Examination of the eroded steel

[KJC]

Searching this forum didn't provide direct answer to this, so I make a thread.

Although I gained enough information to debunk the reason behind this eroded steel, a twoofer is repeating the fact that NIST did not look at it even though, to quote FEMA:

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown."
"A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed"

This was apparently not availible to NIST:

"Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 04/21/2009)

Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders efforts to work around the site."

My question is, was there ever any detailed study going into the eroded steel, and if not, why didn't NIST investigate it?

[AZCat]

IIRC the piece in question was actually addressed by NIST, it just wasn't confirmed to be from WTC 7. Check out NCSTAR 1-3C, Section 6.3.4, Single Column K-16 (page 229), for a detailed analysis.

[TruthersLie]

Searching this forum didn't provide direct answer to this, so I make a thread.

Although I gained enough information to debunk the reason behind this eroded steel, a twoofer is repeating the fact that NIST did not look at it even though, to quote FEMA:



This was apparently not availible to NIST:



My question is, was there ever any detailed study going into the eroded steel, and if not, why didn't NIST investigate it?

The article dealing with the erosion of the steel is from JOM
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

And the FEMA building performance reports also cover it
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm
What is really interesting has been watching S. Jones... the real thing there that twoofs grabbed on to is the high sulfur content. so S. Jones said it wsa thermate with sulphur...

of course now that he is on nanothermite, that sulphur claim seems to have evaporated... go figure.

[R.Mackey]

There's a little more to it than that. If you read through NCSTAR1-3, you'll see that NIST only examined pieces that could be identified uniquely within the structures. There was a great volume of recovered steel from the Towers that had lost all of its markings, and NIST only gave these a cursory look.

For WTC 7, the steel was never marked in a reconstructible manner to begin with. NIST, accordingly, didn't spend much time on it.

The "further investigation," however, happened, largely at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute under the direction of Drs. Biederman and Sisson. They published plenty of findings on the steel, primarily from WTC 7. It's not clear that NIST would have done any better, nor that it's needed.

Short form, you're arguing semantics with a Truther. Don't waste your time.

[RedIbis]

For WTC 7, the steel was never marked in a reconstructible manner to begin with. NIST, accordingly, didn't spend much time on it.
.

Your pronoun usage is a bit vague here. Are you saying that NIST didn't spend much time with WTC 7 steel?

[ElMondoHummus]

Searching this forum didn't provide direct answer to this, so I make a thread.

Although I gained enough information to debunk the reason behind this eroded steel, a twoofer is repeating the fact that NIST did not look at it even though, to quote FEMA:



This was apparently not availible to NIST:



My question is, was there ever any detailed study going into the eroded steel, and if not, why didn't NIST investigate it?

There's a little more to it than that. If you read through NCSTAR1-3, you'll see that NIST only examined pieces that could be identified uniquely within the structures. There was a great volume of recovered steel from the Towers that had lost all of its markings, and NIST only gave these a cursory look.

For WTC 7, the steel was never marked in a reconstructible manner to begin with. NIST, accordingly, didn't spend much time on it.

The "further investigation," however, happened, largely at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute under the direction of Drs. Biederman and Sisson. They published plenty of findings on the steel, primarily from WTC 7. It's not clear that NIST would have done any better, nor that it's needed.

Short form, you're arguing semantics with a Truther. Don't waste your time.

Ryan is correct. The fact that it wasn't studied by NIST doesn't mean it wasn't studied. Note TruthersLie's link to a brief on the Worchester study. And here's a more detailed writeup of it, but you have to have access to Springerlink articles:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/

--------

While this is a slight digression, I think it's warranted: You'll see after a while that truthers focus obsessively on NIST's work but don't try to understand that others exist. It is to the benefit of their argument for them to cast everything in a "Official Story From The US Government" light, which does nothing more than underline their ignorance. A good deal of the knowledge generated about the event was undertaken outside of government auspices, and this is one example. Another one I always point out is the Arup analysis (Arup is an engineering firm in the UK; this is somewhat off topic to this thread since Arup never studied the eutectic corrosion being pointed out here, but I refer to their study to make this overall point about generating knowledge on 9/11 outside the US government). The point here is that casting the notation of the eroded steel as being "unexamined" is misleading, especially in the light of them citing a quote from NIST as their evidence. NIST isn't the only engineering investigative body in the US, let alone the world, and not everything known about 9/11 comes from the government. That is the bottom line.

[Justin39640]

Your pronoun usage is a bit vague here. Are you saying that NIST didn't spend much time with WTC 7 steel?

build a house out of popsicle sticks 5 feet high
then mash it up with a sledge hammer
how long are you gonna spend trying to figure out where every single piece originally went? and do you really have to do that to figure out what happened?

