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

SR1419 · May 23, 2013

Oxymoron said:
Good point but sadly, they were very much the exception, (some say miraculous) and it is recognised that they only survived because they were low down, (arbitrarily 22nd to 18thth floors) and they were in a stairwell which had undergone massive reinforcement following the 1993 bombing. Even so they were very lucky to survive.

As far as the fires, I am sure some minor fires survived but the vast majority was undoubtedly snuffed out like a candle by the millions of tons of dust.

"Undoubtedly"?- thats seems a bit strong for pure speculation. Its seems to me that most of the dust was dispersed outward in the "pyroclastic" flow- not downward- what went down was heavier combustible material.

Moreover, we know from eyewitness accounts that burning jet fuel traveled via elevator shafts to the lobbies and basements igniting fires there...so, there were already fires burning at low levels prior to collapse.

Oxymoron said:
Again, see above and I suggest comparing an underground peat, coal; smouldering fire is not comparable. I think apart from the vastness of the fuel source and oxygen supply in those fires, there is also the issue of 'compartmentalisation' in that the fuel sources are 'en bloc', whereas in the rubble pile of 9/11 the fuel sources were diffused amongst a massive amount of non combustible debris.

Perhaps- but speculating as to what the manifestation of the debris pile was like, how it was distributed and what the specific conditions in the pile were seems to be a bit misguided.

We know that there were significant pockets of space in the basements levels (see pic). Moreover, the debris pile was not stagnant- much to the dismay of CT's, the steel was removed quite rapidly- which lead to shifting piles and likely new/more oxygen sources as debris was removed.

Oxymoron said:
This appears to be a massive refuse dump which is not predominently underground.

Indeed. But nor was a good deal of the WTC debris. It (the fire in the article) was a fire buried deep within a debris pile that burnt for days and/or weeks.

Perhaps the hotspots were localized to due a combination of burning material surviving the collapse and the right conditions post-collapse for continued combustion....a combination that only happened in a few spots.

Here is an interesting analysis of the hotspots done by the USGS (edit: I see Mick beat me to it- have to be faster

):

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

Oxymoron · May 24, 2013

SR1419 said:
"Undoubtedly"?- thats seems a bit strong for pure speculation. Its seems to me that most of the dust was dispersed outward in the "pyroclastic" flow- not downward- what went down was heavier combustible material.

Ok, I'll rephrase. Undoubtedly, (except to a small minority of people inc SR)

But seriously, directly after the collapse there were virtually no visible fires... do you agree?

Also the expelled dust cloud is simple physics... path of least resistance etc for the exterior sections. Interior sections would have fallen within that and would likely be of similar composition but a lot more of it... hence why they 'virtually' fell in their own foot prints especially wtc 7.

Moreover, we know from eyewitness accounts that burning jet fuel traveled via elevator shafts to the lobbies and basements igniting fires there...so, there were already fires burning at low levels prior to collapse.

Do you think these fires (which were largely if not entirely burned out (fuel spent), well before the collapse, would have survived the impact of millions of tons of rubble and steel?

"We knew that large amounts of very fine particles, which can get deep into a person's lungs and cause serious health problems, were released from the super-hot trade center debris piles," Cahill said.

The samples were analyzed for very fine particles of silicon, sulfur (sulfate), vanadium, nickel and lead, all of which the DELTA group had found to be abundant in outdoor air in October 2001

Content from External Source

See this is v interesting because no one suggests, TMK, that any of these other cited underground or refuse pile fires are 'super hot'. It also says that they did not test for thermite residue, so it is unsurprising that they did not find any.

http://www.takeourworldback.com/911demolished.htm

The temperatures generated by office fires, such as those of 9/11/01 at the WTC buildings, are "most definitely not capable of melting steel", or iron, which has a melting point of 1,535 °C.

Note that steel temperatures in office fires are always below the maximum (upper layer) gas temperatures. It takes time for heat to be transferred to the cooler, absorbing object, and the rate of heat transfer decreases as the temperature of the absorbing object approaches that of the heat source. NIST admitted that the "maximum upper layer air temperatures" would have been "about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers", and also confirmed that "at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed". NIST said (NCSTAR1CollapseOfTowers, 2005 p.179) in reference to gas, not steel temperatures: "At any given location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below." That would make the mean gas temperature about 600 °C for a given point in the fire zone. A method outlined here for estimating the mean gas temperature from the heat flux predicted an average temperature of 627 °C. And according to a study commissioned by Silverstein Properties, the temperatures ranged from 750 °F to 1300 °F (about 400 °C to 700 °C).

Content from External Source

Perhaps- but speculating as to what the manifestation of the debris pile was like, how it was distributed and what the specific conditions in the pile were seems to be a bit misguided.

I thought we were investigating it. The pictures you provided are very helpful. Can you put a link for them?

We know that there were significant pockets of space in the basements levels (see pic). Moreover, the debris pile was not stagnant

Some of it was... It was a big operation to move all that which took time and logically I think, (speculating slightly), they would have started on the cooler areas first.

