. They were enormous fires, huge fires. They burned for nearly an hour.

And as your table shows, there are plenty of orange glowing things that exist at relatively low temperatures.

 

[RolandD]

Mick directly stated a belief the material might have been embers. I was simply pointing out that embers don't glow a bright orange in direct sunlight.

But, he didn't say that he thought they were wood embers. In daylight, the wood ash reflects light, masking the glow. Not all materials form ash in the same way, plus falling material would, most likely, not build a layer of ash as it would be whisked away. Without a layer of ash, even wood embers glow orange in daylight, and when viewed against the dark background of the tower by visible.

That was by no means my intent.

Then I apologize.

Sincere apologies, I honestly wasn't entirely sure why you had posted the video of the iron-pour, hence the please don't think I was making a willful effort to put words in your mouth. (or fingertips, I suppose.)

Accepted.

as to the hail of sparks steel throws off when poured, isn't the dripping substance coming out of the WTC surrounded by a hail of smaller spark-like particles traveling at different rates and trajectories than the rest?

Hence the 'embers' theory. Sparks from steel shoot out in straight lines like a Fourth of July sparkler. The sparks in the video behave like falling embers, drifting away. If the material in the WTC video is molten metal, of any kind, almost every other type of material found in the WTC will float on the surface and be carried along with it. Chunks of red hot concrete, globs of melted carpet, books, etc.

 

[lee h oswald]

They were enormous fires, huge fires. They burned for nearly an hour.

And as your table shows, there are plenty of orange glowing things that exist at relatively low temperatures.

They were enormous fires, huge fires.

Compared to what? The Windsor Tower - then not very big really. As a percentage of the volume of the building? Not very big on that scale....so how do you get to the somewhat unscientific and emotional, 'enormous, huge'? By what measure?

They burned for nearly an hour.

Quite so. Not very long at all. The Windsor Tower burned for 26 hours, which is 26 times longer.
So rather than 'huge, enormous long-burning fires', we actually have fires which are short-lived and insignificant in the context of their size when set against the size of the structure(s).

And as your table shows, there are plenty of orange glowing things that exist at relatively low temperatures.

Then you should tell Jazzy, not me. And you shouldn't use his mistakes to bolster your argument in trying to present an incorrect temperature in the fires - which is exactly what you did.

 

[Mick West]

Overlaid for scale:

The video is a bit out of focus and overexposed, and as the glowing things are bright they look quite a bit larger than they actually are. You can tell this as they seem to overlap the columns on either side of the gap, just like the sunlit areas on the left also seem to expand beyond their clear bounds.

Probably what you are looking at is falling burning embers of varying sizes, but mostly in the few inches to a foot or so range, with some larger chunks. Made to look bigger by the camera.

 

[lee h oswald]

If the material in the WTC video is molten metal, of any kind, almost every other type of material found in the WTC will float on the surface and be carried along with it. Chunks of red hot concrete, globs of melted carpet, books, etc.

Hay Corumba! Chunks of red hot concrete carried along in a stream of molten aluminium? That ^^^^^^^ is an absolutely absurd comment and shows you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[Mick West]

Compared to what? The Windsor Tower - then not very big really. As a percentage of the volume of the building? Not very big on that scale....so how do you get to the somewhat unscientific and emotional, 'enormous, huge'? By what measure?

208x208 feet, and looks like it encompasses at least six floors, so by that measure.

Quite so. Not very long at all. The Windsor Tower burned for 26 hours, which is 26 times longer.
So rather than 'huge, enormous long-burning fires', we actually have fires which are short-lived and insignificant in the context of their size when set against the size of the structure(s).

The Windsor Tower steel frame portion collapsed very early on in the fire.

An hour is plenty of time to weaken steel beams.

Then you should tell Jazzy, not me. And you shouldn't use his mistakes to bolster your argument in trying to present an incorrect temperature in the fires - which is exactly what you did.

I'm not using his argument at all. All I was saying was that there were things in the fire that were glowing red hot. I agree with you that things glowing red hot does not mean they are at least 1000C. But that irrelevant, as there were clearly many tons of things in the building that were glowing and red.