[TruthersLie]

Your pronoun usage is a bit vague here. Are you saying that NIST didn't spend much time with WTC 7 steel?

Is that really how you get your rocks off red? Really? do you sit aroudn wanking off thinking about how you "showed them" by trying to be a general ******* on issues that are very clear? First the "exposed as a fabrication" then "what is a truther" and now this? REally?

tsk tsk tsk. what should I expect from a proven liar, a hypcrite and a general putz? Thanks for answering it all so easily...

[Senenmut]

the main problem i have is the rate of corrosion. this is the only study to try and replicate the conditions for the corrosion to occur.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/News/seminars3.html

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel
Thursday, September 25, 2003, Washburn 323, 12:00 Noon

Presented by:
Erin Sullivan

Abstract
"To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure. In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants. "


remember Dr. Astaneh-As was in new york 8 days after the attack and saw "Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

does anyone think erin sullivans experiment came close to corroding five eighths of an inch of steel?

[triforcharity]

Too many variables???

[TruthersLie]

the main problem i have is the rate of corrosion. this is the only study to try and replicate the conditions for the corrosion to occur.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/News/seminars3.html

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel
Thursday, September 25, 2003, Washburn 323, 12:00 Noon

Presented by:
Erin Sullivan

Abstract
"To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure. In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants. "


remember Dr. Astaneh-As was in new york 8 days after the attack and saw "Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

does anyone think erin sullivans experiment came close to corroding five eighths of an inch of steel?

what I find even more interesting is that in all of that research you then chose to IGNORE the VERY NEXT listing on that webpage

Analysis of the Cause of the Severe Erosion Damage Observed in Structural Steel Components from the 9/11 World Trade Center Incident
Thursday, October 9, 2003, 12:00 Noon, Kinnicutt Hall

Presented by:
Prof. Ronald Biederman
George F. Fuller Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Abstract
Several Steel samples from Buildings 7, 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were collected during the Federal Emergency Management Agency forensic investigation shortly after the September 11, 2001 incident. Macroscopically the steel samples supplied had severe "erosion" with plate thickness varying from 12.7mm to a total loss of metal in many areas. Also, some localized plastic deformation was observed. A determination of the cause of this unexpected erosion and an estimate of the maximum temperature that this steel likely experienced will be present along with a perspective on the implications that this damage may pose for high rise structural steel buildings.


why is that?

[ElMondoHummus]

Mother of God... Sullivan's test was a qualitative one to replicate how the grain boundaries were formed, not a qualitative one to determine the rate of corrosion! The fact remains that the boundary characteristics were replicated, thus demonstrating the existence of the effect!

Why is that not obvious?

[leftysergeant]

I see that there was some sulphur involved in Sullivan's tesats, but not much.

I would like to see how heating it in the presence of sulphuric acid would have effected it. The same way, but more quickly and a lot moree deeply would be my guess.

[TruthersLie]

Mother of God... Sullivan's test was a qualitative one to replicate how the grain boundaries were formed, not a qualitative one to determine the rate of corrosion! The fact remains that the boundary characteristics were replicated, thus demonstrating the existence of the effect!

Why is that not obvious?

Elmondo.

Because since it is just a link to a talk, truthers can make up claims they want because it is much harder to show how full of crap they are.

and we all know about their reading for comprehension difficulties. Or as one of my old bosses used to tell me "Son, you are just smart enough to be dangerous. And just stupid enough to not realize it." Though I grew out of that, most twoofs never will.

[Senenmut]

what I find even more interesting is that in all of that research you then chose to IGNORE the VERY NEXT listing on that webpage



why is that?

why? no corrosion rate...thats why.

[TruthersLie]

why? no corrosion rate...thats why.

You are sooo right.

after all it only states

A determination of the cause of this unexpected erosion and an estimate of the maximum temperature that this steel likely experienced will be present along with a perspective on the implications that this damage may pose for high rise structural steel buildings

So in the discussion they discuss the erosion. Why it happened, how it happened and what the implications for other high rise structures are.

I guess they came out in that seminar and said "inside jobby job" and everyone there agreed.

it is rather amazing how you try to datamine a paper/seminar that I am having extreme difficulty finding. The reason (that I infer) is because it sounds rather impressive, but you don't actually have to have any facts or figures so you can make it up however you want.