- much to the dismay of CT's, the steel was removed quite rapidly-

I would have thought most people would have been upset by the fact it was shipped off without proper examination to China. But yes you are correct CTists are the ones most upset about it.

which lead to shifting piles and likely new/more oxygen sources as debris was removed.

True but also more opportunity to get at the seat of the smouldering.

Indeed. But nor was a good deal of the WTC debris. It (the fire in the article) was a fire buried deep within a debris pile that burnt for days and/or weeks.

They are very good photo's SR, I see your point about oxygenation through the gaps but when you examine those pics what fuel source do you see. Those pics are obviously of the cool sections and there is no smoke or flame but it is mostly steel and concrete is it not?

Perhaps the hotspots were localized to due a combination of burning material surviving the collapse and the right conditions post-collapse for continued combustion....a combination that only happened in a few spots.

Ah, so you want to speculate... that's cool or we would have nothing to discuss really.

Here is an interesting analysis of the hotspots done by the USGS (edit: I see Mick beat me to it- have to be faster ):

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

Yes, interesting... and yet there are official accounts of fires burning until December?

Mick West · May 24, 2013

It's really irrelevant if the fires on the upper floors survived. What's important is if there was combustible material in the piles of rubble, and if there were possible sources of ignition.

You make it sound like the official story is that the upper level fires floated to the ground and kept burning under the pile of rubble.

The hot-spots are the result of SOME FIRES that were burning at the time the photo was taken. Smaller fires continues to burn for quite some time.

Here's one building shortly before collapse. Several floors entirely on fire. Is it entirely infeasible to you that some spark of hot ember might survive the fall? Literally hundreds of tons of burning material?

WCT1 collapsing results in an enormous fireball, does this indicate a piddling little fire that could not possible trigger any fires in the resultant pile?

Grieves · May 24, 2013

WCT1 collapsing results in an enormous fireball, does this indicate a piddling little fire that could not possible trigger any fires in the resultant pile?

As I understood it, the fireballs are explained as being fire and burning material being forcefully expelled out of the building with the pressure applied from the floors above, as opposed to evidence of any sort of actual explosion. If the fireball is indeed just a burst of flaming pressure from fuel-sources being crushed, then I'd say its almost certain those fires were extinguished in the collapse, whether they were piddling little fires or roaring blazes.

You make it sound like the official story is that the upper level fires floated to the ground and kept burning under the pile of rubble.

Isn't it? The only alternative is that smouldering material, after finding its way into the densely packed rubble, started new 'fires' beneath all three rubble-piles, which in all three cases found the space, air, and fuel to reach startling temperatures in a relatively short period of time, burns which withstood fire-fighting efforts for weeks.

The hot-spots are the result of SOME FIRES that were burning at the time the photo was taken. Smaller fires continues to burn for quite some time.

Cleanup on WTC 7 began the night of its collapse. That's only a few short hours for this smouldering burn to grow. If the hotspots were a result of building fires/temperatures in the days following the collapse, why were the temperatures shortly after the collapse so very extreme? The boots of firefighters, designed to allow them to traverse burning material, were melting on their feet reportedly. Do recently snuffed office-fires explain that kind of heat? Does a smouldering burn beneath a massive pile of rubble?

"they begin using heavy equipment to haul away the debris of building 7,
regardless of the fact that it is still burning, at the canteen we hear some of the truck drivers complaining that some of these
girders are so hot that they cause the bed of the dump trucks to split and crack open"

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Grieves said:
As I understood it, the fireballs are explained as being fire and burning material being forcefully expelled out of the building with the pressure applied from the floors above, as opposed to evidence of any sort of actual explosion. If the fireball is indeed just a burst of flaming pressure from fuel-sources being crushed, then I'd say its almost certain those fires were extinguished in the collapse, whether they were piddling little fires or roaring blazes.

Then why was there continuous smoke rising from the debris pile?

Isn't it? The only alternative is that smouldering material, after finding its way into the densely packed rubble, started new 'fires' beneath all three rubble-piles, which in all three cases found the space, air, and fuel to reach startling temperatures in a relatively short period of time, burns which withstood fire-fighting efforts for weeks.

Fire can reach 1000C in a matter of minutes. (or fractions of a second if you are being pedantic. A match for example).

Cleanup on WTC 7 began the night of its collapse. That's only a few short hours for this smouldering burn to grow. If the hotspots were a result of building fires/temperatures in the days following the collapse, why were the temperatures shortly after the collapse so very extreme? The boots of firefighters, designed to allow them to traverse burning material, were melting on their feet reportedly. Do recently snuffed office-fires explain that kind of heat? Does a smouldering burn beneath a massive pile of rubble?

