NY City Police Museum displays 911 guns in molten concrete yet office fires don't melt concrete
jetson55
encased in (now solidified) molten concrete. Displayed at NYC police
museum. Concrete melts at temperatures that office fires can not
achieve. A typical office fires will be in the 500 C - 650 C range
(see MIT professors 2001 report in Journal of Materials of shown
below). I couldn't find any good numbers on the temperature that
concrete melts at on the web. I can only assume it is somewhere north
of 1800 C. Glass melts at 1500 C. The implication is that thermite
melted the concrete which then encased the guns. Thermite is a
reaction between iron oxide (rust) and pure aluminum powder with the
product being aluminum oxide and molten iron at 2500 C. The tons of
bright / luminous yellow/white liquid seen pouring from the WTC in the
60 seconds before it collapsed was molten iron (not molten aluminum
because aluminum is not that bright / luminous at office fire
temperatures).
here is the photo at the NYC Police Museum:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105273
The label in the case above says:
"Gun Encased in Concrete and Gun-Casing Remains
The U.S. Customs House stored a large arsenal of firearms at its Six
World Trade Center office. During recovery efforts, several handguns
were found at Ground Zero, including these two cylindrical gun-casing
remains and a revolver embedded in concrete. Fire temperatures were so
intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path."
Here are more photos of the guns encased in concrete at the NYC Police
Museum
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9-11guns/index.html
=====================================
from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete#Fire
Fire
Due to its low thermal conductivity, a layer of concrete is frequently
used for fireproofing of steel structures. However, concrete itself
may be damaged by fire.
Up to about 300 °C, the concrete undergoes normal thermal expansion.
Above that temperature, shrinkage occurs due to water loss; however,
the aggregate continues expanding, which causes internal stresses. Up
to about 500 °C, the major structural changes are carbonation and
coarsening of pores. At 573 °C, quartz undergoes rapid expansion due
to Phase transition, and at 900 °C calcite starts shrinking due to
decomposition. At 450-550 °C the cement hydrate decomposes, yielding
calcium oxide. Calcium carbonate decomposes at about 600 °C.
Rehydration of the calcium oxide on cooling of the structure causes
expansion, which can cause damage to material which withstood fire
without falling apart. Concrete in buildings that experienced a fire
and were left standing for several years shows extensive degree of
carbonation.
Concrete exposed to up to 100 °C is normally considered as healthy.
The parts of a concrete structure that is exposed to temperatures
above approximately 300 °C (dependent of water/cement ratio) will most
likely get a pink color. Over approximately 600 °C the concrete will
turn light grey, and over approximately 1000 °C it turns yellow-brown.
[39] One rule of thumb is to consider all pink colored concrete as
damaged that should be removed.
======================================
text from an MIT professor regarding the temperatures in the towers:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used
rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen
releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a
molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to
heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these
two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus,
burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature
increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many
molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame
temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is,
thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?feed=rss2
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a
diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a
diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames
are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are
unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are
fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s
bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This
fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of
two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are
usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. It is known that the WTC fire
was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black
smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC
fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel
available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease
the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to
the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel
at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All
reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise
terminology at best.
Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited,
creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite
aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly
attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame
would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of
such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the
dense soot."
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and
loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is
stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of
strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC
collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design
allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed
more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth
of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the
steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a
650°C fire.
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The
temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the
temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than
on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long
joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of
steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another
will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions
in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures.
Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of
strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural
integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform
temperatures in the fire.
THE COLLAPSE
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for
loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when
multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the
adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes
falling down.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived
the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the
ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers
believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—
were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on
the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700
Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support
approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each
tower was about 500,000 t.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way
and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them
also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could
not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above
crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect
that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting
bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free
fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight
seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested
that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other
buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should
be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and,
hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even
the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the
center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not
within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-
fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain
significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a
500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction
other than nearly straight down.