On a slightly different track.... since it is now Nanothermite, and oddly there is no sulphur in those chips, why do you believe it now over thermate w/super duper sulphur?
neither one make sense, but boy oh boy do we now shift... it doesn't matter if the evidence doesn't fit the hypothesis... change the evidence.

[Senenmut]

Mother of God... Sullivan's test was a qualitative one to replicate how the grain boundaries were formed, not a qualitative one to determine the rate of corrosion! The fact remains that the boundary characteristics were replicated, thus demonstrating the existence of the effect!

Why is that not obvious?

maybe you need to read it again. even though this is not representative of an office fire, this is the only research (as far as i know) that someone tried to replicate the process.

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel
Thursday, September 25, 2003, Washburn 323, 12:00 Noon

Presented by:
Erin Sullivan

Abstract
"To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure. In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants. "

now read what sunstealer has posted in the past-

"If you had bothered to read my posts on this subject you would understand that molten means liquid and that steel has a liquidus above 940°C, therefore a eutectic Fe-O-S occurs below the melting point of steel. Secondly this eutectic is localised, that is there is tiny, tiny, tiny amounts of it. Your problem is one of scale. You are thinking that there were buckets of liquid eutectic material but there isn't. Just look at the photomicrographs of the steel samples showing the oxide layer and grain boundary attack and then look at the scale bar (just like you find on a map). It's measured in microns not metres."
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4473747&highlight=eutectic#post4473747

this is what sisson is saying caused the corrosion. in 8 days, five eighths of an inch (15.9 mm) of steel should have been corroded by that experiment. it almost sounds like sunstealer is saying that a tiny amount of eutectic just
sets there and corrodes the steel. the sullivan experiment says that "more penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants." think of the swiss cheese holes. something had to carry away the liquid that had corroded the steel or it would have solidified and not caused holes. unlike sunstealer, i think there would have to of been a big amount of fe - o- s "slag."


so who here is interested in the rate of corrosion? remember, five eighths of an inch "corroded" in just 8 days.

and remember that 940C sunstealer points out and the 900 - 1100C sullivan points out. does anyone know what temps avaris saw on day 5 of the aftermath? i bet r.machey remembers.

[Newtons Bit]

the main problem i have is the rate of corrosion. this is the only study to try and replicate the conditions for the corrosion to occur.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/News/seminars3.html

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel
Thursday, September 25, 2003, Washburn 323, 12:00 Noon

Presented by:
Erin Sullivan

Abstract
"To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure. In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants. "


remember Dr. Astaneh-As was in new york 8 days after the attack and saw "Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

does anyone think erin sullivans experiment came close to corroding five eighths of an inch of steel?


1) Dr. Astaneh-As likes to say sensational things. I doubt the entire flange of the beam had gone missing. Hell, he may have even been looking at a WT and not known it (I don't have much confidence in this fellows practical ability).

2) The test indicated was with specific temperature and concentrations of chemicals. They were different in the field.

3) Beams with 5/8" thick flanges are actually on the smaller end of the structural spectrum. The smallest beam commonly used in construction is the W12x14 and it has a 1/4" flange. Beams twice as heavy are getting close to 1/2" thick flanges.

[TruthersLie]

maybe you need to read it again. even though this is not representative of an office fire, this is the only research (as far as i know) that someone tried to replicate the process.

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel
Thursday, September 25, 2003, Washburn 323, 12:00 Noon

Presented by:
Erin Sullivan

Abstract
"To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure. In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants. "

now read what sunstealer has posted in the past-

"If you had bothered to read my posts on this subject you would understand that molten means liquid and that steel has a liquidus above 940°C, therefore a eutectic Fe-O-S occurs below the melting point of steel. Secondly this eutectic is localised, that is there is tiny, tiny, tiny amounts of it. Your problem is one of scale. You are thinking that there were buckets of liquid eutectic material but there isn't. Just look at the photomicrographs of the steel samples showing the oxide layer and grain boundary attack and then look at the scale bar (just like you find on a map). It's measured in microns not metres."
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4473747&highlight=eutectic#post4473747

this is what sisson is saying caused the corrosion. in 8 days, five eighths of an inch (15.9 mm) of steel should have been corroded by that experiment. it almost sounds like sunstealer is saying that a tiny amount of eutectic just
sets there and corrodes the steel. the sullivan experiment says that "more penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants." think of the swiss cheese holes. something had to carry away the liquid that had corroded the steel or it would have solidified and not caused holes. unlike sunstealer, i think there would have to of been a big amount of fe - o- s "slag."


so who here is interested in the rate of corrosion? remember, five eighths of an inch "corroded" in just 8 days.

and remember that 940C sunstealer points out and the 900 - 1100C sullivan points out. does anyone know what temps avaris saw on day 5 of the aftermath? i bet r.machey remembers.

and the very NEXT seminar listed says what again? Oh they fully explain how it eroded...

wowsers... I guess they said inside jobby job in that seminar and everyone nodded their heads.

