10 story hole in WTC 7 [Archive] - Page 20

Dave Rogers

17th July 2008, 04:28 AM

That might be true if only one or two people said they saw molten metal but we have over 20 firefighters, contractors and other witnesses.
Do you really think all these people can't recognize molten metal when they see it?

Like I said, there was probably molten metal in the rubble pile.

IYO

You really don't get this, do you? The use of the word "glob" is a word you've chosen to describe the piece of metal. Your evidence that the metal was previously liquid is therefore the fact that you have chosen this word to represent it. You have chosen the word because, in your opinion, the metal appears to have been solidified from a mass of liquid. The evidence you are advancing to justify your opinion is your opinion itself. That's not a matter of opinon.

Solid fragments don't fall of a glob of metal.

See above. Your entire analysis of this photograph is based on your assignment of the word "glob", with whatever connotations that word holds for you. You haven't advanced either a definition of the word "glob", or any evidence whatsoever that the piece of metal conforms to that definition. The definition, I think I can guess at; the evidence, I'm still waiting for.

Do you see the steam and the water being sprayed on the pile in the foreground?

Yes.

Do you doubt the reports of huge amounts of water being put on the debris pile?

Not at all.

The glob has been cooled enough to become semi solid.

That's pure speculation, since you have no way of knowing whether it was previously hot enough to melt.

Mark Loizeaux believes that there was molten metal because he knows the contractors he has worked with can identify molten metal.

As I said, there was probably molten metal in the rubble pile. Time to move on to your explanation of why all molten metal is necessarily molten steel. I can't wait.

Dave

GlennB

17th July 2008, 05:28 AM

The glob is orange to white 900-1200ºC.
Aluminum melts at 660ºC, there fore it is not aluminum.

What are the other possibilities?

Care to estimate the temperature of this fire ?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/IMGP0115.jpg

Grizzly Bear

17th July 2008, 10:26 AM

That might be true if only one or two people said they saw molten metal but we have over 20 firefighters, contractors and other witnesses.
And how many of them are involved in metallurgy? How many of them do you expect to identify a molten substance as steel with certainty? In a laymans context, the towers were steel structures so I might associate any kind of metal to steel.

Do you really think all these people can't recognize molten metal when they see it?
absolutely, I think they're perfectly capable of describing molten metal when they see it. Does it necessitate that what they are seeing is steel?

You are insulting the heroes of 9/11 by writing off their statements and effectively calling them either liars or idiots.
Appeal to emotion noted.

Do you doubt the reports of huge amounts of water being put on the debris pile?
Absolutely not

As for the rest, I see no reason to simply repeat what Dave has already posted...

jaydeehess

17th July 2008, 11:40 AM

Just for more kicks I will point out that although a wood fire would get to about 1000 deg. insulated chimneys now are rated at 2000 deg. The reason for this is that if the creosote deposits in the chimney ignite (which occurs if one is not careful to burn dry wood and does not get the chimney cleaned regularily) that fire can easily get to the point where it will eat through an old steel chimney. So in this case it is not so much the primary fuel that is the problem but the by products of incomplete combustion.

Anyone think that this could possibly be relevent in the debris pile of the towers?

Christopher7

17th July 2008, 04:17 PM

So are you saying that it melted and then re-solidified with straight edges?? The glob does not have straight edges. It does have white hot metal dripping from the bottom.

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/9269/moltensteelincrabclawcrgv2.jpg

Nice trick. Molten metal would flow into an irregular shape and remain irregular on cooling (see the melted car wheel photo a few posts above).
And why is the material it's in contact with jet black when temperatures in that location were (according to you) > 1500°C ??
Something stuck to the glob as it was being pulled out perhaps.

The point here is:
This is one of the pictures Mark Loizeaux was describing.

The glob of metal is 900-1200°C.

These temperatures CANNOT be attained, much less maintained in a debris pile.

For about the fifth time - nobody is denying the possibility of molten metal.Possibility?
You are still doubting the ability of firefighters, contractors and others to recognize molten metal when they see it.
Your inability to accept the fact that there was molten metal is indicative of your inability to accept anything that goes against the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory.

It's molten steel that's the problem. Are you officially retracting your molten steel claim in favour of mere molten metal? No
Again, what else could it be?
The glob of metal is 900-1200°C.
[definitely not aluminum which is liquid above 660°C]
Here are the possibilities
Metal . . . melting point °C
gold . . . . . . 1063
copper . . . . 1083
cast iron . . . 1100-1300
manganese . 1225
steel . . . . . . 1400-1500
nickel . . . . . 1450
cobalt . . . . . 1480

http://www.weights-and-measures.com/xcommetalsalt.html

If so, then the molten metal could easily be produced in routine office fires. What metals can office fires melt in large amounts?

Christopher7

17th July 2008, 04:36 PM

Like I said, there was probably molten metal in the rubble pile.Probably?
You too are still doubting the ability of firefighters, contractors and others to recognize molten metal when they see it.
Your inability to accept the fact that there was molten metal is indicative of your inability to accept anything that goes against the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory.