You'd have to be a bit more specific there how long is "shortly after"? Where were these "very extreme" points? What temperature do firefighter's boots melt at? How many boots melted?. Were they actually fire-resistant boots? Or are you just going by this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FogrkulobOU

"out still on the rubble it's still I believe 1100 degrees. The guys boots just melt within a few hours"

Content from External Source

Fire being out does not mean everything is instantly cool. A several ton girder will retain heat for a very long time. It seems pretty obvious that even if there was zero after-burn, then there would be super hot regions of the pile for at least a day or so.

Oxymoron · May 24, 2013

Mick said:
It's really irrelevant if the fires on the upper floors survived. What's important is if there was combustible material in the piles of rubble, and if there were possible sources of ignition.

You make it sound like the official story is that the upper level fires floated to the ground and kept burning under the pile of rubble.

The hot-spots are the result of SOME FIRES that were burning at the time the photo was taken. Smaller fires continues to burn for quite some time.

Here's one building shortly before collapse. Several floors entirely on fire. Is it entirely infeasible to you that some spark of hot ember might survive the fall? Literally hundreds of tons of burning material?

WCT1 collapsing results in an enormous fireball, does this indicate a piddling little fire that could not possible trigger any fires in the resultant pile?

Yes, I don't know where you get these pics from. Are you sure they are not doctored. Looks totally different to all the video footage showing the collapses.

See right up to 144 there is no visible fire, (only smoke), then there is a second of flame out as the building collapses.

Mick West · May 24, 2013

If they were real would it make any difference to you?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/metabunk/sets/72157633403569117/

Oxymoron · May 24, 2013

Mick said:
If they were real would it make any difference to you?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/metabunk/sets/72157633403569117/

Yes Mick, that is what I am trying to find out, what is genuine and what is bunk. It would be helpful if the pics were time stamped and source verified. As Grieves said, when there is a collapse any fires will erupt out due to the air pressure exerted on them. This is similar to the impact fireball which quickly abated to black smoke and hardly any flame.

These pics that you post are not widely available, so relatively few people have seen them.

Grieves · May 24, 2013

Then why was there continuous smoke rising from the debris pile?

Recently quenched fires give off smoke if possible. Lots of smoke given off from a fire is often indicative of a low/suffocated burn.

You'd have to be a bit more specific there how long is "shortly after"?

the night of, i.e a few hours.

Where were these "very extreme" points?

according to first responder testimony, the surface of the piles themselves were exhibiting extreme temperatures.

How many boots melted?. Or are you just going by this?

The red cross referenced having to replace the boots of firefighters 'twice a day' at times in discussing their attempts to aid the rescue/cleanup. www.redcross.org/news/ds/0109wtc/donationwork/recoveryfocus/feb04.pdf was where one could originally find this reference, but the site seems to have changed. Craig Bartmer remembers going through 5 pairs.

A several ton girder will retain heat for a very long time. It seems pretty obvious that even if there was zero after-burn, then there would be super hot regions of the pile

Doesn't the official account suggest 'super hot' temperatures weren't achieved in the fires themselves?

2. Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural steel members heated up to 600±C (NIST 2005) (the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, NIST 2005, and exhibits significant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450±, especially at high stresses that developed; see e.g. Cottrell 1964, p. 299; the press reports right after 9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Bazant and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that).

The official account suggests temperatures couldn't have exceeded 1100 degrees, doesn't it? And that these temperatures resulted in the collapses? If the failing beams didn't exceed 1000 degrees in temp, how could those beams be responsible for spreading equal temperatures throughout the rubble-piles? The beams themselves would be extremely hot, but through what mechanism is that heat spreading to such an extent?

then there would be super hot regions of the pile for at least a day or so.

Weren't first responders coping with extremely hot rubble for weeks?

Oxymoron · May 24, 2013

Mick said:
Fire can reach 1000C in a matter of minutes. (or fractions of a second if you are being pedantic. A match for example).

"out still on the rubble it's still I believe 1100 degrees. The guys boots just melt within a few hours"

Content from External Source

Fire being out does not mean everything is instantly cool. A several ton girder will retain heat for a very long time. It seems pretty obvious that even if there was zero after-burn, then there would be super hot regions of the pile for at least a day or so.

NIST said (NCSTAR1CollapseOfTowers, 2005 p.179) in reference to gas, not steel temperatures: "At any given location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below."

Content from External Source

Mick West · May 24, 2013

So?

Sorry I'm really having a hard time remaining interested in this. It was just fires and residual heat.

The argument seems to be "fires would not have done ....", but without anything at all to back that up. I'm afraid I'm going to move on.

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Oxymoron said:
Yes Mick, that is what I am trying to find out, what is genuine and what is bunk. It would be helpful if the pics were time stamped and source verified. As Grieves said, when there is a collapse any fires will erupt out due to the air pressure exerted on them. This is similar to the impact fireball which quickly abated to black smoke and hardly any flame.

These pics that you post are not widely available, so relatively few people have seen them.

How can they be "not widely available" if they are on the internet?

But again, what difference would it make to you if the pictures were real?

Grieves · May 24, 2013

So?