Please produce the paper that seminar was based on because as far as I have been able to find it is just the abstract of the seminar. I'd love to read it (no honestly this is not sarcasm).

[TruthersLie]

<snip to save space>

on a slightly tangent, then that means you fully expected the Venera spacecraft to land on venus and keep operating for weeks or months right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera_program)

Unlike how they landed in a super hot 900F highly acidic atmosphere (filled with sulphur) and all lasted less than two hours of data.

I wonder how long that 5 TON Venera missions (9 through 14) lasted... Well we know they stopped operating after two hours (tops).

so in a high sulphuric atmosphere with 900F temperatures they failed in a couple of hours.

[Senenmut]

and the very NEXT seminar listed says what again? Oh they fully explain how it eroded...

wowsers... I guess they said inside jobby job in that seminar and everyone nodded their heads.

Please produce the paper that seminar was based on because as far as I have been able to find it is just the abstract of the seminar. I'd love to read it (no honestly this is not sarcasm).

i emailed the school and will post if they provide the research paper. i think the graduate student just presented her research paper at a seminar.

http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/Research/theses.html

"A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel", M.S., Erin Sullivan, 2003

ps. they might try to explain how it got attacket but did it corrode like they say it did. that is the main question!! that is why a corrosion rate needs to be researched since this piece was only 8 days after the attack.

[Senenmut]

on a slightly tangent, then that means you fully expected the Venera spacecraft to land on venus and keep operating for weeks or months right? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera_program)

Unlike how they landed in a super hot 900F highly acidic atmosphere (filled with sulphur) and all lasted less than two hours of data.

I wonder how long that 5 TON Venera missions (9 through 14) lasted... Well we know they stopped operating after two hours (tops).

so in a high sulphuric atmosphere with 900F temperatures they failed in a couple of hours.


???

try looking into aviris before posting this??

[TruthersLie]

???

try looking into aviris before posting this??

I'm familiar with aviris... which has nothing to do with my direct question.

Venera spacecraft weighing 5 tons were sent to venus. With high sulphur atmosphere (filled with sulphur dioxide and sulphuric acid). How long did those 5 ton machines work? Under 2 hours. (most of them for less than an hour).

It is called oxidation and sulfidation. In a very high temperature (900F, and the rubble pile was hotter), high sulphur environment they melted/eroded very quickly. Same basic idea as to what happened to the steel you are soooo keen on.

again and again, what else could cause that reaction? Thermite? no. super duper nanothermite? not unless it has super duper nano principles we don't know about.

[Senenmut]

I'm familiar with aviris... which has nothing to do with my direct question.

Venera spacecraft weighing 5 tons were sent to venus. With high sulphur atmosphere (filled with sulphur dioxide and sulphuric acid). How long did those 5 ton machines work? Under 2 hours. (most of them for less than an hour).

It is called oxidation and sulfidation. In a very high temperature (900F, and the rubble pile was hotter), high sulphur environment they melted/eroded very quickly. Same basic idea as to what happened to the steel you are soooo keen on.

again and again, what else could cause that reaction? Thermite? no. super duper nanothermite? not unless it has super duper nano principles we don't know about.


does this resemble the atmosphere of venus......

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285444acb9f3b0510a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17761)

[ElMondoHummus]

I do not see what there is to be gained by harping on the reaction rate. The rate would depend highly on local conditions, and by local, I don't just mean the debris pile, but the area of the pile where the eroded steel elements were recovered from. On top of that, "local conditions" encompass a large number of things. For example, that could include:

Concentration of reactants
Temperature, and somewhat related to that, pressure
The physical state of the reactants (i.e. whether they're solid, gaseous, etc., as well as the amount of reaction surface area available to the rate limiting reactant, etc.)
Competing reactions dynamically changing the availability of any of the reactants or intermediate species (remember, this was a chemical stew in the physical wreckage, and remember, there was little pure sulfur available. Rather, it must have been liberated from one of the myriad sources).