Your entire analysis of this photograph is based on your assignment of the word "glob", with whatever connotations that word holds for you. You haven't advanced either a definition of the word "glob", or any evidence whatsoever that the piece of metal conforms to that definition. The definition, I think I can guess at; the evidence, I'm still waiting for.I define "glob" as an irregular shape. [as if you didn't know]

That's pure speculation, since you have no way of knowing whether it was previously hot enough to melt.It had to be molten in order to get into the irregular shape.

The bottom is dripping molten metal.
[pieces don't fall of solid metal]

The glob is consistent with the reports of molten metal and the photo Mark Loizeaux described.

As I said, there was probably molten metal in the rubble pile. Time to move on to your explanation of why all molten metal is necessarily molten steel. I can't wait.

DaveWhat else could it be?
[see my last post]

Christopher7

17th July 2008, 05:44 PM

Here is a more accurate color chart.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1502/colorchart3ene8.jpg (http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1502/colorchart3ene8.jpg)

http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm

I got this one from Judy Woods page on aluminum.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3070/colortempchartyq6.png

She does not give a source.

Christopher7

17th July 2008, 06:03 PM

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4227/colorheatchartcrabclawag4.jpg

GlennB

18th July 2008, 12:17 AM

Here is a more accurate color chart.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1502/colorchart3ene8.jpg (http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1502/colorchart3ene8.jpg)

http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm

I'm a bit slow Chris, so could you help me out here?

Could you use your colour charts to estimate the temperature of that hearth fire I posted a little way up the page?

jaydeehess

18th July 2008, 05:39 AM

You know Chris, I can change that color chart by adjusting my computer screen parameters.
Cameras also do not absolutly accuratly record what we see.

Finally why won't you estimate the temperature of the hearth fire shown above? You have been asked to do so several times now.

bio

18th July 2008, 01:31 PM

There was aluminium in the debris, and temperatures above the melting point of aluminium were measured in the debris pile. I strongly suspect that there was molten aluminium present in the debris pile.

Meanwhile, is there anything in the shape of your "glob" of metal that shows, or even suggests, that it was previously molten?

Dave

Molten aluminum glows silvery at a temperature of 600-800 Celsius ... but the witnesses report of "red hot" metal.
... of course molten aluminum glows red / yellow at a temperature over 1000 Celsius ... but the question is then: How can it become so hot?

Grizzly Bear

18th July 2008, 03:24 PM

Molten aluminum glows silvery at a temperature of 600-800 Celsius ... but the witnesses report of "red hot" metal.

For the record, if that's a description of steel, 'red hot' could mean anything from 600 oC to 800 oC, which is below the melting point of steel. I don't even think steel at that those temperatures would have been incredibly unusual since the temperature of the fires from the impacts reached near these temperatures at different stages.

As for reaching 1500 oC, people have posted pictures of firefighters supposedly standing right over 'pools of it' with the light shining out of an apparent break in the debris pile and you generally have to be realistic about the fact that the radiant heat from such hot material would cook the flesh off their faces (the photos I am talking about were photoshopped anyway, but point given, this doesn't speak for everything).

GlennB

18th July 2008, 04:35 PM

Molten aluminum glows silvery at a temperature of 600-800 Celsius ... but the witnesses report of "red hot" metal.
... of course molten aluminum glows red / yellow at a temperature over 1000 Celsius ... but the question is then: How can it become so hot?

Molten aluminium :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/moltenaluminium2.jpg

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/moltenaluminium.jpg

Bottom line - don't expect to draw deep scientific conclusions from the apparent colour shown in photos. Spectroscopic analysis is a different matter of course.

Christopher7

18th July 2008, 10:47 PM

I'm a bit slow Chris,Indeed

so could you help me out here?Yes

Could you use your colour charts to estimate the temperature of that hearth fire I posted a little way up the page?Your fire photo has been photoshopped and it looks like someone put a fan i front of it.
In any case, to judge the temperature of fire you should use this:

Temperatures of flames by appearance
The temperature of flames with carbon particles emitting light can be assessed by their color:[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire#cite_note-6)

Red

Just visible: 525 °C (977 °F)
Dull: 700 °C (1290 °F)
Cherry, dull: 800 °C (1470 °F)
Cherry, full: 900 °C (1650 °F)
Cherry, clear: 1000 °C (1830 °F)

Orange

Deep: 1100 °C (2010 °F)
Clear: 1200 °C (2190 °F)

White

Whitish: 1300 °C (2370 °F)
Bright: 1400 °C (2550 °F)
Dazzling: 1500 °C (2730 °F)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire)

Had you actually looked at the link, you could have answered your own question. The color chart for 816°C has the caption:
"Unfanned coals of a wood fire approx."
http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm

To get carbon based fires to the temperatures necessary to heat any metal to over 1000°C it is necessary to force a great deal of air through the coals or whatever fuel is being used.
Although the temp chart is approximate, it is clear that the molten steel is in the 1100-1400°C range. Aluminum may get orange yellow hot but it is a liquid at that point and could not be the glob we see.