So according to NIST, temps did not exceed 1000 degrees for more than 15-20 minutes at any point while the fires were freely burning. Why would portions of the rubble-piles hover around such temperatures in the wake of the collapse for days if the raging fires which brought the buildings down failed to achieve such temperatures for more than half-an-hour?

Sorry I'm really having a hard time remaining interested in this. It was just fires and residual heat.

If you've made up your mind you've made up your mind. From Craig Bartmer, a first responder who's very ill as a result of his work in the wake of 9/11: "Listen, there's a lot of people out there saying a lot of things, and I don't think this is the time for us to be deciding what we believe in and what we don't. I think its time to demand a real investigation of the experience and let the truth come out in the wash. Because I tell you what, if something, to use a police department term, something hinky is going on, It'll come out in a real investigation, not a farce like the 9/11 commission report. "

The argument seems to be "fires would not have done ....", but without anything at all to back that up. I'm afraid I'm going to move on.

Moving on is the general ethos of the shamefully incomplete OC. The hotspots are an anomaly, and a strange one. There are ways of explaining them away, i.e 'It was just fires and residual heat.', but you don't know that with any certainty, and there's a great deal of conflicting information as to how that would be possible. Jazzy's theories are pretty clear example of how some physics-minded people, even proponents of the OC, find the traditional explanation of the hotspots, 'fires and residual heat', inadequate. There are all sorts of unproven, untested, unexamined aspects of the events of 9/11, the events leading up to 9/11, and the events which took place in the immediate aftermath. The hotspots are just one of them.

lee h oswald · May 24, 2013

Below glowing hot metal can be seen at the ends of debris WTC Cut Columns Photo below shows demolition charges being set; note the angle of the intended cut so that the cut ends will slide apart to bring the building down. Some have said that the quantity of thermite or other demolition materials needed to bring down WTC 1 or 2 or even 7 would be so great that their installation couldn't have gone undetected but you can see here that demolition technology includes very slim and compact "cutter charges" for quickly cutting through thick supporting beams. Closeup of a cut WTC column below. Note the extensive slag dripping down the front and also inside the column in the back. Some more cut WTC columns below with some clearly showing similarly diagonal cuts Photos from Dr. Steven Jone's paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?.

Content from External Source

The paucity of argument for these hotspots being an inevitable consequence of the collapsed buildings is pretty clear to anyone without a vested interest in the outcome. Whether that interest be psychological, financial, political or other. The argument is that the fires got hotter after falling from several hundred feet and with several tens of thousands of tons of mostly incombustible material burying them. Anyone that's ever been in charge of a barbecue knows to cook their stuff when the coals get white hot - and they also know not to go chucking another round of charcoal on it, because that'll kill it - unless you put in a fair bit of work, moving coals about to get them in optimum position, wafting it to feed oxygen in, etc. Wood-fired bread oven also requires constant feeding into a space designed to retain heat and ventilate - work, effort is required to sustain it - otherwise it dies. A camp fire; a fireplace fire; a bonfire; a house fire; an office fire - they all require material to burn and oxygen, ie. feeding. Take all these examples and dump a few thousand tons of incombustible material over them from a great height - or even a little height. It's obvious what happens. All this piffle isn't remotely Occam-like, is it? Pretty imaginative, though. What then could explain accounts of rivers of molten 'steel' 'running down the channels' 'like in a foundry'? The extreme hotspots that persisted for weeks in the piles? The steel 'bursting into flames' on being extricated from the pile and contacting the open air? The boot-melting temperatures at the top of the pile? The hauliers complaining of heat damage to the beds of their trucks caused by steel so hot it cracked the chassis? And on....

Oxymoron · May 24, 2013

Grieves said:
So according to NIST, temps did not exceed 1000 degrees for more than 15-20 minutes at any point while the fires were freely burning. Why would portions of the rubble-piles hover around such temperatures in the wake of the collapse for days if the raging fires which brought the buildings down failed to achieve such temperatures for more than half-an-hour?

If you've made up your mind you've made up your mind. From Craig Bartmer, a first responder who's very ill as a result of his work in the wake of 9/11: "Listen, there's a lot of people out there saying a lot of things, and I don't think this is the time for us to be deciding what we believe in and what we don't. I think its time to demand a real investigation of the experience and let the truth come out in the wash. Because I tell you what, if something, to use a police department term, something hinky is going on, It'll come out in a real investigation, not a farce like the 9/11 commission report. "

Moving on is the general ethos of the shamefully incomplete OC. The hotspots are an anomaly, and a strange one. There are ways of explaining them away, i.e 'It was just fires and residual heat.', but you don't know that with any certainty, and there's a great deal of conflicting information as to how that would be possible. Jazzy's theories are pretty clear example of how some physics-minded people, even proponents of the OC, find the traditional explanation of the hotspots, 'fires and residual heat', inadequate. There are all sorts of unproven, untested, unexamined aspects of the events of 9/11, the events leading up to 9/11, and the events which took place in the immediate aftermath. The hotspots are just one of them.