... and so on. And the problem is this: Because all we have is qualitative evidence - i.e. the presence of the steel, the presence of the intermediate sulfidation species that tell us the eutectic formation took place, etc. - and because we're sorely lacking in multiple variables, a study of the reaction rate in a laboratory tells us little to nothing about the conditions in the rubble pile that we don't already know. The amount of sulfur available to the affected steel, for example, is not possible to determine with the precision needed to know how it affected those corroded pieces; neither are the other variables (pressure, competing reactions, etc.). All we really know is the temperature, but even that we don't know with enough precision; we know broad generatlities about the rubble pile as a whole, but nothing about the specific area the corroded steel was recovered from. We have a timeframe on the order of days, and that is a very broad variable too. The point is that there are just too many variables to solve for if you're looking for a quantitative analysis, and unfortunately, any of the ranges you'd generate in experimentation would be within the boundaries set by the condition of the rubble pile.

People can raise questions about the rate of corrosion that occurred, but it doesn't tell us anything new or different about what happened at the WTC. We know the eutectic corrosion occurred, we just don't know how fast. And any experiment we conduct to determine rates will be so highly dependent on variables that we'll still be left with a question mark on that question.

In sum: There's no point to arguing the kinetics. We know qualitatively that the reaction occurred. Quantitative analysis requires much more knowledge than we already have, and it tells us nothing new.

[twinstead]

I think debating on the rate of eutectic corrosion is debating irrelevant minutiae; it changes nothing. But, that's what truthers do, so I guess we're stuck with it.

[TruthersLie]

does this resemble the atmosphere of venus......

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285444acb9f3b0510a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17761)

Down inside the pile that was filled with suplhur, suplhur dioxide and other caustic acidic vapors with the temperature was at 600 to 900 degrees F or more... yup.

Again, you are harping on how the steel eroded in only 8 days... Ok. Then in only 8 days, a 5 ton spacecraft would still be working and sending data.

what happened to the metals on the spacecraft in a high sulphur, high temperature atmosphere?

[Dave Rogers]

Short form, you're arguing semantics with a Truther. Don't waste your time.

Your pronoun usage is a bit vague here. Are you saying that NIST didn't spend much time with WTC 7 steel?

A case in point.

Dave

[RedIbis]

A case in point.

Dave

A case in what? Asking someone to clarify a vague statement?

[triforcharity]

I understood his anology perfectly.

A SPACECRAFT, which was built to WITHSTAND these high-sulfuric conditions, failed in a MUCH SHORTER amount of time. Sulfer degrades steel quickly. Sulfer was found in ABUNDANCE at WTC 1, 2, and 7. Were did it come fromm you ask?? Drywall.

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, sulfur is a bit hard to liberate from drywall. On the other hand, there was so much present that it probably wouldn't take a whole lot from each individual piece to add up to something significant. Regardless, I think the answer to the "source of sulfur" question is that there are multiple ones. Burning rubber could contribute, and rubber gaskets and seals for all sorts of things would abound in a tall structure. Also, remember that this is 2001, and CRT monitors were prevalent. That would be another significant source of sulfur, and might even be the primary one in terms of sheer abundance. And there are more: Paper, paints/dyes, rayon fabrics, residue left from acid rain, residue left from diesel emissions, the eggs Smith let go bad in the office fridge, and so on.

Tri is right: Sulfur was in abundance at Ground Zero. It's in abundance period. It's sort of useless to identify a single source since it's so ubiquitous, but it's worth pointing out (even though it's starting to get off topic to this thread) that anyone who's ever thought to propose thermate in the past as a source is silly in the extreme. It's like pointing out the existence of oxygen and nitrogen as evidence that a "thermobaric" (i.e. a "fuel-air explosive) bomb was present: That would be using something found naturally as evidence that something not found naturally was present. Or for pendants, it's the classic "Affirming the consequent" fallacy. So for all the potential sources that exist, there is one that can be clearly ruled out since it left no other characteristic signs of its presence. But it was never needed to explain the presence of sulfur to begin with.

[johnny karate]

Truther: I believe the WTC buildings were brought down with explosives.

Normal Person: Really? Can you provide evidence of this astonishing claim?

Truther: Absolutely.

Normal Person: So you must have the testimony of the thousands of eyewitnesses who watched those buildings collapse and heard the explosives.

Truther: No...

Normal Person: Oh, okay. Then you must have the testimony of the hundreds of rescue workers who spent days working in the rubble pile and surely found evidence of explosives.

Truther: No...

Normal Person: Okay. What do you have?

Truther: I've parsed the language of an obscure academic paper I don't really understand, and it tells me...

Normal Person: *walks away*

[TruthersLie]

Truther: I believe the WTC buildings were brought down with explosives.

Normal Person: Really? Can you provide evidence of this astonishing claim?

Truther: Absolutely.

Normal Person: So you must have the testimony of the thousands of eyewitnesses who watched those buildings collapse and heard the explosives.