Christopher7

18th July 2008, 10:59 PM

For the record, if that's a description of steel, 'red hot' could mean anything from 600 oC to 800 oC, which is below the melting point of steel. These highly qualified people went on the record saying:

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all subgrade levels, stated "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (source_SEAU.org) (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf)

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (source) (http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news)

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. (source) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html)(audio) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2007/05/10/20070510_overpass28.mp3)

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20021006003613/http:/www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm)(audio) (http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adis/rm/adis_trimpe.rm)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source) (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/)

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source (http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948)) (http://web.archive.org/web/20041223152148/http:/www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm)

So unless you want to say these people are liars or idiots, and look like one yourself, you will have to come to grips with the simple fact that:

There was molten steel in the debris piles.

phunk

18th July 2008, 11:45 PM

To get carbon based fires to the temperatures necessary to heat any metal to over 1000°C it is necessary to force a great deal of air through the coals or whatever fuel is being used.

You mean like if there were big subway tunnels feeding air into the base of the fire, and a chimney effect from the heat of a giant rubble pile fire pulling that air upwards?

bio

19th July 2008, 12:40 AM

From the BBC hit piece about WTC 7:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16541?page=1

(47:57) (speaker, quote:) "In New England, the claims of the mysterious melted steel from tower seven has been unraveled. It was found by fire protection engineer professor Jonathan Barnett - in a salvage yard." - (Prof. Barnett, Simpson Gumpertz & Heeger) "It's came from a much larger theme." - "This was the size of steel that they used in the construction of tower seven, they didn't use this particular kind of steel in towers one or towers two. So that's why we knell its pedigree" - "It was a surprise to me, because it was so eroded and deformed and so...uhm ... we took it for analysis in the lab." - (Prof. Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute) "All it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slab. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid, containing iron, sulfur and oxygen." - "You can see, what it does is, it attacks the grain boundaries and this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack." -
"Professor Sisson says, it didn't melt: It eroded.
The cause were those very hot fires in the debris after 9/11.
They cooked the steal over weeks.
The sulfur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires." - (Prof. Sisson) "I don't find it bring mysteries at all. That if I had steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere, that is rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect." (49:22)

How intense must be the heat, which can make out of steel a swiss cheese "Emmental"? In this connection, of course, our old question: From where does the heat come from?

GlennB

19th July 2008, 01:06 AM

Your fire photo has been photoshopped

No it hasn't.

and it looks like someone put a fan i front of it.

There was no fan.

So, the bright white areas would correspond to
Whitish: 1300 °C (2370 °F)
or even hotter?

How about this fire, Chris? What would be the temperature here --

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/IMGP0117.jpg

bio

19th July 2008, 01:25 AM

No it hasn't.

There was no fan.

So, the bright white areas would correspond to
Whitish: 1300 °C (2370 °F)
or even hotter?

How about this fire, Chris? What would be the temperature here --

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/IMGP0117.jpg

Do you want to claim, that there was wood in the debris field of the WTC?
:confused:

Jonnyclueless

19th July 2008, 03:26 AM

Do you want to claim, that there was wood in the debris field of the WTC?
:confused:

Now you're catching on. Because those who keep claiming to know exactly what material they are seeing based purely on the color might as well be claiming there was wood in the debris.

GlennB

19th July 2008, 03:34 AM

Do you want to claim, that there was wood in the debris field of the WTC?
:confused:

That isn't the point I'm making at all, and I'll be very interested to hear Chris's estimate of the temperature of that second fire.

But - while we're discussing it - of course there was a great deal of wood in the debris field. Desks, partitions etc etc

Grizzly Bear

19th July 2008, 08:22 AM

I think you should look at the web definitions for molten:

mol·ten (mltn)
v. Archaic
A past participle of melt.
adj.
1. Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2. Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury" Richard Wright.

source (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/molten)
“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (source) (http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news)

I told you this before, Fuchek was in area and not working with the recovery of debris. If the beam were not totally melted then the liquid portions and the solids would be in thermal equilibrium... the beam would come apart like putty... It is also unclear to what degree of metallurgy he is knowledgeable in.

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. (source) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html)(audio) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2007/05/10/20070510_overpass28.mp3)
I already commented on this:
Marginally interesting, but not very specific on the molten steel claims. More than anything, the article describes that the collapse of the bridge, that is, the failure mode of the steel was similar to that of the trade centers

Again he stated that the steel melted, yet the article is comparing the structural failure in the WTC collapse to the failure of the bridge. As an engineer if the steel was melted at a temperature of 1500+ oC I would suspect that the article would have placed more emphasis than it did...

Link (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-22.jpg)

This connection sample was taken from WTC 5 and shows exactly what happens when the connections fail due to heat exposure. Do you consider this melting out of curiosity?

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20021006003613/http:/www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm)(audio) (http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adis/rm/adis_trimpe.rm)
key word: metal
Aluminum is a metal, iron is a metal, steel is a metal, lead is a metal... the account is not specific about the classification... Molten aluminum or lead would be unsurprising in the temperatures reported from the debris pile, but not molten steel or iron, although steel would be glowing cherry red at some of the recorded temperatures.

So unless you want to say these people are liars or idiots, and look like one yourself, you will have to come to grips with the simple fact that:
[/SIZE]
There was molten steel in the debris piles.

Never said they lied, or were idiots. How many of your witnesses are experts in metallurgy? How many do you expect to use the word 'molten' in proper terminology? Do I have to continue repeating this?