Exactly. And that is the gas temperatures. Steel would have been much lower as stated below. Add to that the pristine fire protection of 7 (which should have protected the steel for hours) and the sporadic measly office fires in 7, ?.... And the fact that no other collapse (even when a building has been on fire), has resulted in such hot spots of super-hot debris piles. I don't even know exactly what that means. What is super hot in oC?

Note that steel temperatures in office fires are always below the maximum (upper layer) gas temperatures. It takes time for heat to be transferred to the cooler, absorbing object, and the rate of heat transfer decreases as the temperature of the absorbing object approaches that of the heat source. NIST admitted that the "maximum upper layer air temperatures" would have been "about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers", and also confirmed that "at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed". NIST said (NCSTAR1CollapseOfTowers, 2005 p.179) in reference to gas, not steel temperatures: "At any given location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below." That would make the mean gas temperature about 600 °C for a given point in the fire zone. A method outlined here for estimating the mean gas temperature from the heat flux predicted an average temperature of 627 °C. And according to a study commissioned by Silverstein Properties, the temperatures ranged from 750 °F to 1300 °F (about 400 °C to 700 °C).

Content from External Source

Oxymoron · May 24, 2013

lee h oswald said:
WTC Cut Columns

Photo below shows demolition charges being set; note the angle of the intended cut so that the cut ends will slide apart to bring the building down. Some have said that the quantity of thermite or other demolition materials needed to bring down WTC 1 or 2 or even 7 would be so great that their installation couldn't have gone undetected but you can see here that demolition technology includes very slim and compact "cutter charges" for quickly cutting through thick supporting beams.

Closeup of a cut WTC column below. Note the extensive slag dripping down the front and also inside the column in the back.

Some more cut WTC columns below with some clearly showing similarly diagonal cuts

Content from External Source

Trouble with these cut steels is, we don't have a date stamp on the pics so they could have been cut as part of the clean up.

Content from External Source

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Grieves said:
Moving on is the general ethos of the shamefully incomplete OC.

I've tried to reason with you for days. A perfectly plausible explanation (fires in the rubble) is just rejected time after time based on what seems to be the most specious objections (it would have gone out in the fall, the firefighters boots melted, it lasted too long).

What are my un-shameful options here? Should I continue to argue with you? What is that going to do?

At some point all debunkers have to move on from discussions with truthers. It's whack-a-mole, one things is addressed, and another pops up. These points about the hot-spots are not even real scientific points, barely raising to the level of bunk.

Why were there hot spots? Because there were fires.
Why were there fires? Because there was lots of stuff that burned and the building was on fire when it fell.
Why was it so hot? Because fire is hot.
Why did it last so long? Because there was a lot of stuff to burn, and it was in enclosed volumes with a limited air supply.
Why did some boots "melt"? Because they were walking on hot areas for hours.

That's it. Really.

Oxymoron · May 24, 2013

Mick said:
How can they be "not widely available" if they are on the internet?

Great... can you post some links to non Metabunk sites exhibiting them or sites where you do not have to download gigs of photo's that are unveiwable prior to download?

But again, what difference would it make to you if the pictures were real?

I would wonder why it didn't show up on the hundreds of videos of the collapses for a start.

Seems to me they are stills from video source capturing a fraction of a second of explosive activity. In which case I suggest it would be misleading to post them as evidence of sustained raging fires.

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Grieves said:
. Jazzy's theories are pretty clear example of how some physics-minded people, even proponents of the OC, find the traditional explanation of the hotspots, 'fires and residual heat', inadequate.

I think Jazzy's version is included in there under "residual heat", he just placed more focus on friction as the source of the initial heat. I think the kinetic energy would be too dissipated to account for any hot spots, but that's by the by.

Smoke came from the pile. It was on fire in spots.

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Oxymoron said:
Great... can you post some links to non Metabunk sites exhibiting them or sites where you do not have to download gigs of photo's that are unveiwable prior to download?

I would wonder why it didn't show up on the hundreds of videos of the collapses for a start.

Seems to me they are stills from video source capturing a fraction of a second of explosive activity. In which case I suggest it would be misleading to post them as evidence of sustained raging fires.

I posted two photos. One was a still photo from the police helicopter. The other was from the Sauret video, which seems to match your video just fine.

You can get all the police helicopter photos from here:
http://911datasets.org/index.php/119_High_Quality_WTC_Site_Photos_-_Released_Mar_25_2007

It's only 43MB. It's the same as what I posted on Flickr.

The image I posted is a crop of GJS-WTC25.jpg Google that and you will see several places it is posted, dating back to the original FOIA release in 2007.

https://www.google.com/search?q=GJS-WTC25.jpg

Photos were taken by Greg Semendinger
https://www.google.com/search?q=Greg+Semendinger&tbm=isch

Grieves · May 24, 2013

I think Jazzy's version is included in there under "residual heat", he just placed more focus on friction as the source of the initial heat.