Al Dykes
jetson55 <jw3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Here are photos of police guns from the World Trade Center collapse
>encased in (now solidified) molten concrete. Displayed at NYC police
>museum. Concrete melts at temperatures that office fires can not
>achieve. A typical office fires will be in the 500 C - 650 C range
>(see MIT professors 2001 report in Journal of Materials of shown
>below). I couldn't find any good numbers on the temperature that
>concrete melts at on the web.
That's because concrete doesn't melt. It changes, chemically when
subjected sustained temps of ordinary fires and turns a chalk-like
solid with no strength. This easily turns to dust and is clearly what
has encrusted the guns when it was soaked in water, which everyting
was at WTC.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
jetson55
> In article <9424fb82-4bca-44f6-a3c9-3b3340aee...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
the steel guns show evidence of being melted, the concrete shows
evidence of being melted but you say the concrete turned to dust in
the heat and then back into concrete when water was added? are you a
concrete expert or are you just guessing? where on the web can you
show me that concrete will do what you say?
Government Shill #2
wrote:
>Here are photos of police guns from the World Trade Center collapse
>encased in (now solidified) molten concrete.
Molten concrete? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
This takes first prize as the "Stupidest Thing Said by a 911 kOOker".
Well done. You're a winner!
Bwahahahahahahahaha! Molten concrete...
--
Shill #2
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can
never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates
what he hears into something he can understand.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)
BDK
> In article <9424fb82-4bca-44f6...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> jetson55 <jw3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Here are photos of police guns from the World Trade Center collapse
> >encased in (now solidified) molten concrete. Displayed at NYC police
> >museum. Concrete melts at temperatures that office fires can not
> >achieve. A typical office fires will be in the 500 C - 650 C range
> >(see MIT professors 2001 report in Journal of Materials of shown
> >below). I couldn't find any good numbers on the temperature that
> >concrete melts at on the web.
>
>
> That's because concrete doesn't melt. It changes, chemically when
> subjected sustained temps of ordinary fires and turns a chalk-like
> solid with no strength. This easily turns to dust and is clearly what
> has encrusted the guns when it was soaked in water, which everyting
> was at WTC.
So is there some invisible brain sucking bug that is sucking the brains
out of these poor, deluded, and hysterically funny, kooktards?
Amazing.
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
BDK
gov....@gmail.com says...
Wow. It still boggles my mind that there are people running loose who
believe the crazy shit the troofers do.
Animal03-
Hey kooktard......concrete does not melt........any one with an IQ above
room temperature knows that........a two sxecond google search would
have told you the same.....go buy yourself a clue.
BDK
@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, jef...@gmail.com says...> > In article <9424fb82-4bca-44f6-a3c9-3b3340aee...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> probably lower. You have a theory about the concrete which is
> probably incorrect but you have no theory as to why the guns also
> melted. Why not admit that thermite is most likely the cause?
> Thermite creates molten iron at 2500 C. That's more than enough to
> melt the steel guns and also melt the concrete (though having a hard
> time finding out what concrete melts at). I see some refreneces to
> concrete melting at 2000 C + on the web but nothing difinitive.
I hear something rattling. Is that the rocks bouncing inside your empty
head?
Please talk to an engineer, and get a clue. He won't laugh...much.
Freedom Man
news:dfd7f812-9286-4fb8...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
--
It is correct that concrete does not melt as metal does, but it can be
pulverized - though it takes ALOT of energy to do so. Most of the WTC
concrete WAS pulverized. The temperature of an ordinary fire is far too low
to either pulverize concrete or melt iron/steel. The fact is that explosives
and incendiaries such as thermate are necessary to do these things, and this
is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 attack conspiracy.
Al Dykes
1000DegC is will soften steel and allow to deform. That temp is just
a normal trash fire. The pile was burning for weeks.