 

[SR1419]

Quite so. Not very long at all. The Windsor Tower burned for 26 hours, which is 26 times longer.

...and yet part of the Windsor building collapsed after only 1.5 hrs...curious that.

A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

 

[Mick West]

Hay Corumba! Chunks of red hot concrete carried along in a stream of molten aluminium? That ^^^^^^^ is an absolutely absurd comment and shows you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Be nice lee, you don't want to get banned again. Why don't you just tell us the relevant temperatures? How hot is red hot concrete? Why can't it float in molten aluminum (at least for a second or two)

 

[RolandD]

Probably what you are looking at is falling burning embers of varying sizes, but mostly in the few inches to a foot or so range, with some larger chunks. Made to look bigger by the camera.

Here is a video estimating the material at 30 tons, but they are using that estimate as their basis for debunking the thermite/steel theory.

​

I still contend that there isn't tons and tons of material flowing out. The space between the columns is only 26 inches. The pour looks to be considerably narrower, is sporadic, and doesn't last very long. Thirty tons of molten metal poured in the time frame of the video would be larger and remain in a continuous stream most, if not all the way down. I will add that this is just my own personal opinion.

 

[lee h oswald]

​ .

This is the video to watch. Good definition, only released by NIST after ten years' worth of foi applications (why that should be, is anyone's guess - perhaps its release might have 'jeopardized public safety' in the interim, but now it's 'safe'?). What's apparent is the very intense yellow-orange point within the building which shows very well on this video, which is the same point where the molten material issues from. Well worth reviewing.

 

[Grieves]

Given that its been pretty well established in this discussion that aluminum is silver at its melting point of 660 C, isn't that video, with its chart suggesting aluminum's color is a brown-red at 600 c, self-debunking?

 

[RolandD]

This is the video to watch. Good definition, only released by NIST after ten years' worth of foi applications (why that should be, is anyone's guess - perhaps its release might have 'jeopardized public safety' in the interim, but now it's 'safe'?). What's apparent is the very intense yellow-orange point within the building which shows very well on this video, which is the same point where the molten material issues from. Well worth reviewing.

Ok. What is this showing us that the others don't? Oh, and please explain why I don't know what I'm talking about. I am actually very reasonable and will accept a dressing down if I'm wrong.

 

[Mick West]

This is the video to watch. Good definition, only released by NIST after ten years' worth of foi applications (why that should be, is anyone's guess - perhaps its release might have 'jeopardized public safety' in the interim, but now it's 'safe'?). What's apparent is the very intense yellow-orange point within the building which shows very well on this video, which is the same point where the molten material issues from. Well worth reviewing.

You mean the fire?

And in the video the "molten material" still seems perfectly consistent with falling burning embers to me. Maybe there was some aluminum flow as well, but consider - if aluminum were to flow through a large pile of burning stuff (like a bonfire sized pile), what would come out of the building?

Really though, the images and video we see have no need at all for molten metal as an explanation. Just a bunch of burning stuff, like that which falls from any burning building.

 

[lee h oswald]

And round in circles we go. That's the point isn't it?

Well entrenched position due to effort expended or it pays or nothing better to do = never going to change mind = not open to possibilities = closed mind. Game over - so why 'debate', why not just state your position? Eg I agree with all the official narratives being reasonable explanations of the events and I'm not going to change my mind now.

Every child knows very well, before their first ever (and every subsequent) maths exam, that they must show their calculations or the result will be F. Every time. You have to show your calculations - how did you arrive at the answer? Then everyone can see you know what you're doing. NIST will not release the input data into their 'simulation' of the failure mode of 7. That's an F. Every time. The ground for the withholding of that information is 'it might jeopardize public safety' - it seems a bit late for that sentiment, don't you think? Good science relies on people sharing their information, not hiding it from each other.

 

[lee h oswald]

This is the video to watch. Good definition, only released by NIST after ten years' worth of foi applications (why that should be, is anyone's guess - perhaps its release might have 'jeopardized public safety' in the interim, but now it's 'safe'?). What's apparent is the very intense yellow-orange point within the building which shows very well on this video, which is the same point where the molten material issues from. Well worth reviewing.