Truther: No...

Normal Person: Oh, okay. Then you must have the testimony of the hundreds of rescue workers who spent days working in the rubble pile and surely found evidence of explosives.

Truther: No...

Normal Person: Okay. What do you have?

Truther: I've parsed the language of an obscure academic paper I don't really understand, and it tells me...

Normal Person: *walks away*

Truther: <chasing them down> No, No NO I do have quotes about explosives

Normal person: Really? Show me.

Truther: <shows the quotes.> See there were explosions.

Normal person: Gee... there are only one sentence quotes... where is the rest?

Truther: <waves hands> These are not the quotes you are looking for...

Normal person: walks away

[Senenmut]

still waiting for WPI to email me back information concerning the research paper.

im curious to see how much corrosion occured on the pieces Sullivan experimented on and how long they were in the furnace.

the fema bpat report app c stated that the mechanism behind this needs to be studied. now if what they think is the mechanism (that is the slag of fe - s - o at 900 - 1000C) does not produce the effects seen on sample 1 of the fema report or can corrode 15.9 mm of steel in 8 days, then more research needs to be done. its as simple as that.

[R.Mackey]

A SPACECRAFT, which was built to WITHSTAND these high-sulfuric conditions, failed in a MUCH SHORTER amount of time. Sulfer degrades steel quickly. Sulfer was found in ABUNDANCE at WTC 1, 2, and 7. Were did it come fromm you ask?? Drywall.

Not really relevant to the discussion, or the idiotic viewpoint of Truthers, but the Venera probes were not defeated by sulfuric acid. It was temperature that did them in. Batteries don't work very well when heated. [/OT]

[funk de fino]

still waiting for WPI to email me back information concerning the research paper.

im curious to see how much corrosion occured on the pieces Sullivan experimented on and how long they were in the furnace.

the fema bpat report app c stated that the mechanism behind this needs to be studied. now if what they think is the mechanism (that is the slag of fe - s - o at 900 - 1000C) does not produce the effects seen on sample 1 of the fema report or can corrode 15.9 mm of steel in 8 days, then more research needs to be done. its as simple as that.


Out of the thousands of tons of steel sorted, how much displayed this characteristic?

[GlennB]

A case in what? Asking someone to clarify a vague statement?

Tell us what you didn't understand, RedIbis, and we'll try to help.

[TruthersLie]

Not really relevant to the discussion, or the idiotic viewpoint of Truthers, but the Venera probes were not defeated by sulfuric acid. It was temperature that did them in. Batteries don't work very well when heated. [/OT]

Ryan...

I know that. Really I do... I just wanted to point out a high sulphur and high temperature environment destroyed the probes. I realize it was primarily high temperatures and high pressure... but the caustic environment would easily have eroded, sulfidized and oxidized the spacecraft.

Of course, having a real rocket scientist on the board makes it hard to make "out there" arguments. :)

[twinstead]

Of course, having a real rocket scientist on the board makes it hard to make "out there" arguments. :)

Yea, but that doesn't stop the truthers though.

[leftysergeant]

The rates at which the eutectic melting occurred in the test are irrelevant because they would not have occurred at the same rate in the pile, uniformly throughout the pieces so melted. The pile was not of uniform density or arranged in a particular order. It was, quite simply, utterly chaotic. The distribution of the Class A fuels that provided the heat was random as well. Thus, it is almost a given that there would be hotter and cooler portions of even a single piece of steel. In this case, then, you just have toi accept that the phewnomenon does occur, thus almost without question DID occur in the pile, but a lot more randomly than would have been the case in the lab tests.

As a side note, the sulphur would have been abundantly availlable in the form of sul;phuric acid, all through the building. On every landing of every stairwell, there is usually an emergency lighting device which contains a lead.acid batter of some size.

A lot of big computer systems have MASSIVE banks of lead/acide batteries as an uninterruptable power supply system.

Then there are the cars parked in the underground parking facillities.

Then there are all the exotic chemicals that were burning.

Next whackadoodle hot button, please.

[ElMondoHummus]

The rates at which the eutectic melting occurred in the test are irrelevant because they would not have occurred at the same rate in the pile, uniformly throughout the pieces so melted. The pile was not of uniform density or arranged in a particular order. It was, quite simply, utterly chaotic. The distribution of the Class A fuels that provided the heat was random as well. Thus, it is almost a given that there would be hotter and cooler portions of even a single piece of steel. In this case, then, you just have toi accept that the phewnomenon does occur, thus almost without question DID occur in the pile, but a lot more randomly than would have been the case in the lab tests.