From the BBC hit piece about WTC 7:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16541?page=1

(47:57) (speaker, quote:) "In New England, the claims of the mysterious melted steel from tower seven has been unraveled. It was found by fire protection engineer professor Jonathan Barnett - in a salvage yard." - (Prof. Barnett, Simpson Gumpertz & Heeger) "It's came from a much larger theme." - "This was the size of steel that they used in the construction of tower seven, they didn't use this particular kind of steel in towers one or towers two. So that's why we knell its pedigree" - "It was a surprise to me, because it was so eroded and deformed and so...uhm ... we took it for analysis in the lab." - (Prof. Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute) "All it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slab. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid, containing iron, sulfur and oxygen." - "You can see, what it does is, it attacks the grain boundaries and this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack." -
"Professor Sisson says, it didn't melt: It eroded.
The cause were those very hot fires in the debris after 9/11.
They cooked the steal over weeks.
The sulfur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires." - (Prof. Sisson) "I don't find it bring mysteries at all. That if I had steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere, that is rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect." (49:22)

How intense must be the heat, which can make out of steel a swiss cheese "Emmental"? In this connection, of course, our old question: From where does the heat come from?

Bio... oxidation would have had ample time to act during clean up... oxidation of metals can result in the same erosion that is seen in long-term rust damage. The debris pile was a concoction of debris, some of the steel was already preheated.

You had sulfur from the gypsum wallboard adding to corrosion, heat speeds up corrosion, water adds oxygen to the corrosion process... the transcri[t you took it from says this...

phunk

19th July 2008, 10:17 AM

How intense must be the heat, which can make out of steel a swiss cheese "Emmental"?

Last I checked, steel will rust away at room temp, although that takes a while. Adding heat and water speeds that up greatly. Add sulfur too and you've got eutectic corrosion also eating away at the metal. By the way, rusting & corrosion are exothermic, they add additional heat to the fire.

In this connection, of course, our old question: From where does the heat come from?

From the fire of course. The rubble piles burned for weeks, you know this.

Christopher7

19th July 2008, 11:59 AM

You mean like if there were big subway tunnels feeding air into the base of the fire, and a chimney effect from the heat of a giant rubble pile fire pulling that air upwards?Interesting theory but problematic.
It would require a continuous 'chimney' thru 6-8 stories of rubble.
Then there's the fact that the hottest spot was under the WTC 7 debris pile.
WTC 7 didn't have a basement.

Jonnyclueless

19th July 2008, 12:31 PM

Yeah, instead it had a power station and subway under it. A lot more fuel than a regualr basement would provide.

phunk

19th July 2008, 01:13 PM

Interesting theory but problematic.
It would require a continuous 'chimney' thru 6-8 stories of rubble.
Then there's the fact that the hottest spot was under the WTC 7 debris pile.
WTC 7 didn't have a basement.

If there weren't paths for air to flow through the rubble, then the fires would have gone out. Surely you aren't suggesting that the rubble pile was airtight?

GlennB

19th July 2008, 04:30 PM

Interesting theory but problematic.
It would require a continuous 'chimney' thru 6-8 stories of rubble.
Then there's the fact that the hottest spot was under the WTC 7 debris pile.
WTC 7 didn't have a basement.

Hi Chris - any thoughts on the temp of that 2nd fire?

Christopher7

19th July 2008, 04:33 PM

Christopher7

19th July 2008, 04:40 PM

No it hasn't.

There was no fan.

So, the bright white areas would correspond to
Whitish: 1300 °C (2370 °F)
or even hotter?

How about this fire, Chris? What would be the temperature here --

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/IMGP0117.jpgThe color chart for 816°C has the caption:
"Unfanned coals of a wood fire approx."
http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm

If your photo shows something else, there is a fan and/or the colors have been pushed.

Christopher7

19th July 2008, 05:14 PM

Grizzly Bear

19th July 2008, 06:39 PM

Really? Source?

"It is observed that a higher temperature object which is in contact with a lower temperature object will transfer heat to the lower temperature object. The objects will approach the same temperature, and in the absence of loss to other objects, they will then maintain a constant temperature. They are then said to be in thermal equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium is the subject of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics."
Source (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/thereq.html)

The 'putty' comment is essentially an analogy I used, but the principal is rather the same, Being found after long-term exposure, then it can reasonably be assumed that if it was indeed dripping with molten steel, the host beam would be at or near the same temperature, and efforts to remove it from the debris pile would have resulted in warping or distortion of the host beam.

You do not know what the conditions were.
Neither do you. I've been arguing based on analyzing the context of the witness accounts you have given. Nothing more.

Please
Anyone can recognize molten metal, it doesn't require a knowledge of metallurgy.

And I mostly certainly don't doubt that there was to some extent molten metal in the debris pile. But the constant mingling of molten metal and molten steel should be an indicator of the point I am trying to make to you. Most if not all of the witnesses are not trained in metallurgy to recognize the differences between the two terms or are able to recognize the type of molten metal right off the bat as steel just by looking at it. And understandably so...

You are relying solely on witnesses whom you cannot be certain are identifying the classification of metal correctly or not. You continually seem to ignore this glaring problem. Molten aluminum would not be surpirizing given the temperatures of the smoldering fires, (and it's abundance from being used on the facades of the trade centers and the planes, as well as the cars in the area). Hell if steel were glowing cherry red, or red-orange it wouldn't be entirely surprising given that temperatures in the debris pile were hovering around 1500 oF for as long as 6 weeks following the collapse of the towers.