Jazzy's theory suggests the hotspots/extreme heat in general was generated by the collapse itself. You're suggesting the hotspots were caused by surviving fires/residual heat resultant of those fires. The theories cant be conflated based on loose treatment of the term 'residual heat'.

I think the kinetic energy would be too dissipated to account for any hot spots, but that's by the by.

It's where your theory and Jazzy's theory part ways, meaning two avid proponents of the OC have very different ideas about what caused the hotspots. I agree with you on that point, but I disagree with you that 'surviving fires' can fully account for the hotspots. Evidently, proponents of the OC haven't come to a real consensus on what caused the hotspots. This is significant toward the claim/notion that the causes are proven and doubts unfounded.

Smoke came from the pile. It was on fire in spots.

Or at the least it was burning in spots.

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Grieves said:
Jazzy's theory suggests the hotspots/extreme heat in general was generated by the collapse itself. You're suggesting the hotspots were caused by surviving fires/residual heat resultant of those fires. The theories cant be conflated based on loose treatment of the term 'residual heat'.
It's where your theory and Jazzy's theory part ways, meaning two avid proponents of the OC have very different ideas about what caused the hotspots.

I've already said (several times) that I disagree with Jazzy's theory. I disagree with him on several things. However his theory is still a residual heat theory. I'm also sure he'd agree there was some fire heated girders and some after-fire involved as well. It's just a matter of degree. (but perhaps we should wait for his ban to expire before speculating too much on what he meant)

Or at the least it was burning in spots.

Wait, what's your definitions of "on fire" and "burning" here?

lee h oswald · May 24, 2013

Oxymoron said:
Trouble with these cut steels is, we don't have a date stamp on the pics so they could have been cut as part of the clean up.

No trouble, O. Obviously it's post collapse - but consider the large core column in the pic - it's 5 inches thick. Two reasons why this was likely not cut by a worker, 1) the quantity of slag on the steel is quite high to my eye - oxy torches wouldn't produce such a messy cut. 2) What self-respecting iron worker would have cut the column at 45 degrees? 5 inch thick steel takes a lot of time to get through with a torch - a 45 degree cut pretty much doubles the amount of material to cut - not to mention how dangerous an operation that would be for a man with all the necessary kit to hand. Ofcourse, it's not proof positive, but there is one explanation for it that is clearly way out ahead of any other.

Grieves · May 24, 2013

'On fire' is typically a term that indicates flame. Something that's burning without flame could still be said to be 'on fire', but the classic definition of fire is when burning material produces flame. The likelihood of flames being present within the rubble-pile is somewhat slim, given how dense the rubble-piles were and how inundated gaps would be with pulverized concrete.

Mick West · May 24, 2013

lee h oswald said:
No trouble, O. Obviously it's post collapse - but consider the large core column in the pic - it's 5 inches thick. Two reasons why this was likely not cut by a worker, 1) the quantity of slag on the steel is quite high to my eye - oxy torches wouldn't produce such a messy cut. 2) What self-respecting iron worker would have cut the column at 45 degrees? 5 inch thick steel takes a lot of time to get through with a torch - a 45 degree cut pretty much doubles the amount of material to cut - not to mention how dangerous an operation that would be for a man with all the necessary kit to hand. Ofcourse, it's not proof positive, but there is one explanantion for it that is clearly way out ahead of any other.

See 1:30 into here, where a worker discusses cutting the columns, and you see they are cut at an angle

I'm sure you could come up with reasons why they WOULD cut at an angle, no? (direction of fall, maybe direction of flow of molten metal)

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Grieves said:
'On fire' is typically a term that indicates flame. Something that's burning without flame could still be said to be 'on fire', but the classic definition of fire is when burning material produces flame. The likelihood of flames being present within the rubble-pile is somewhat slim, given how dense the rubble-piles were and how inundated gaps would be with pulverized concrete.

Okay, then I'll say the hotspots probably came from burning regions, if that helps.

Are you suggesting then that the pile was burning because it was hot, not hot because it was burning?

Grieves · May 24, 2013

Are you suggesting then that the pile was burning because it was hot, not hot because it was burning?

I'm not entirely clear on the difference, but I'm suggesting the hotspots were probably at their hottest in the immediate aftermath of the collapse, and were in the process of cooling from that point on, with material continuing to burn as a result of that heat. You're saying that burning material from the prior fires, in the wake of the collapse, built up new intense burns within the rubble piles, meaning that heat in the direct aftermath of the collapse would have been lower, but temperatures rose as the burn within the rubble-piles spread. Obviously the burns would have to re-spread in such a scenario, as burning material would not be in the same form/position that it had been in prior to the collapse, clearly.

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Here's a photo from 9/13, looks like fire smoke to me:

9/13

9/19

It's just underground fires. Combustible material, oxygen comes in because it's not air tight.