As a side note, the sulphur would have been abundantly availlable in the form of sul;phuric acid, all through the building. On every landing of every stairwell, there is usually an emergency lighting device which contains a lead.acid batter of some size.

A lot of big computer systems have MASSIVE banks of lead/acide batteries as an uninterruptable power supply system.

Then there are the cars parked in the underground parking facillities.

Then there are all the exotic chemicals that were burning.

Next whackadoodle hot button, please.

Yes, everyone. This is what I said too... except Lefty here managed it with less pretentiousness :o. Anyway, the point is made and punctuated: Rate studies do not matter; they won't tell us anything that is not already known. The studies that have been conducted so far, along with the replication of the various boundary layers in the steel is sufficient to tell us what happened. The effect has been replicated; the rate of the reaction is so dictated by variables and unknowns that it won't give us any info that's not already within the parameters that existed in the rubble pile. The only reason to study it further is not to attempt to validate or disprove what is already known - and let's be blunt, that's exactly what conspiracy peddlers are after here: Refutation of the thesis - but to further examine the reactions to see if there's anything that can help improve fire safety engineering. And at that point, the question has to be asked: Is that level of precision really necessary? Or is simply knowing that such a reaction can occur enough?

That's the only reason to pursue rate studies: To gain more precision about what's already known. It's a mentality of desperation to think that further study will invalidate what's already known, not when the effect was replicated.

[Senenmut]

Yes, everyone. This is what I said too... except Lefty here managed it with less pretentiousness :o. Anyway, the point is made and punctuated: Rate studies do not matter; they won't tell us anything that is not already known. The studies that have been conducted so far, along with the replication of the various boundary layers in the steel is sufficient to tell us what happened. The effect has been replicated; the rate of the reaction is so dictated by variables and unknowns that it won't give us any info that's not already within the parameters that existed in the rubble pile. The only reason to study it further is not to attempt to validate or disprove what is already known - and let's be blunt, that's exactly what conspiracy peddlers are after here: Refutation of the thesis - but to further examine the reactions to see if there's anything that can help improve fire safety engineering. And at that point, the question has to be asked: Is that level of precision really necessary? Or is simply knowing that such a reaction can occur enough?

That's the only reason to pursue rate studies: To gain more precision about what's already known. It's a mentality of desperation to think that further study will invalidate what's already known, not when the effect was replicated.


the rate of corrosion has everything to do with it. what if sullivans test (still havent heard from WPI) showed only a 0.025 mm corrosion over x amount of days.

they (sisson and gang) might be shooting bb's with the fe - o- s at 900C where a 50 cal is needed to produce 15.9 mm's of steel to "corrode" in 8 days.

its called science. experimentation......

[Newtons Bit]

the rate of corrosion has everything to do with it. what if sullivans test (still havent heard from WPI) showed only a 0.025 mm corrosion over x amount of days.

they (sisson and gang) might be shooting bb's with the fe - o- s at 900C where a 50 cal is needed to produce 15.9 mm's of steel to "corrode" in 8 days.

its called science. experimentation......

If you feel it needs to be done, then by all means go do it!

[ElMondoHummus]

(*Sigh*). Sullivan gave her presentation in 2003. She contributed the knowledge she generated in her experiment to the 2005 Biederman-Sisson paper. The paper is an accurate reflection of what she discovered. Here is what that paper said about the rate:


The metal removal rates from A36 steel by this liquid slag are not known and may be highly dependent on impurity content as well as oxygen and sulfur partial pressures in the atmosphere of the fire. However, preliminary experiments [5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble.


5. R.R. Biederman, E. Sullivan, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and G.F. Vander Voort, Buehler: “Microstructural Analysis of the Steels from Buildings 7, 1 and 2 from the World Trade Center,” private communication

Source: Metal removal via slag attack of the steel from building 7 of the world trade center—Some observations (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/), Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention (http://www.springerlink.com/content/120440/?p=35b6651d1afd4edcafba5fd7545ce5ac&pi=0), Volume 6, Number 5 / October, 2006, pg 17-21

Pay particular attention to what they noted: "(M)ay be highly dependent on impurity content as well as oxygen and sulfur partial pressures in the atmosphere of the fire". What does that tell you? It tells sane non-agenda driven researchers that they know they have the reaction correct, they know what the end result is, but the only thing they don't know is the minituae regarding the exact content of "impurities" nor the exact partial pressures produced by the oxygen and sulfur in the fires. That does not change the fact that the reaction occurred. That is beyond doubt. It is beyond doubt because the iron oxide - iron sulfide microstructure is present. That they didn't determine the exact rate does not change the fact that they determined the mechanism. The rate is so dependent on dynamically changing variables for reactants and conditions that nailing rates down is useless.