On reviewing a couple of times, despite the intense orange yellow glow through the thick black smoke being apparent, maybe it's the actual collapse bit that's not too clever from a Nist pov. It's possibly the best example I've seen of the explosive nature of the concrete pulverization and of the projectile nature of the steel columns being ejected - it's quite awesome - lots of four ton (and much bigger) steel beams way out ahead of the dust cloud created by the demolition wave. Have another look at that!

 

[Mick West]

On reviewing a couple of times, despite the intense orange yellow glow through the thick black smoke being apparent, maybe it's the actual collapse bit that's not too clever from a Nist pov. It's possibly the best example I've seen of the explosive nature of the concrete pulverization and of the projectile nature of the steel columns being ejected - it's quite awesome - lots of four ton (and much bigger) steel beams way out ahead of the dust cloud created by the demolition wave. Have another look at that!

Steel beams have considerably less wind resistance than dust.

 

[Jazzy]

It really isn't acceptable to go trotting out your fantasies and attaching phrases like - it's a law of physics.

It is well known that when an object, such as a lump of metal, is heated, it glows; first a dull red, then as it becomes hotter, a brighter red, then bright orange, then a brilliant white. Although the brightness varies from one material to another, the colour (strictly spectral distribution) of the glow is essentially universal for all materials, and depends only on the temperature. In the idealised case, this is known as 'black body' or 'cavity' radiation, and is described by Planck's Radiation Law:

Spectral energy density, U(λ,T) = 8πhcλ-5 / ( ehc/λkT-1 )

where

λ is the wavelength, in metres
T is the temperature in Kelvin (add 273 degrees to Celcius temperatures to get Kelvin)
h = 6.626×10-34 J·s [Planck's constant]
k = 1.381×10-23 J·K-1 [Boltzmann's constant]
c = 3.0×108 m·s-1 [speed of light]
For any more detail, see an undergraduate-level Physics textbook!

http://www.techmind.org/colour/coltemp.html

Nist says that the maximum temperature reached by the fires in the towers was in the upper air and was 1000C - maximum. Anyone can check this. http://www.derose.net/steve/resources/engtables/flametemp.html gives a table

I like your table.

According to NIST, then, it was a candle flame. I prefer the idea of it being most organics with higher flame temperatures. For a start, there was a 25 mph wind, and also a seventy foot chimney cut in the structure already.

large-as-you-can-find-pic-to-make-the-fires-look-as-big-as-possible

How about long enough and hot enough?
​

Really? That's what is known as Cobblers.

LOL.

Note these are ideal/theoretical values, that means that in 'real life' they are lower - because heat always equalizes with what's around it, doesn't it?

Not if "what's around it" is in motion, it doesn't.

Thermodynamics, isn't it? Cigarettes, matches, oven elements and a lot more things have lower than 1000c temperature, yet all are orange glowing. I'd like to see someone lead solder a copper pipe joint using a cigarette end - and lead solder liquifies at about 330c. Jazzy should fit that one into his video of him and 16lb hammer and concrete pulverizing.

The above law applies. The rest of your rant is confusion between temperature and heat.

The rest of the nonsense about 'furnaces' and 'chimneys' was actually also dealt with by Nist. The towers were designed to not be a chimney in the event of fire and Nist says that the system worked and prevented the fires from spreading. Again, you can check Nist's report for that.

Then how come the post-impact aircraft fuel explosion blew out the lobby? If it reached down eight hundred feet couldn't it reach up half that distance?

Anyone who has ever chucked a few wet leaves on a fire knows what happens - the fire is deprived of oxygen and the smoke thickens and blackens - a classic sign of oxygen deprivation and/or exhausted fuel.

And that can happen on the edge of a HOT fire.

As for all the fantasy in the first bit, I give 8/10 for imagination - 'lakes of molten metal' etc. But poor old Occam must be at a loss as to what to use his razor for.

Well, no, actually.

You have to hold to the fantasy that there wasn't enough potential, kinetic, and thermal energy to accomplish the damage we witnessed, and have to produce many more elements into your scenario than I have in mine. I believe I hold his attention.

 

[Mick West]

I think the wood burning 1977C in lee's table is a bit suspect. As other sources show practical wood fire topping out at 1000C. Maybe that's some idealized organic hydrocarbon burning, like charcoal?