Grieves · May 24, 2013

There's definitely stuff burning beneath the rubble. That's entirely obvious. When stuff burns, there's usually smoke. That's additionally obvious. These obvious facts don't explain why that stuff is burning beneath the rubble, at such extreme temperatures, for such a prolonged period, when all the previously burning material in each building had been through events that were obviously not conducive to fire (note the lack of a single surface-fire in any of those pictures, or any of the other pictures of the rubble-piles available.)

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Grieves said:
I'm not entirely clear on the difference, but I'm suggesting the hotspots were probably at their hottest in the immediate aftermath of the collapse, and were in the process of cooling from that point on, with material continuing to burn as a result of that heat. You're saying that burning material from the prior fires, in the wake of the collapse, built up new intense burns within the rubble piles, meaning that heat in the direct aftermath of the collapse would have been lower, but temperatures rose as the burn within the rubble-piles spread. Obviously the burns would have to re-spread in such a scenario, as burning material would not be in the same form/position that it had been in prior to the collapse, clearly.

I'm saying:

Before the towers fell portions of them were on fire, and several hundred tons of steel was heated to very high temperatures
As the towers fell, most of the fires would be knocked out, but there would still be a few tons of burning material that made it into the pile
Immediately after the fall, the hottests parts of the pile would be the previously heated steel, and any burning material.
The hot steel would cool down over time. Not sure how long, but probably anything up to a few days, depending on how insulated it was from its surrounding. Girders had a low surface area to mass ratio, so cool slowly.
The fire (or burning regions) would burn for days, and slowly spread from one area to another. Firefighting would extinguish those close to the surface after a few days, but fires would continue to burn deeper in the enormous pile for weeks.
As debris was removed, fires would get new sources of oxygen and flare up from time to time.
There was a LOT of combustible material in the towers, easily enough to sustain fires for a very long time (imagine if you burned the contents of one office floor in a giant bonfire, probably good for a day, then you have 110 floors, burning much slower).

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Grieves said:
There's definitely stuff burning beneath the rubble. That's entirely obvious. When stuff burns, there's usually smoke. That's additionally obvious. These obvious facts don't explain why that stuff is burning beneath the rubble, at such extreme temperatures, for such a prolonged period, when all the previously burning material in each building had been through events that were obviously not conducive to fire (note the lack of a single surface-fire in any of those pictures, or any of the other pictures of the rubble-piles available.)

So presumably you are suggesting that whatever made the tower collapse also made parts of it so hot that they stayed hot enough to "burn" things (but not actually ignite things) for a month?

How would that even work? I can think of many objections, but perhaps you could flesh it out a little?

lee h oswald · May 24, 2013

Mick said:
I've tried to reason with you for days.

But stood by, idly, while Jazzy propagated the biggest stream of Bunk I've seen on this (your) website. And when he gets a week off, you step into the breach to make argument with far more reasonable contributors than he; namely, Oxy and Grieves. Despite your and Jazzy's belief in the cause of the hotspots being virtually diametrically opposed (and that over the course of months, he's effectively fabricated a bunch of total bullshit), you've kept silent; apparently happy to allow him to waste a lot of time - and tell a lot of lies. Your position is quite ridiculous to me - summed up quite nicely in your use of the banality: Why was it so hot? Because fire is hot.

Mick West · May 24, 2013

lee h oswald said:
But stood by, idly, while Jazzy propagated the biggest stream of Bunk I've seen on this (your) website. And when he gets a week off, you step into the breach to make argument with far more reasonable contributors than he; namely, Oxy and Grieves. Despite your and Jazzy's belief in the cause of the hotspots being virtually diametrically opposed (and that over the course of months, he's effectively fabricated a bunch of total bullshit), you've kept silent; apparently happy to allow him to waste a lot of time - and tell a lot of lies. Your position is quite ridiculous to me - summed up quite nicely in your use of the banality: Why was it so hot? Because fire is hot.

He's been pushing the friction theory for months, I've commented on it several times over those months. He raises lots of valid points, it's simply the magnitude of the effect where we differ. I'm not happy he's wasted time on it, but what can you do?

Fires are hot though, aren't they? Quite hot enough for the hot-spot images.

In the absence of a credible alternate theory, fire seems like a very reasonable source of heat.

lee h oswald · May 24, 2013

Mick said:
See 1:30 into here, where a worker discusses cutting the columns, and you see they are cut at an angle I'm sure you could come up with reasons why they WOULD cut at an angle, no? (direction of fall, maybe direction of flow of molten metal)

Thanks for that. You can clearly see a complete lack of slag on the cuts he points out - and also that the cuts are not at 135/45 degrees. They look completely different to the pic I posted. Angles? Ofcourse - if they are going to 'drop' it. 45 degrees? Not necessary.

Mick West · May 24, 2013

lee h oswald said:
Thanks for that. You can clearly see a complete lack of slag on the cuts he points out - and also that the cuts are not at 135/45 degrees. They look completely different to the pic I posted. Angles? Ofcourse - if they are going to 'drop' it. 45 degrees? Not necessary.

One of the pics you posted:

lee h oswald said:
Some more cut WTC columns below with some clearly showing similarly diagonal cuts .