There is nothing more to say here. They know what happened. Determination of rates tells us nothing new at all.

[funk de fino]

the rate of corrosion has everything to do with it. what if sullivans test (still havent heard from WPI) showed only a 0.025 mm corrosion over x amount of days.

they (sisson and gang) might be shooting bb's with the fe - o- s at 900C where a 50 cal is needed to produce 15.9 mm's of steel to "corrode" in 8 days.

its called science. experimentation......

Out of the thousands of tons of steel sorted, how much displayed this characteristic?

[ImANiceGuy]

Ryan...

I know that. Really I do... I just wanted to point out a high sulphur and high temperature environment destroyed the probes. I realize it was primarily high temperatures and high pressure... but the caustic environment would easily have eroded, sulfidized and oxidized the spacecraft.

Of course, having a real rocket scientist on the board makes it hard to make "out there" arguments. :)

This is a shameful post that stays with you forever.

Your example is worthless, and Senemut has a point. It's not hard to see...

Elmondohummus, you're saying we should be content with knowing firmly that the reaction did occur(duh), but not the rate at which the corrosion occured? Couldn't the corrosion rate help determine the reaction conditions? Shouldn't this interest people? No one has mentioned Thermite yet......

[twinstead]

This is a shameful post that stays with you forever.

Your example is worthless, and Senemut has a point. It's not hard to concede.

The example could be better, but Senemut has NO point. You wouldn't be biased in any way, would you...;)

[ImANiceGuy]

As far as I understand (from a Senenmut vaccuum) all Senenmut is concerned with is the rate of corrosion, which is unknown due to the amount of variables.

[ElMondoHummus]

Elmondohummus, you're saying we should be content with knowing firmly that the reaction did occur(duh), but not the rate at which the corrosion occured?


Yes.


Couldn't the corrosion rate help determine the reaction conditions? Shouldn't this interest people? No one has mentioned Thermite yet......

We already know the reaction conditions. They're bounded by the amount of reactants in the pile and the possible temperatures.

As far as I understand (from a Senenmut vaccuum) all Senenmut is concerned with is the rate of corrosion, which is unknown due to the amount of variables.

It doesn't matter what he's after. Regardless of what he's concerned with, he is ignoring the fact that the researchers themselves did not feel that the rate was important in validating their findings. As can be told by reading the paragraph I quoted. And he is also ignoring that we had so many components in such extreme abundance - heat, steel, sulfur, etc. - that the boundaries for the reaction kinetics dictated by the pile's conditions encompass such a ridiculously broad range of possibilities that determining the rate itself would be useless information.

[twinstead]

As far as I understand (from a Senenmut vaccuum) all Senenmut is concerned with is the rate of corrosion, which is unknown due to the amount of variables.

So, go forth and experiment like the wind. Just don't imply this issue is suspicious in an "inside job" way in ANY way, shape, or form.

[funk de fino]

As far as I understand (from a Senenmut vaccuum) all Senenmut is concerned with is the rate of corrosion, which is unknown due to the amount of variables.

He does not seem keen to quantify the amount of steel found with this type of corrosion.

[Senenmut]

He does not seem keen to quantify the amount of steel found with this type of corrosion.

multiple pieces.

"But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html?pagewanted=2

then we have Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl describing the piece of steel from wtc 7 that lost 15.9 mm in 8 days.

the piece for the bpat report is also from the wtc pile. i dont know if barnett saw that one or not? or if he was the one that labeled it so the crews would not pick it up.

[Senenmut]

elmondo-
thanks for making my point:

"However, preliminary experiments [5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h."
5. R.R. Biederman, E. Sullivan, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and G.F. Vander Voort, Buehler: “Microstructural Analysis of the Steels from Buildings 7, 1 and 2 from the World Trade Center,” private communication

[triforcharity]

Senenmut,

Not fast in 24hrs?? EIGHT ****** DAYS!!! EIGHT!!! Not ONE. Jeebz, you're not very keen on things like this.

[funk de fino]

multiple pieces.

"But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html?pagewanted=2

then we have Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl describing the piece of steel from wtc 7 that lost 15.9 mm in 8 days.

the piece for the bpat report is also from the wtc pile. i dont know if barnett saw that one or not? or if he was the one that labeled it so the crews would not pick it up.

The few pieces they did find like this were put aside for further investigation. NIST looked at the ones from WTC1 and 2. There were a few pieces.

What does that tell you?

Hardly any out of thousands of tons.