Another table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame#Common_flame_temperatures

Note the backdraft temperature.

 

[lee h oswald]

Steel beams have considerably less wind resistance than dust.

Yes. In the same way that a ton of feathers weighs less than a ton of lead.

Steel beams have the same resistance to wind as everything else don't they? What should probably be remembered is that steel beams have considerably more concentrated mass than dust - shifting a 4 ton mass 600ft fast takes a bit of energy, don't you think? Is it more energy than shifting 4 tons of dust 600ft? Who cares? Look at the pictures and video - it's an eruption! No need to discuss - just a need to investigate: Properly.

 

[Mick West]

Yes. In the same way that a ton of feathers weighs less than a ton of lead.

Steel beams have the same resistance to wind as everything else don't they? What should probably be remembered is that steel beams have considerably more mass than dust - shifting a 4 ton mass 600ft fast takes a bit of energy, don't you think? Is it more energy than shifting 4 tons of dust 600ft? .

Yes it's more energy, but it's all from potential energy. And a steel beam has thousands of times more potential energy than a cloud of dust. That gets converted to downwards kinetic energy, and from impacts some will inevitably be translated to lateral velocity.

Consider if there were explosion strong enough to hurl ten ton steel beams hundreds of feet, then those same explosions would have hurled smaller fragments - nut and bolts, etc, for tens of miles in every direction.

How many of those fragments were found?

None.

Because there were no such explosions.

 

[Jazzy]

Given that its been pretty well established in this discussion that aluminum is silver at its melting point of 660 C, isn't that video, with its chart suggesting aluminum's color is a brown-red at 600 c, self-debunking?

No. In the darkness of a foundry it is indeed an extremely dull reddish-brown. Out in the sunlight you'd only see the reflective silver color. Been there. Done it.

 

[lee h oswald]

And round in circles we go. That's the point isn't it?

Well entrenched position due to effort expended or it pays or nothing better to do = never going to change mind = not open to possibilities = closed mind. Game over - so why 'debate', why not just state your position? Eg I agree with all the official narratives being reasonable explanations of the events and I'm not going to change my mind now.

Every child knows very well, before their first ever (and every subsequent) maths exam, that they must show their calculations or the result will be F. Every time. You have to show your calculations - how did you arrive at the answer? Then everyone can see you know what you're doing. NIST will not release the input data into their 'simulation' of the failure mode of 7. That's an F. Every time. The ground for the withholding of that information is 'it might jeopardize public safety' - it seems a bit late for that sentiment, don't you think? Good science relies on people sharing their information, not hiding it from each other.

No comment? Why not?

 

[MikeC]

I find it quite illuminating every time you complain that one of your posts has not been commented on. It tells me that you are more interested in getting any reply than any actual content.

 

[RolandD]

Yes. In the same way that a ton of feathers weighs less than a ton of lead.

Steel beams have the same resistance to wind as everything else don't they?

Where to start?

Gravitation, or gravity, is the natural phenomenon by which physical bodies appear to attract each other with a force proportional to their masses. It is most commonly experienced as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped.

(wiki)

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

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question232.htm

The gravity of the Earth pulls equally on all objects of the same elevation. In a vacuum, all objects in free fall will accelerate towards the center of the Earth at a rate of 9.81 meters per second, per second. The key word in the last sentence is vacuum. Our atmosphere provides resistance/drag, which causes all objects in atmospheric free fall to have a terminal velocity.

The terminal velocity of a free-falling object is the velocity of the object when the downward force of gravity equals the buoyancy/resistance force of drag and the acceleration of the object becomes zero. In fluid dynamics, an object is moving at its terminal velocity if its speed is constant due to the restraining force exerted by the fluid through which it is moving.

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

The amount of drag which the atmosphere exerts on an object varies depending on density, shape and surface area.

In the example Mick used above, dust is much less dense and has a much greater surface area than a steel beam. Therefore dust will reach its terminal velocity much, much sooner than the steel beam which will continue accelerating at 9.81 meters per second, per second. This isn't even considering the updraft from the fire adding enough additional resistance/drag to actually draw the dust up.