'
Al Dykes
And modern pistols frequently have aluminum or even plastic frames
(The Glock). Just because you claim that the gun is malformed, it
doesn't help indicate how hot it got.
george
> the steel guns show evidence of being melted, the concrete shows
> evidence of being melted but you say the concrete turned to dust in
> the heat and then back into concrete when water was added? are you a
> concrete expert or are you just guessing? where on the web can you
> show me that concrete will do what you say?
Why are you lying about things that didn't in fact couldn't happen.
Concrete does not melt
There were a lot of steel and aluminium panels in those buildings that
didn't suffer heat damage.
There also are a lot of the same panels that are badly warped by the
heat they stood.
Go away. I hear your mother calling.
george
> It is correct that concrete does not melt as metal does, but it can
be
> pulverized - though it takes ALOT of energy to do so. Most of the WTC
> concrete WAS pulverized.
Try gravity.
Shitloads of energy produced when the WTC collapsed.
Benj
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:04:21 -0700 (PDT), jetson55 <jw3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Here are photos of police guns from the World Trade Center collapse
> >encased in (now solidified) molten concrete.
>
> Molten concrete? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> This takes first prize as the "Stupidest Thing Said by a 911 kOOker".
>
> Well done. You're a winner!
>
> Bwahahahahahahahaha! Molten concrete...
You said it Gummint shill! I can't believe that this guy fell for the
disinformation of professional liar the "amazing" Randi! Cripes that
guy has been "debunking" UFOs and what have you for the CIA for as
long as anyone can remember, and this guy just goes to his website and
sucks all the lies off of it hook line and sinker. I'll bet the
"foundation" gets a bonus for this one! Bwahahahahaha!
Government Shill #2
>In article <fmroe51buqkqetnv7...@4ax.com>,
>gov....@gmail.com says...
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 09:04:21 -0700 (PDT), jetson55 <jw3...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Here are photos of police guns from the World Trade Center collapse
>> >encased in (now solidified) molten concrete.
>>
>> Molten concrete? Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
>>
>> This takes first prize as the "Stupidest Thing Said by a 911 kOOker".
>>
>> Well done. You're a winner!
>>
>> Bwahahahahahahahaha! Molten concrete...
>>
>>
>
>Wow. It still boggles my mind that there are people running loose who
>believe the crazy shit the troofers do.
And then they accuse us of being government shills when we laugh at them.
Feckin' weirdos!
--
Shill #2
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
European Division
jetson55
accident". Thermite creates temperatures of 2500 C while studies done
for the nuclear industry (see below) show that concrete ablates (turns
into a gas) and finally melts at temperatures below 1500 C.
It is heavily studied because a nuclear accident could cause the
uranium to melt through the concrete floor,
Notice below that after the initial ablation at temperatures below
1000 C, it says "Melting of Portland Cement" at 1200-1500 C and
melting of quarz at 1427 C. It doesn't list any temperatures higher
than that - indicating that there is no other significant melting/
reactions to list.
Cement is mostly silica oxides and calcium oxides with smaller
amounts of aluminum and iron oxides (along with hydrogen - from water
- that creates the chemical reactions for strength)
from page 16 of this study:
http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2005/T2311.pdf
===============
In the following, the most important reactions that take place when
concrete is heated
are listed. The exact reaction temperatures depend on the heating rate
and pressure.
• 100 °C: Loss of evaporable water.
H2O(l) + 2258 kJ/kgH2O → H2O(g)
• 100 -850 °C: Dehydration of hydrates (Baant & Kaplan 1996).
3CaO·2SiO2·3H2O → 2CaO·SiO2 + CaO·SiO2 + 3 H2O(g)
(Similar reactions for other hydrates; the reaction heats of these
endothermic
reactions are about 250–500 kJ/kghydrate)
• 400 - 600 °C: Dehydration of calcium hydroxide (Baant & Kaplan 1996;
Peehs
et al. 1979).
Ca(OH)2 + 1340 kJ/kgCa(OH)2 → CaO + H2O(g)
• 574 °C: Crystalline transformation from α- to β-quartz (Chase 1998).
