Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Why Didn't Millions of Gallons of Water Put Out the Ground Zero Fires?

4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:
Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 ....
The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:
"firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:

Moreover, the fires were sprayed with thousands of gallons of high tech fire-retardants.

And yet, the world trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history". The temperatures were so high that there was molten metal at ground zero for months after 9/11.

Why didn't the enormous quantities of water and fire-retardant sprayed at Ground Zero put out the fires? How could fires and molten metal have burned for months, when fires from normal office and building materials and available sources of oxygen should have been doused by all of the water?

Dr. Steven Jones gives one possibility:
"Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water".
For proof of the fact that thermite contains its own oxygen supply and burns under water, see this web page.

Admittedly, Ground Zero is a large area: 16 acres. However, the hot spots were very localized, at least within days of 9/11, as the following thermal image shows:

The majority of water should have been sprayed at the hottest spots in an attempt to put out the fires.

Yet, a
fter five days of cooling and despite being sprayed with massive amounts of water, the surface hot spots were still above the melting point of aluminum. How is that possible?

In addition, the sheer weight of all of the material which fell on Ground Zero should also have helped put out the fires. 60 Minutes and Mt. Sinai Medical Center both reported that the destruction of the Twin Towers dumped at least a million tons of pulverized material, primarily concrete, onto Ground Zero and the surrounding areas (for example, see these photos). While a good proportion of the dust blew away from Ground Zero, that still leaves perhaps hundreds of thousands of tons of dust at ground zero itself.

Virtually the entire site became covered with dust and dirt. As one rescue worker put it:
"Everything was one color, some of it was wet, some of it was dry - don't forget they hosed the site down constantly . . . the longer we were there and the deeper we got into the pile the debris was almost like topsoil. Everything was covered with gray dust and dirt."
What happens when you pour dirt onto a campfire? It goes out.

Water is also heavy, as anyone who has picked up a 5-gallon water bottle can attest (it weighs 8.33 pounds per gallon). Because 4 million gallons of water fell on Ground Zero within the first 10 days, that means that some 33 million pounds, or more than 14,000 tons, of water were added within a week and a half to the hundreds of thousands of tons of dust at ground zero. The spraying continued for months, which means that hundreds of thousands of tons of water would have been dumped on Ground Zero over the next couple of months.

Thus, in addition to the fire-dousing property of water, it seems that the enormous weight of dust and water should have also helped to smother any normal fires. There simply could not have been enough oxygen to sustain the fires and molten metal for months. And the high tech fire-retardants should have put out any fires the water and dust didn't.

The extreme difficulty in drowning or smothering the fires for months supports the evidence for controlled demolition provided by the fact that temperatures at the Trade Centers were hotter than they could have been due to mere office fires in the first place.


Blogger James B. said...

There simply could not have been enough oxygen to sustain the fires and molten metal for months.

And thermite burning for months is a better explanation?

The truthburn guys burned 80 lbs of thermite, which lasted about 15 seconds. So please calculate how much thermite would be needed to keep it burning for 2 months.

4:27 PM  
Blogger James B. said...

LOL yeah, OK, so how much thermite was there if there were "pockets" of thermite waiting around to be ignited occasionally over periods of months? And furthermore, if there was so much thermite, and its ignition was so unreliable that "substantial portions" of it was not consumed in the alleged demolition, then why was it not found by the thousands of firemen, police officers, and assorted rescue workers pouring over ground zero. Surely not all of it could have been ignited purely by chance.

6:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy Cow! Four Million Gallons??

But how could that be?

AE911Truth's site says there was "tons of molten metal" in the rubble.

But when water contacts molten metal, you get a steam explosion:

Wikipedia: “A dangerous steam explosion can be created when liquid water encounters hot, molten metal. As the water explodes into steam, it splashes the burning hot liquid metal along with it, causing an extreme risk of severe burns to anyone located nearby and creating a fire hazard.”

So, my question is, how could there have been molten metal if so much water was sprayed? And what about all the rain the following week? Where's the reports of steam explosions?

Where's the reports of severe burns from splattering molten metal?

The thermal map in GW's blog comes from an official government site, but is it authentic? Should we automatically trust a "government" image, or should we look further?

Turns out the hot spot in that image coincides with a damp, empty hole in the ground. Check the info here and this picture.

10:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Topsoil? How did all that topsoil get there?

Well, we have numerous FEMA photographs of topsoil dirt being trucked-in to Ground Zero and piled on.

Why would they be dumping dirt all over Ground Zero? Does molecular dissociation have anything to do with it?

See here for the many FEMA photos of dirt being trucked-in to Ground Zero.

11:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From a firfighter:

Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.


Angle-cut beams:


Thanks for your research, GW.
Linda K.

5:51 AM  
Blogger James B. said...

Why did you respond to my comments, and then delete them? Are you embarassed about your own idiocy?

3:09 PM  
Blogger The Wendigo said...

to James B...

If you cannot offer legitimate comments that show an informed perspective, why should those comments be allowed to stand?

Whatever you say the "truthburn" guys did, I do not care. It's a lie, and you know it. Perhaps you might try shilling at a site where people do not understand chemistry, metallurgy and physics. That's where the nonsensical lies of "truthburn" are likely to be accepted without question.

Your comments make me wonder why you are so angry at Mr Washington and his essays. What are you protecting? What are you trying to keep hidden?

3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Linda K:

In a Court of Law, when eyewitness testimony is contradicted by hard evidence, the hard evidence wins every time.

A statement from a firefighter in a mainstream newspaper is not proof that there was molten metal.

The lack of steam explosions, however, prove there was no molten metal.

4:01 PM  
Blogger James B. said...

If you cannot offer legitimate comments that show an informed perspective, why should those comments be allowed to stand?

He didn't delete my comments genius, he deleted his own. I agree with you that they were too stupid to be allowed to stand, but then it makes it look like I was talking to myself.

9:20 PM  
Blogger Jim Fetzer said...

A cast iron proof of video fakery was presented by Ace Baker this week on "The Dynamic Duo" with Jim Fetzer, namely: that the cut out of the building from UA 175 hitting the building IS NOT PRESENT at the time the plane entered the building. This is easily established by comparing later frames that show the cut out with the frame showing the
plane entering. If it didn't happen when the plane entered the building, it didn't happen
and the video has to be faked.

A cast iron proof that there cannot possibly have been massive pools of molten metal
beneath the ground at the WTC consists in the realization that some 14 million gallons of
water were dumped on the site. If there were vast pools of molten metal, that volume of
water would have caused enormous steam explosions. They did not happen, even though the water was present. That means massive pools of molten mental cannot also have been
present. You cannot have molten metal and massive water without steam explosions!

Ironically, of course, the second of these arguments is derived from Alex Floum's latest
post, which points out that thermite can burn under water. But it burns VERY FAST can
would have been completely consumed in 10 seconds or so. In othere words, thermite is A
QUICKIE and cannot possibly explain those massive pools of molten metal--except, of
course, they cannot have been present anyway! How about that? This is a perfect example of hasty posting without thinking things through, courtesy of Alex Floum. Probably not his best work.

7:31 AM  
Blogger gravity32 said...

It is ridiculous to suggest that molten metal could not have been present because no steam explosions were seen. The molten metal, if present, would have been mainly at the bottom of the cavity, 7 storeys below ground, so how could anyone at the top know what was happening so far down?

Also, while it may well be possible to produce an explosion with a strong penetrating jet of water on molten metal, it seems far more likely that at this depth the water would not penetrate but would have been a distributed trickle and would boil away at the surface as fast as it arrived and would make plenty of steam, as observed, but little noise.

4:59 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

Exactly, obviously Jimmy B hasn't seen video of what happens in an extreme case like when molten lava flows into the ocean. There is a huge eruption of steam yes but not a massive devstating explosion. And in the case of the WTCs the molten steel was not rapidly flowing into a vessel of water like the ocean. In the case of the WTCs we're talking about limited amounts of water coming into contact with the molten steel not an ocean of water!! Water applied gradually and in small amounts is only going to boil away not EXPLODE!

As for the fast reaction time of thermite. The point is that thermite melts metal so it doesn't matter if the thermite reaction is over quickly it still leaves a product of molten steel. Just like in the case of molten lava it stays molten a long time after it leaves the bowels of the volcano does it not?

2:16 PM  
Blogger johnp said...

The TruthBurn folks, that would be me, burned about 80 pounds of thermite, and the steel and molten iron stayed fluid and quite dangerously hot for about 40 minutes.

11:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home