 

[RolandD]

I find it quite illuminating every time you complain that one of your posts has not been commented on. It tells me that you are more interested in getting any reply than any actual content.

I thought it was a rhetorical statement.

 

[Jazzy]

The ground for the withholding of that information is 'it might jeopardize public safety' - it seems a bit late for that sentiment, don't you think? Good science relies on people sharing their information, not hiding it from each other. No comment? Why not?

I don't know the precise details, but roughly speaking, WTC 7 showed that the current building standards failed to take sufficient account of the expansion capabilities of long-span beams in a prolonged fire where the escape fireproofing has lost its effect. The re-specifying of the fixings to the columns to tolerate this expansion is the desired outcome. However there must be many buildings already built with a similar weakness, if they have been built to the limits of the spec. Their will also be new designs possibly occurring demonstrating new and possibly dangerous work-arounds to this problem. Insurance litigation may increase. Premiums will change.

That's a suggestion for the "threat to public safety". There are other easy targets out there. And a lawyers' feast.

 

[Unregistered]

The "thermite theory" was being promoted by the MSM, after Dimitri Khalezov published and sent copies to congress.
This is a NASA thermal showing the blast radii created: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/lg-map-therm1.jpg
This is the P-wave created caught on video: http://youtu.be/mDa94ADiiLA
The "thermite residue" was the molecular disassociation of bed rock granite which contains 15% Aluminum Oxide and 3%Iron Oxide
The Plasma pits left behind were chalked up as "Glacial wear", as if each tower was built on top of a void.


@treasurecoastskywatcher, if that is real dust from WTC, the Mass Spec analysis should indicate a high concentration of Alumino Silicate, which is from the 72% Silicon Oxide and Aluminum Oxide(extreme heat releases the O2, ref Peter Plichard on hydrosilicate fuels). It will have an elemental corr w/ the local granite.

I would go into more detail but I run the risk of censorship. Keep in mind, Utube vids are highly edited and vids like Sept Clues do not have the most d@mning evidence. Disclose TV has Dimitri K interview but compressed ver can be found. All of which conforms to the LAWS OF PHYSICS that have passed theory stage long ago.

 

[Grieves]

I'd not seen that video before. Is that a fireball briefly visible initiating the collapse..?


Is this footage doctored? Has it ever been debunked..? It looks like evidence of the possibility of explosives.

 

[Mick West]

I'd not seen that video before. Is that a fireball briefly visible behind the cloud of dust?

You mean this?

Better version of the video:
​

I'm surprised you've not seen it. It's the classic WTC1 collapse video.

The fireball is from the compression of the floor that are on fire.

 

[Grieves]

Yes... that's a rather large fireball is it not? What's it doing there?

 

[Mick West]

Yes... that's a rather large fireball is it not? What's it doing there?

Moving.

 

[Dan Wilson]

Yes... that's a rather large fireball is it not? What's it doing there?

Looks like it's just fire getting pushed out of the way along with air and smoke as the top section starts to fall.

 

[Grieves]

I'm quite surprised I hadn't seen it myself.
But sorry, fire was pushed...? I have to admit I'm somewhat floored at the moment, that I've gone all this time without actually seeing a damn fireball during a tower collapse. Is anyone aware of a NIST statement about the fireball, or something from one of the debunking websites, or any informative link really, that has a piece on this fireball, that I can read through just to get a handle on your explanation? It looks pretty goddamn big to me. I can't wrap my head around that being common fuel-fed fires being 'pushed out'... especially considering the collapse and the beginnings of the fireball seem to occur almost synchronously, as opposed to one resulting of the other. It looks like fire being produced, not dispersed. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like an explosive blast.

 

[RolandD]

I'm quite surprised I hadn't seen it myself.
But sorry, fire was pushed...? I have to admit I'm somewhat floored at the moment, that I've gone all this time without actually seeing a damn fireball during a tower collapse. Is anyone aware of a NIST statement about the fireball, or something from one of the debunking websites, or any informative link really, that has a piece on this fireball, that I can read through just to get a handle on your explanation? It looks pretty goddamn big to me. I can't wrap my head around that being common fuel-fed fires being 'pushed out'... especially considering the collapse and the beginnings of the fireball seem to occur almost synchronously, as opposed to one resulting of the other. It looks like fire being produced, not dispersed. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like an explosive blast.