SiO2(α) + 12 kJ/kgSiO2 → SiO2(β)
• 600-900 °C: Decomposition of calcium carbonate (Bažant & Kaplan
1996).
CaCO3 + 1637 kJ/kgCaCO3 → CaO + CO2(g)
• 1200-1500 °C: Melting of Portland cement (Bažant & Kaplan 1996).
• 1423 ± 50 °C: Melting of quartz (Chase 1998).
SiO2(s) + 130 kJ/kgSiO2 → SiO2(l)
• 1462 °C: Decomposition of hematite into magnetite (Chase 1998).
6 Fe2O3 + 480 kJ/kgFe2O3 → 4 Fe3O4 + O2(g)
• 1597 °C: Melting of magnetite (Chase 1998).
Fe3O4(s) + 600 kJ/kgFe3O4 → Fe3O4(l)
In addition, CaO and SiO2 may form some compounds, like CaSiO3, but
the phase
diagram of these is very complex.
From the reactions, it can be seen that water vapor and carbon dioxide
are released from
concrete when it is heated from 100 to 900 °C. Siliceous concrete
releases mainly water
vapor, while calcareous concrete releases also substantial amounts of
carbon dioxide.
3.2.3 Spalling of Concrete
In fire tests of concrete, spalling has been observed. This means that
pieces crack off the
concrete surface when it is heated rapidly. Spalling of concrete can
occur by two
processes. In the thermo-mechanical process, temperature gradients and
non-uniform
thermal expansion induce stresses in the concrete. In the thermo-
hydraulic process,
evaporation of water increases pressure in the concrete pores, which
generates stresses
in the concrete (Kalifa et al. 2000). The thermo-hydraulic process is
generally
considered more important (Bažant & Kaplan 1996).
The thermo-hydraulic spalling process is illustrated in Figure 3. As
temperature gets
higher, water in the concrete pores evaporates, which increases
pressure in the pores.
Under the pressure gradient, water vapor is transported both outwards
and inwards in
the concrete element. If the stress induced by the pressure gradient
is higher than the
strength of the concrete, spalling occurs.
george
> Concrete ablates and melts - do a google on "concrete melting nuclear
> accident".
Where did a nuclear reactor come into the WTC collapse?
> Thermite creates temperatures of 2500 C while studies done
> for the nuclear industry (see below) show that concrete ablates (turns
> into a gas) and finally melts at temperatures below 1500 C.
Thats the same thermite that the Mythbusters couldn't cut a car in
half with?
And ablation is -not- melting. The concrete literally boils away.
That's what ablation means...
jetson55
I was responding to earlier messages saying that concrete can't melt
when in fact it can.
The question is - what is all that material surrounding the deforemed
steel police guns at the NYC Police Museum. Look at the photos - I
say its thermite/concrete/iron/aluminum mixture. If it is the
residue of a thermite reaction then it should be chemically tested.
The fact that the guns are distorted shows that the temperatures had
to be high enough to deform steel and that temperature is much higher
than office fires can do. An office fire is no more than 650 C (and
probably less) while steel retains plenty of strength at that
temperature. It's not going to deform at 650 C. I'm a mechanical
engineer with a masters degree and looked it up. I know my physics,
chemistry etc, very well. I'm trying to list the hard evidence that
convinced me and should convince you. Using kooktard (BDK) isn't
going to do anything for me - though maybe it will cause someone else
to leave this forum. Eventually the truth will come out.
Iarnrod
> It is correct that concrete does not melt as metal does, but it can be
> pulverized - though it takes ALOT of energy to do so. Most of the WTC
> concrete WAS pulverized. The temperature of an ordinary fire is far too low
> to either pulverize concrete or melt iron/steel. The fact is that explosives
> and incendiaries such as thermate are necessary to do these things, and this
> is the SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 attack conspiracy.
Well, Reality Fighter, how do you account for the proven fact that
there was no thermite and no explosives? Hmmmm?