Furthermore it seems that no samples of the molten material that was found was ever sampled for experimentation.

You continue to put words in my mouth by asking if I am calling people like Fuchek liars or idiots... I'm not calling them either... you missed the point I was making entirely. But you seem to have unfathomed expectations by assuming that everyone can identify the type of metal they see right off the bat.

Your half baked attempts to deny these clear statements that confirm the existence of molten steel only serve to prove your inability to accept anything that undermines the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory.

which reminds me, how exactly does molten metal prove a controlled demolition in the firs place? Controlled demolitions do not typically result in this phenomenon, and thermite if we ever assumed this was the cause, would have run out of steam within a very short period of time, any metal or rather 'steel' would begin to solidify again the moment the heat source sufficient to maintain a liquid state is lost

Christopher7

19th July 2008, 10:22 PM

"It is observed that a higher temperature object which is in contact with a lower temperature object will transfer heat to the lower temperature object. The objects will approach the same temperature, and in the absence of loss to other objects, they will then maintain a constant temperature. They are then said to be in thermal equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium is the subject of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics."Correct
Another law states that a fire cannot heat something above the temperature of the fire.
Smoldering fires could only heat the steel to about 500-600°C at most.

The 'putty' comment is essentially an analogy I used, but the principal is rather the same, Being found after long-term exposure, then it can reasonably be assumed that if it was indeed dripping with molten steel, the host beam would be at or near the same temperature, and efforts to remove it from the debris pile would have resulted in warping or distortion of the host beam.Correct
The fact that there was molten steel dripping from the steel beam means it was about 1400-1500°C.

I've been arguing based on analyzing the context of the witness accounts you have given. Nothing more.The witness accounts establish that there was molten steel.
This is supported by the photograph that Mark Loizeaux referred to and the thermal images showing a surface temperature of the WTC 7 debris pile was 727°C. The molten metal under the debris pile was far hotter.
There was no airplane or aluminum framework in WTC 7.
The hot spot was outside the footprint of the sub station.

you seem to have unfathomed expectations by assuming that everyone can identify the type of metal they see right off the bat.
Overstatement

[subject shift] which reminds me, how exactly does molten metal prove a controlled demolition in the firs place? Controlled demolitions do not typically result in this phenomenon[/subject shift]If you don't believe that there was molten steel under all three buildings then your question is moot.

and thermite if we ever assumed this was the cause, would have run out of steam within a very short period of time, any metal or rather 'steel' would begin to solidify again the moment the heat source sufficient to maintain a liquid state is lost Thermite is the only known explanation for the molten steel.
Thermite burns at 4500°C. That's 1800°C above the melting point of steel.
Buried under a pile of rubble, it would cool slowly.
It is therefore not surprising that some spots stayed molten for months.
Carbon fuel could not last that long.
The molten steel was heating and burning the carbon fuel, not the other way around.

GlennB

20th July 2008, 12:36 AM

The color chart for 816°C has the caption:
"Unfanned coals of a wood fire approx."
http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm

If your photo shows something else, there is a fan and/or the colors have been pushed.

For the second time, there was no fan and the photos are exactly as they were taken. But -
Your estimates would seem to indicate the first fire is around 1300°C and the second at around 800°C. Is that about right?

phunk

20th July 2008, 12:48 AM

[/FONT]Buried under a pile of rubble, it would cool slowly.

Not really, it would have been spread thin by the collapse and cooled fairly rapidly in contact with all of the cold debris.

It is therefore not surprising that some spots stayed molten for months.

Only a continuous fire would keep the temp up for months.

Carbon fuel could not last that long.

Why not? These were HUGe buildings, there was a lot of fuel.

The molten steel was heating and burning the carbon fuel, not the other way around.

How would molten metal cause the fuel burning? In reality, it would be the other way around, melting is endothermic, it would take heat away from the fire.

Christopher7

20th July 2008, 02:08 PM

For the second time, there was no fan and the photos are exactly as they were taken. But -
Your estimates would seem to indicate the first fire is around 1300°C and the second at around 800°C. Is that about right?No
You are trying to discount the molten steel in the crab claw with a photo you took inside. Your first version was obviously altered. This latest one is more realistic but your motive is clear and your photo is questionable at best.

Although judging temperature by color is an approximation and photos are not exactly color correct, this photo was taken by a professional in daylight and is reasonably close to color correct.
The photo of the crab claw shows the glob as being orange to yellow to white or near white.
To suggest that the yellow in the photo isn't yellow is ridiculous.
Metal glowing yellow is in the 1200-1400°C range.

Mark Loizeaux has no doubts that there was molten steel under all three buildings and spoke of the picture in question here.
There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators.

Mark's statement, along with many others, the photo of the molten steel in the crab claw and the thermal images, constitute a body of evidence that is conclusive.

This is very difficult for all of us. Like you, my first reaction to the video of WTC 7 imploding was denial, but i got over it when i confirmed that the video was indeed WTC 7.
At some point you will get over your denial and accept the reality that there was molten steel under all three buildings.