The perimeter columns conceal the collapse of the floors for a few seconds before the collapse becomes evident. When one floor pancaked into the next, a large volume of air was displaced. The air in question was full of flames and smoke from the fire that was raging on that floor. When the air was pushed out as one floor pancaked into the other, the flames went with it. This is real easy to replicate at home.

 

[lee h oswald]

The perimeter columns conceal the collapse of the floors for a few seconds before the collapse becomes evident. When one floor pancaked into the next, a large volume of air was displaced. The air in question was full of flames and smoke from the fire that was raging on that floor. When the air was pushed out as one floor pancaked into the other, the flames went with it. This is real easy to replicate at home.

Ok, but....if all these floors 'pancaked', then show us a picture of all the 'pancaked' floors after they got to the ground. There were 110 floors per tower - if they 'pancaked' there should be plenty left on the ground, yes?

This is real easy to replicate at home

Hm.

 

[Mick West]

I'm quite surprised I hadn't seen it myself.
But sorry, fire was pushed...? I have to admit I'm somewhat floored at the moment, that I've gone all this time without actually seeing a damn fireball during a tower collapse. Is anyone aware of a NIST statement about the fireball, or something from one of the debunking websites, or any informative link really, that has a piece on this fireball, that I can read through just to get a handle on your explanation? It looks pretty goddamn big to me. I can't wrap my head around that being common fuel-fed fires being 'pushed out'... especially considering the collapse and the beginnings of the fireball seem to occur almost synchronously, as opposed to one resulting of the other. It looks like fire being produced, not dispersed. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like an explosive blast.

Yes it does, it looks rather like a Hollywood style explosive blast, which means a fireball. Fireballs are a relatively slow explosion - basically burning of something in the air, typically Hollywood would make a fireball with det cord around jugs of gasoline. Not good for bringing buildings down, but it looks cool. It's Pyrotechnics, not demolition.
​

Actual destructive explosions are much quicker, and the less fireball, the better, as a fireball is just wasted energy in slow burning. The burn should happen in a flash, like this:
​

So what you see in the WTC fireball is stuff burning. At the time in the fireball image above, the upper block has fallen about 100 feet. That means that a volume of air 100 feet by 200 by 200, of four million cubic feet of air, has been violently compressed, and then driven out the sides of the building. That air contains fire, it also contains the products of incomplete combustion - flammable carbon monoxide and various flammable forms of hydrocarbon particulates and vapor.

Now the fire in the building is burning pretty good, but not as good as it could be, it's a bit limited by oxygen. Like you build a fire, and the chimney is closed. If you blow on the fire it will flare up, but it will die down again. The fire is somewhat oxygen starved.

A related phenomenom is a backdraft:

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

A backdraft is an explosive event at a fire resulting from rapid re-introduction of oxygen to combustion in an oxygen-starved environment, for example, the breaking of a window or opening of a door to an enclosed space.

Here's a compilation of some backdraft explosions. Keep in mind that these are nothing other than ordinary building fires. There's no gas tank exploding. There's no explosives. It's just fire:

​

What we have in the WTC fireball is kind of like a backdraft in reverse, or blowing on a fire in reverse. Instead of oxygen being rapidly introduced into the fire, the fire is rapidly introduced into the oxygen. The result is the same, a sudden and violent escalation of the fire, which is also violently being pushed out of the building. A fireball.

 

[RolandD]

Ok, but....if all these floors 'pancaked', then show us a picture of all the 'pancaked' floors after they got to the ground. There were 110 floors per tower - if they 'pancaked' there should be plenty left on the ground, yes?



Hm.

Well Lee, I never said all 110 floors 'pancaked' together, although I'm not sure how you envision the collapse not involving the pancaking of many floors. My suggestion was that when the collapse began, it wasn't initially visible due to the perimeter columns blocking the view of the very beginning of the collapse and that the displacement of the volume of air, was responsible for the fireball. Are you denying that a large volume of air was displaced when the towers collapsed???