Iarnrod
So you're saying concrete does become "molten," KKKook?
Iarnrod
> The question is - what is all that material surrounding the deforemed
> steel police guns at the NYC Police Museum. Look at the photos - I
> say its thermite/concrete/iron/aluminum mixture.
Well how do you square that with the fact that there was no thermite
involved?
> If it is the
> residue of a thermite reaction then it should be chemically tested.
> The fact that the guns are distorted shows that the temperatures had
> to be high enough to deform steel and that temperature is much higher
> than office fires can do. An office fire is no more than 650 C (and
> probably less) while steel retains plenty of strength at that
> temperature. It's not going to deform at 650 C. I'm a mechanical
> engineer with a masters degree and looked it up. I know my physics,
> chemistry etc, very well.
Then you should know that the things you propose are not possible. I
am afraid it does not sound at all like you are an educated person.
> I'm trying to list the hard evidence that
> convinced me and should convince you.
You are using lies.
> Using kooktard (BDK) isn't
> going to do anything for me - though maybe it will cause someone else
> to leave this forum. Eventually the truth will come out.
The truth is already out, dearie.
jetson55
are you reading what I write or just typing knee jerk reactions?
Iarnrod
You are not writing anything of value. At this point, it's just piling
on, but I do need my amusement and you're just the latest victim.
BDK
@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jw3...@gmail.com says...
> On Oct 31, 5:50 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 10:30 am, jetson55 <jw3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Concrete ablates and melts - do a google on "concrete melting nuclear
> > > accident".
> >
> > Where did a nuclear reactor come into the WTC collapse?
> >
> > > Thermite creates temperatures of 2500 C while studies done
> > > for the nuclear industry (see below) show that concrete ablates (turns
> > > into a gas) and finally melts at temperatures below 1500 C.
> >
> > Thats the same thermite that the Mythbusters couldn't cut a car in
> > half with?
> > And ablation is -not- melting. The concrete literally boils away.
> > That's what ablation means...
>
> I was responding to earlier messages saying that concrete can't melt
> when in fact it can.
> The question is - what is all that material surrounding the deforemed
> steel police guns at the NYC Police Museum. Look at the photos - I
> say its thermite/concrete/iron/aluminum mixture. If it is the
> residue of a thermite reaction then it should be chemically tested.
> The fact that the guns are distorted shows that the temperatures had
> to be high enough to deform steel and that temperature is much higher
> than office fires can do. An office fire is no more than 650 C (and
> probably less) while steel retains plenty of strength at that
> temperature. It's not going to deform at 650 C. I'm a mechanical
> engineer with a masters degree and looked it up.
Is it a "sin" in the 911 "troof" religion to lie?
> I know my physics, chemistry etc, very well.
Obviously, you don't think it is a sin to lie.
> I'm trying to list the hard evidence that
> convinced me and should convince you.
Sorry, us sane folks are "kooktardery immune".
> Using kooktard (BDK) isn't
> going to do anything for me - though maybe it will cause someone else
> to leave this forum. Eventually the truth will come out.
>
The truth is, you're a gullible kook, and nothing but a kook.
BWHAHAHAHA! Do you think I want you to leave? If so, you're even more
deranged than I thought.
Animal03-
Well if you really did know your physics well, you would know that
office fires reach temperatures in the 1500 to 1800 F range......which
is well above your 650 C claim,......oh and steel loses half of its
strength at around 1200 F
> I'm trying to list the hard evidence that
> convinced me and should convince you.
No, you ignore the hard evidence and facts.
> Using kooktard (BDK) isn't
> going to do anything for me - though maybe it will cause someone else
> to leave this forum. Eventually the truth will come out.
The truth has been out of 7+ years, kooktards like yourself ignore it.
>
george
> I'm a mechanical
> engineer with a masters degree and looked it up. I know my physics,
> chemistry etc, very well. I'm trying to list the hard evidence that
> convinced me and should convince you. Using kooktard (BDK) isn't
> going to do anything for me - though maybe it will cause someone else
> to leave this forum. Eventually the truth will come out.