GlennB

20th July 2008, 03:16 PM

No
You are trying to discount the molten steel in the crab claw with a photo you took inside. Your first version was obviously altered. This latest one is more realistic but your motive is clear and your photo is questionable at best...

Neither photo was altered. The only difference was the aperture used, for reasons I'm happy to explain, if anybody could give a damn * ;)

The two "hearth photos" were taken about one minute apart, and the fire itself was unchanged between shots. It was just jogging quietly along. Yet your colour "analysis" would lead the unwary to suspect a temperature range of some 800 - 1300 °C between the two. Do you see how crazy this is? It was the same damn fire, yet appeared dramatically different just through a couple of stops adjustment on the aperture setting.

* as it happens I have a minor interest in astronomy and bought a clamp to attach a digi-cam to the telescope. My old cheapie camera handled severe contrast (such as a lunar shot) all by itself and produced fair photos, but a "good" new camera needs manual aperture setting. The fire photos were an experiment to get to know the camera better.

Christopher7

20th July 2008, 03:24 PM

Not really, it would have been spread thin by the collapse and cooled fairly rapidly in contact with all of the cold debris.

Only a continuous fire would keep the temp up for months.

Why not? These were HUGe buildings, there was a lot of fuel.

How would molten metal cause the fuel burning? In reality, it would be the other way around, melting is endothermic, it would take heat away from the fire.We are in the realm of personal opinion here and i respectfully disagree with you.
Molten steel would heat up everything around it and make the combustible materials smolder. IMO

Smoldering carbon based fires are not hot enough to melt steel or corrode steel like the beam from WTC 7.
The corrosion of beam from WTC 7 is unique and the NIST explanation of sulfur in the drywall is unprecedented and unproven.

Christopher7

20th July 2008, 03:44 PM

Neither photo was altered. The only difference was the aperture used, for reasons I'm happy to explain, if anybody could give a damn * ;)

The two "hearth photos" were taken about one minute apart, and the fire itself was unchanged between shots. It was just jogging quietly along. Yet your colour "analysis" would lead the unwary to suspect a temperature range of some 800 - 1300 °C between the two. Do you see how crazy this is? It was the same damn fire, yet appeared dramatically different just through a couple of stops adjustment on the aperture setting. OK, the photo you took of coals in a hearth doesn't accurately show the colors.

Just don't try to compare your indoor photo of coals glowing to the daylight photo of molten steel in the crab claw. It's a high quality photo and the orange to yellow to white is close to the actual colors.

Mark Loizeaux confirmed what we see in this photo.

Jonnyclueless

20th July 2008, 05:08 PM

So what chris is saying is that any material and temperature can be determined simply by looking at the color of a material. And no matter what combination of materials, the color never changes no matter what.Sounds like magic to me.

GlennB

21st July 2008, 02:54 PM

OK, the photo you took of coals in a hearth doesn't accurately show the colors.

Just don't try to compare your indoor photo of coals glowing to the daylight photo of molten steel in the crab claw. It's a high quality photo and the orange to yellow to white is close to the actual colors.

How bizarre .. I always assumed that photo was taken at night. It certainly looks like it. Maybe impressions can be deceiving ????

Mark Loizeaux confirmed what we see in this photo.

Was he there at the time?

funk de fino

21st July 2008, 03:14 PM

Your fire photo has been photoshopped and it looks like someone put a fan i front of it.

Oh dear Chris, you have to resort to crying fake photos again?

What will we do with you?

Alferd_Packer

21st July 2008, 05:15 PM

Chris, please call it by the proper term: it's a grappler, not a "crab claw."

Christopher7

21st July 2008, 10:20 PM

So what chris is saying is that any material and temperature can be determined simply by looking at the color of a material.Wrong!

A blacksmith site has a color chart for the approximate temp of steel.

Christopher7

21st July 2008, 11:31 PM

How bizarre .. I always assumed that photo was taken at night. It certainly looks like it. Maybe impressions can be deceiving ????You are very creative in coming up with reasons to not believe what is obvious in the photo.

While the photo by itself is not necessarily proof of molten steel, when you consider the numerous reports of molten steel, the thermal images, and Mark Loizeaux saying "There are both video tapes and still photos of molten steel being dipped out by the buckets of excavators", there is no reason to doubt that we are looking at a photo of "molten steel being dipped out by the bucket of an excavator".

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1925/moltenmetalcr4.jpg

ETA: You're right, it was taken at night.

Christopher7

21st July 2008, 11:49 PM

Chris, please call it by the proper term: it's a grappler, not a "crab claw."If you wish, grappler it is.
Thank you for the correct term. :)

bio

22nd July 2008, 01:06 AM

This is probably the most egregious lie in the BBC piece. Drywall is used for fireproofing and the sulfur in drywall is locked in a chemical cage. Fires smolder at about 500-600°C. This is nowhere near hot enough to erode steel. The "sulfur from gypsum" theory is unprecedented and unproven. Prof. Sisson is spouting junk science as if it were fact.

how high must have been the temperature there to erode the steel? Are there studies about eroding steel, which indicate what time is needed with a certain temperature?

GlennB

22nd July 2008, 01:49 AM

You are very creative in coming up with reasons to not believe what is obvious in the photo.

