Posted on 09/22/2011 9:05:58 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Yes, but aluminum and water add a LOT of additional energy, and can help trigger aluminum combustion.
Once upon a time (in my yout'), I worked one summer at a firm that sold logging equipment, part of which were chainsaws. They also repaired chainsaws. Chainsaw chassis are largely aluminum. This was "out in the sticks", so they burned their trash "out back". Cardboard boxes, wood pallets, etc. I occasionaly had to "stand guard duty" with a hose to keep the fire from spreading to the grass. What I "didn't" know was that there were several discarded chain saw chasis among the trash. I managed to hit one of those hot chainsaw bodies with a stream of water, and it went off like a magnesium flare. The aluminum had NOT previously been burning until hit with the water, but once ignited it continued to burn....spectacularly.
In a nutshell, his theory makes a LOT of sense.
The "yield strength" of ferrous materials is not a constant but rather varies as a function of ambient temperature. Some steels loose their ductility and become quite brittle below 30 degrees, which is a probable cause in the sinking of the Titanic. They also become more pliable as temperature increases, losing their ability to carry the static load applied at well below the melting point. That characteristic is how a blacksmith can form steel into useful shapes with a hammer without actually melting it and pouring it into a mold.
Stress is the load applied divided by the cross sectional area of the material supporting the load. At the yield point, the material starts to deform which generally decreases the cross section of the supporting member which results in increasing stress while the actual applied load stays constant. The deformation continues until the load bearing member parts, transferring more of the load to the remaining members thereby increasing their stress, &c. &c. until the final supporting members fail nearly simultaneously and the structure collapses.
Nothing that happened to the twin towers on 9-11 requires anything more then a basic understanding of strength of materials to explain. While the airframes were aluminum I doubt that they melted into a convenient pool of liquid metal and found enough water to cause an explosion. It is much more likely that it burned in place. Ockham's razor suggests that the simplest answer is correct.
Regards,
GtG
>>> This is more reasonable than the heating of the interior metal beams and would collaborate many of the first responders seeing the melted steel.
Yes, back when Truthers were pushing the melted steel argument I replied this was probably melted aluminum office furnishing and the like. The explosive qualities however never occurred to me.
fools.. we all know it was Dick Cheney, George Bush, Karl Rove and Grover Norquist in conjunction with Fox News, Glenn Beck, Roger Ailes, Scooter Libby and Bill Casey all repelling down the sides and placing tons of explosives in key locations set to detonate at the exact time that the planes that Rove’s secret team of gamers took over via radio control crashed into the buildings.
Then, special force team lead by Agent Orange launched a missile in the shape of a plane into the Pentagon and simultaneously manufactured cell phone traffic to make the “sheeple” believe that there were actual people on the plane all the while they were transferred to a secret “black site” bunker at Gitmo in an underground lair being personally tortured by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Because we all know that heat has never melted metal.
Don't they hold all the same properties no matter what the form?
Mixing water {as the theory in the story with AL} and many chemical substances or contaminants with molten aluminum can cause explosions. These explosions range widely in violence and can result in injury or death as well as destruction of equipment and plant facilities."..
"Activities such as aluminum grinding, sawing, cutting, sanding and scratch brushing generate fine aluminum particles, some of which are fine enough to be potentially explosive. These particles are known as “dust” or “powder. Particles larger than 500 microns will not in all likelihood sustain an explosion. Material 420 microns or finer has the potential for explosion."-http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/TheIndustry/HealthSafety/default.htm
The levels of contaminants, agents breathed, have to be life shortening as well.
The sprinkler systems seemed to me in this story a catalyst. Like the author of the piece stated, sometimes codes or safety measures are taken that are not always in the best interest of safety.."just to do it".
The ‘best’ response to the contention in this article is that the Large amount of aluminum at the center of the fire could certainly have added to the SPEED with which the towers collapsed.
Not buying what? That the Aluminum aided in the collapse, or that the aluminum was the entire cause?
The plumbing lines were severed on more than one floor allowing water to gush everywhere.
And the author states what happens when you mix burning aluminum and water.
Besides, has anyone bothered to tell him that at high temps aluminum burns.
Wasn't that his point? Do you know what a thermite charge is, and what the principal component of it is?
P.S. Were you aware that at the right temperature, ICE burns?
Of course. The only question provided by this article is did the aluminum and water accelerate the process?
Given that, If memory serves me right the first tower was hit at a lower level than the second tower. That tower was also the first to see a catastrophic failure and hence collapse in terms of time even if you back out the time delay between when each building was hit. Basically, the first tower hit had a larger load on it after the plane flew into it as opposed to the second tower. They both experienced the same type of destruction (I am assuming any differences do to how the plane hit is negligible given the damage inflicted is close to each other and they are the same type of planes used with similar amounts of fuel). The heat took care of the rest. The building with the larger load was going to fail first since the heat did not have to work for a longer time as in the second building to weakening the steel and concrete at the point of failure which would have been at a lower threshold.
But in reality cannot fix the loss of life, but perhaps learn from it somehow; in the construction, codes, inspection aspect of all buildings?
This article was not so much putting blame on chemical reactions--we know the terrorists get to keep all the blame; but just learning how to protect our citizens in the workplace, as I mentioned.
....molten aluminum....mixed with water from the sprinkler systems could have catalyzed secondary blasts...”
Reminds me of the Sheffield DDS after struck by an Exocet in the Falklands War - can be some nasty stuff, that aluminum.
or USS Belknap.
Iron oxide (rust, already 'burned' iron). So, what is your" brilliant" point?
Regards,
GtG
Why do you try to make up such asinine BS?
yes, thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum oxide. The water would have been squirting as soon as the aircraft severed the lines and would have emptied fairly quickly, long before the aluminum would have had a chance to burn.
He said about 8:30 a.m. is when the first explosion occurred.
The only time Morelli spoke was his 6AM arrival time.
You based that crap on the supposed memory of a media puke -- of what he thought someone else supposedly said -- off camera??
Hearsay.
Bravo Sierra!
No, aluminum is a very reactive element and unlike all the other metallic elements is never found in the pure metallic state in it's natural form.
It takes a lot of heat to get a solid chunk of Al to burn but it will burn. Powdered Al has vastly greater surface area and the minuscule particles have very small mass. The powdered form requires much less energy to cause ignition of one particle, which yields enough energy to ignite particles close by, &c. &c. Boom!
It's not a matter of chemistry as much as physical chemistry.
...aluminum grinding, sawing, cutting, sanding and scratch brushing generate fine aluminum particles, some of which are fine enough to be potentially explosive. These particles are known as “dust” or “powder.
Dust does not have to be metallic to behave explosively, grain fines, flour, coal dust, and sawdust will detonate when distributed in air and exposed to a small spark. As you quote in your post the particle size is very important and a minimum of 420 microns is necessary for explosive behavior. It is fair to say that aluminum was present in the crash scene. But it is highly unlikely that it was present in the form of a sub 420 micron power, finely dispersed in the air, therefore it may have burned but did not explode.
Regards,
GtG
As the fuel goes, since the wings would have disintegrated almost on impact, the trail of fuel left behind should have been more or less even from the point of entry to the exit point. Though the one that banked may have had the fuel contained over a smaller area but volume would have been greater since more floors above where taken out. The first would have been over a larger area, with less volume which may have kept certain areas hotter that weakened key points more quickly, but I don't know if that would have been a few minutes or beyond 10 min. less time for the building given the exterior was also ment to carry the load.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.