Content from External Source

The video:

Not too dissimilar?

No I can't really see a complete lack of slag in the video, it's too low quality. There is a lack of slag in your photo though

As for the one famous diagonal cut column (look like a center column) with slag:

Also not at a dissimilar angle (perspective makes it look much steeper). What exactly is the big deal?

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Visual aid:

Grieves · May 24, 2013

So presumably you are suggesting that whatever made the tower collapse also made parts of it so hot that they stayed hot enough to "burn" things (but not actually ignite things) for a month?

How would that even work? I can think of many objections, but perhaps you could flesh it out a little?

I don't enjoy concocting scenarios, but lets think about in the context of the thermite theory. Some claim it would have taken a hundred/s of pounds of thermite per column, amounting to perhaps several tons of the stuff to cut enough of the core columns to instigate a total collapse. Thermite burns at a supposed maximum temperature of around 2500 degrees Celsius. Hundreds of pounds, if not tons, of material super-heated to around 2500 degrees Celsius, melting steel and even stone, concentrated in the area/s from which the buildings could best be brought down. As soon as the thermite reaction was over, all that super-heated material would begin to cool rapidly, but a 'rapid' cool from 2500 degrees in an insulated environment would still presumably leave temperatures incredibly high for an extended period of time, any combustible material in contact with/in range of these concentrations acting as fuel to prolong those temperatures.

I'm not saying that's exactly what happened, but it's at least possible, isn't it? It's no less plausible to my mind than three separate instances of massive, coincidental burns/fires spreading in dust-choked piles from surviving bits of smoldering rubble, that were fueled by oxygen-exposure provided by the cleanup and reached those temperatures post-collapse. Remember the temperatures were dropping as the cleanup took place. I'm suggesting that, whatever might have caused the hotspots, what the NASA imaging detected was most likely displaying temperatures lower than they had been the day prior, and even lower still than the day before that; that the temperature beneath the rubble piles had probably been in gradual decline since the collapse itself. You're suggesting the rubble-piles began without such excessive hotspots, and that they formed over time due to spreading burn/fire within the piles in the period between collapse and the 16th, building to similar temperatures in each case in spite of entirely different circumstances.

Mick West · May 24, 2013

I appreciate you making the effort, it's often avoided.

Your theory would result in very large solid blobs of molten metal as it pooled at the bottom of the pile. It would also result in molten metal splashed over everything as the building fell, given both metal coatings, and multiple sizes of ball-bearing/shot type bits of steel.

No such metal is observable in any of thousands of photos or accounts of the cleanup.

WTC 1&2 fell from the top. If thermite was involved it would have to have been on every floor (or at the very least the floors that were one fire and where to collapse started - ignoring for a moment the problem of fireproofing the thermite). So you've got this molten steel that is ABOVE the vast majority of the building, and then it ends up UNDER the building. Well during that transition it must have come in contact with a lot of other steel, so there would have been a lot of cooled molten steel mixed in with all the rubble. There would also be steel over the surrounding buildings and streets. Where was it?

Mick West · May 24, 2013

Here's the site several days later. Where is the solidified (previously molten) metal? Why did nobody find any?

Grieves · May 24, 2013

Your theory would result in very large solid blobs of molten metal as it pooled at the bottom of the pile.

Were no strange instances of 'fused' materials found within the rubble?

It would also result in molten metal splashed over everything as the building fell, given both metal coatings, and multiple sizes of ball-bearing/shot type bits of steel.

There would also be steel over the surrounding buildings and streets. Where was it?

Microspheres of iron were present in what studies of the dust we've seen, massive clouds of such dust coated that entire section of the city. There's also the 'basin-like' nature of the foundations to consider with your claim of a large 'splash-effect'.

So you've got this molten steel that is ABOVE the vast majority of the building, and then it ends up UNDER the building.

Precisely as your burning coals supposedly did, only one of these materials is far better suited to survive the collapse still-burning.

Well during that transition it must have come in contact with a lot of other steel, so there would have been a lot of cooled molten steel mixed in with all the rubble.

Fair, but are you claiming there definitely wasn't? An openly admitted minor fraction of the steel was actually investigated. The rubble-piles were massive, chaotic, noxious environments. Look at the photos of the tangled wreckage above and tell me in honesty you can't see a single bit of what might have been molten steel that's now cooled. Too much of it is tangled beyond all recognition to even begin to try. Added: lol, funny I should post this just as you issue a 'where's waldo' challenge.

No such metal is observable in any of thousands of photos or accounts of the cleanup.

?????

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

Senior Member.

Banned

Administrator

Senior Member

Administrator

Banned

Administrator

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Administrator

Administrator

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Administrator

Banned

Administrator

Administrator

Senior Member

Administrator

Banned

Senior Member

Administrator

Administrator

Senior Member

Administrator

Senior Member

Administrator

Administrator

Banned

Administrator

Banned

Administrator

Administrator

Senior Member

Administrator

Administrator

Senior Member

Similar threads