While the photo by itself is not necessarily proof of molten steel, when you consider the numerous reports of molten steel, the thermal images, and Mark Loizeaux saying "There are both video tapes and still photos of molten steel being dipped out by the buckets of excavators", there is no reason to doubt that we are looking at a photo of "molten steel being dipped out by the bucket of an excavator".

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1925/moltenmetalcr4.jpg

ETA: You're right, it was taken at night.

My bolding.

Chris, that isn't a bucket at all, so it can't be "dipping" anything. And whatever state that yellow object might once have been in, right now it isn't liquid. Therefore your (bolded) statement above is plain wrong on two counts.

If you have any better luck in finding a photo of an excavator bucket dipping molten metal, please let us know.

LashL

22nd July 2008, 02:20 AM

double post - deleted

LashL

22nd July 2008, 02:21 AM

Christopher7

22nd July 2008, 03:56 AM

My bolding.

Chris, that isn't a bucket at all, so it can't be "dipping" anything. And whatever state that yellow object might once have been in, right now it isn't liquid. Therefore your (bolded) statement above is plain wrong on two counts.

If you have any better luck in finding a photo of an excavator bucket dipping molten metal, please let us know.By jove, you are right again.
The picture in question is a grappler. An excavator is a back hoe with tracks.
Point made. Thank you for the correction.

Now that we've cleared that up, do you believe Mark Loizeaux was telling the truth when he said:

"There are both video tapes and still photos of molten steel being dipped out by the buckets of excavators"

? ? ?

Christopher7

22nd July 2008, 04:28 AM

how high must have been the temperature there to erode the steel? Are there studies about eroding steel, which indicate what time is needed with a certain temperature?Steel does not normally erode when heated.
The corrosion was due to "a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation, sulfidation with subsequent melting"
[FEMA 403 Appendix C]

The only known known explanation is Thermate.

Gypsum [drywall] is used for fireproofing. The sulfur in gypsum is locked in a chemical cage. Before claiming that the sulfur in gypsum could somehow be released and erode steel, provide an example of this occurring.

funk de fino

22nd July 2008, 07:38 AM

By jove, you are right again.
The picture in question is a grappler. An excavator is a back hoe with tracks.
Point made. Thank you for the correction.

Now that we've cleared that up, do you believe Mark Loizeaux was telling the truth when he said:

"There are both video tapes and still photos of molten steel being dipped out by the buckets of excavators"

? ? ?

I think he was mistaken. It happens, you just proved it. Again.

GlennB

22nd July 2008, 07:42 AM

By jove, you are right again.
The picture in question is a grappler. An excavator is a back hoe with tracks.
Point made. Thank you for the correction.

Now that we've cleared that up, do you believe Mark Loizeaux was telling the truth when he said:

"There are both video tapes and still photos of molten steel being dipped out by the buckets of excavators"

? ? ?

I wouldn't be so hasty as to assign phrases like "telling the truth".
You were wrong about both the time of day and the nature of the machine in that photo. I'm not calling you a liar, merely mistaken.

Grizzly Bear

22nd July 2008, 08:08 AM

Steel does not normally erode when heated.
Is this an effort to completely eliminate corrosion as a cause for the erosion of structural members in the debris pile?

If you are going to make a claim like this then source it. Corrosion of steel is a chemical process, and temperature influences the speed of chemical reactions. Your claim stands as false:

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion#High_temperature_corrosion)

High temperature corrosion

High temperature corrosion is chemical deterioration of a material (typically a metal) under very high temperature conditions. This non-galvanic form of corrosion can occur when a metal is subject to a high temperature atmosphere containing oxygen, sulfur or other compounds capable of oxidising (or assisting the oxidation of) the material concerned. For example, materials used in aerospace, power generation and even in car engines have to resist sustained periods at high temperature in which they may be exposed to an atmosphere containing potentially highly corrosive products of combustion.

The products of high temperature corrosion can potentially be turned to the advantage of the engineer. The formation of oxides on stainless steels, for example, can provide a protective layer preventing further atmospheric attack, allowing for a material to be used for sustained periods at both room and high temperature in hostile conditions. Such high temperature corrosion products in the form of compacted oxide layer glazes have also been shown to prevent or reduce wear during high temperature sliding contact of metallic (or metallic and ceramic) surfaces.

The only known known explanation is Thermate.

Molten metal found weeks following the collapse of the towers would require that your 'thermate' did the following:

Make it inside the buildings without the least bit of suspicion
Survive the collapse in such condition that it retains functionality

Be supplied with a sufficiently hot ignition source to spontaneously ignite at random points in time.
or
Be able to sustain a reaction for several weeks straight

The 'steel' would have to be able to maintain a liquid state long enough to be found in a liquid state.
Leave traces of Barium Nitrate in the debris pile

Can you clear these conditions? Was Barium Nitrate found in the debris pile? Will you evade these problems with your assertion again?

Christopher7

22nd July 2008, 01:18 PM

I think he was mistaken. It happens, you just proved it. Again.Were these people "mistaken" too?