You are what we call a bullshit artist.
Cut and pasting irrelevancies doesn't cut it.
You made the claim that concrete 'melts' in a nuclear reactor
meltdown.
That is about as diffrent as you can get.
The hard evidence is:
Aircraft hijacked and flown by mad muslims struck the WTC towers
severely damaging them.
The resultant fires caused so much damage that the towers collapsed
destroying other buildings when they fell!
jetson55
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I assume you mistakenly compared Farenheight and Celsius
1500 F = 815 C which is not far above the 650 C I mentioned. I got
the 650 C number form the report done by the MIT professors in 2001.
See text below. The MIT professors say it is highly unlikely that the
steel approached 750 C - 800 C range.
The police guns still were deformed . Which scenerio is more likely:
1. Police guns heated to 800 C (perfectly oxygenated fire and guns in
the perfect position) and experienced high stresses from debris
falling on them and uncured portland cement gets poured on them and
then water cures it all. And its all heated up to look like a
meteorite (did you look closely at the photos?).
OR
2. Thermite melts the guns (only low stresses needed to deform them in
this case) and the thermite concrete melts and surrounds the guns.
There is evidence of thermite in the dust (Jones' papers) and there is
what looks like thermite pouring from a window (tons of thermite) in
the 60 seconds before the tower collapses. And the firefighters and
workers describe "molten" metal being in the debris for weeks after
the collapse. The combined evidence points to thermite.
===============================
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html
from that report...
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a
diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a
diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames
are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are
unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are
fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s
bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This
fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of
two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are
usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire
was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black
smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC
fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel
available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease
the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to
the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel
at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All
reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise
terminology at best.
jetson55
> On Nov 1, 11:04 am, jetson55 <jw3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm a mechanical
> > engineer with a masters degree and looked it up. I know my physics,
> > chemistry etc, very well. I'm trying to list the hard evidence that
> > convinced me and should convince you. Using kooktard (BDK) isn't
> > going to do anything for me - though maybe it will cause someone else
> > to leave this forum. Eventually the truth will come out.
>
> You are what we call a bullshit artist.
> Cut and pasting irrelevancies doesn't cut it.
> You made the claim that concrete 'melts' in a nuclear reactor
> meltdown.
> That is about as diffrent as you can get.
It's not different - the nuclear fuel heats the concrete and the
analysis uses the data I'm showing below - what's different? The
numbers below are just the temperatures of melting and decompostion
of concrete. Look at the report that in the link.
from page 16 of this study:
http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2005/T2311.pdf
Iarnrod
Obviously, 1.
Thermite is physically incapable of doing what was done.
>
> There is evidence of thermite in the dust (Jones' papers)
There is no evidence whatsoever of thermite. Jones found evidence of
drywall.
> and there is
> what looks like thermite pouring from a window (tons of thermite) in
> the 60 seconds before the tower collapses.
It looks nothing like thermite.
And spotting your magical gravity defying thermite in one window of a
110-story building doesn't come close to explaining how thermite could
perform a physical impossibility of the rapid sequential collapse that
was observed. The building would have to have lit up like a Roman
candle and you would have to suspend the law of gravity for your
cartoon magic theory to be true.
> And the firefighters and
> workers describe "molten" metal being in the debris for weeks after
> the collapse.
Actually they do no such thing, dearie. You're lying. *No* witness
describes seeing any molten metal in the debris. None.
> The combined evidence points to thermite.
No evidence points to thermite. It is physically impossible for
thermite to do what was done on 9/11, dearie, You'll just have to find
something else to be kooky about.
gerry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Time was, a subject like this would have a thread with dozens of
postings, points made and rejected, lots of posters joining in. No
more. The world (but not the world trade center) has moved on to a
cratering economy (CIT just filed for bankruptcy today), H1N1 and far
away wars.