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all subgrade levels, stated "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (source_SEAU.org) (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf)

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (source) (http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news)

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. (source) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html)(audio) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2007/05/10/20070510_overpass28.mp3)

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20021006003613/http:/www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm)(audio) (http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adis/rm/adis_trimpe.rm)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source) (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/)

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source (http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948)) (http://web.archive.org/web/20041223152148/http:/www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm)

Christopher7

22nd July 2008, 01:26 PM

I wouldn't be so hasty as to assign phrases like "telling the truth".
You were wrong about both the time of day and the nature of the machine in that photo. I'm not calling you a liar, merely mistaken.Do you think Mark Loizeaux and the others listed above were "mistaken" ?

bio

22nd July 2008, 01:50 PM

Is this an effort to completely eliminate corrosion as a cause for the erosion of structural members in the debris pile?

If you are going to make a claim like this then source it. Corrosion of steel is a chemical process, and temperature influences the speed of chemical reactions. Your claim stands as false:

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion#High_temperature_corrosion)
(...)
Can you clear these conditions? Was Barium Nitrate found in the debris pile? Will you evade these problems with your assertion again?

Please clear the conditions by yourself, and give a number, how high these temperatures needed to be to erode the steel after a few weeks.
Somebody here must be able to reckon a temperature. Where are the experts? From this temperature we can conclude, if normal office fires or thermate were the source.

Grizzly Bear

22nd July 2008, 02:28 PM

Please clear the conditions by yourself,

Excuse me? Who are the ones claiming that thermite or thermate is the only possible explanation for molten metal at the trade center rubble pile? Who are the ones that are placing 100% certainty in the witnesses ability to identify the specific type/classification of the metal found?

In any event, in order for your claims to hold up they really do need to clear these conditions

Molten metal found weeks following the collapse of the towers would require that your 'thermate' did the following:

Make it inside the buildings without the least bit of suspicion
Survive the collapse in such condition that it retains functionality

Be supplied with a sufficiently hot ignition source to spontaneously ignite at random points in time.
or
Be able to sustain a reaction for several weeks straight

The 'steel' would have to be able to maintain a liquid state long enough to be found in a liquid state.
Leave traces of Barium Nitrate in the debris pile

and give a number, how high these temperatures needed to be to erode the steel after a few weeks. Somebody here must be able to reckon a temperature. Where are the experts? From this temperature we can conclude, if normal office fires or thermate were the source.

Christopher7, made the false claim that "steel does not usually erode when heated". I responded accordingly

EDIT: Christopher's arguement is as well based on a strawman because high temperatures aren't the exclusive cause corrosion anyway, go figure...
And I initially fell for it due to reading it wrong, regardless, as I have explained, high temperature were only a catalyst

Reread my post:

Corrosion of steel is a chemical process, and temperature influences the speed of chemical reactions. Your claim stands as false:

I'll even clarify my response to him:
Higher temperatures speed up (AKA catalyze) chemical reactions

Oxidation of metals, also known as corrosion similar to your average rust is the result of a chemical reaction. I am not claiming that any specific temperature is required I am stating that higher temperatures catalyze these reactions and work to speed them up.

If you want more information then you can refer to the following sources:

Cprrosive High Temperature Environments (http://www.corrosionsource.com/technicallibrary/corrdoctors/Modules/HotCorrosion/environments.htm)

Air, oxygen: The reaction between air and a material is normally called oxidation and is quite often observed as a separate discipline in regard to corrosion science. In most industrial cases where metal is in contact with air, the oxidation processes are not as much determined by plain oxidation by oxygen but one has to consider all possible contaminants of the air which can have disastrous consequences for the oxidation resistance.

Steam: Steam in contact with steel can effect the carbon level of the steel can also oxidize the iron.

Carbon, carbon oxides and methane: Compounds of carbon like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane can change the carbon level in the steel and subsequently influence the mechanical properties of the metal.

Sulfur containing Gases: Even in small amounts, sulfur in various forms can accelerate corrosion at high temperatures.

Hydrogen: Hydrogen gas is a reducing agent and in contact with steel at high temperatures can result in decarburization and the subsequent formation of hydrogen carbons; C(Fe) + 2H2 <==> CH4

Introduction into high temperature corrosion (http://www.corrosionsource.com/technicallibrary/corrdoctors/Modules/HotCorrosion/Frames.htm)

High temperature corrosion is a form of corrosion that does not require the presence of a liquid electrolyte. Sometimes, this type of damage is called "dry corrosion" or "scaling". The term oxidation is ambivalent since it can either refer to the formation of oxides or to the mechanism of oxidation of a metal, i.e. its change to a higher valence than the metallic state. Strictly speaking, high temperature oxidation is only one type of high temperature corrosion. In fact, oxidation is the most important high temperature corrosion reaction.

In most corrosive high temperature environments, oxidation often participates in the high temperature corrosion reactions, regardless of the predominant mode of corrosion. Alloys often rely upon the oxidation reaction to develop a protective scale to resist corrosion attack such as sulfidation, carburization and other forms of high temperature attack. In general, the names of the corrosion mechanisms are determined by the most abundant dominant corrosion products.

and give a number, how high these temperatures needed to be to erode the steel after a few weeks.
One last thing, This demand for proof is based on a straw man argument.

I never claimed that the 'erosion', (AKA corrosion) was exclusively a result of high temperatures alone. I stated that high temperatures act as a catalyst, that helps the chemical reaction along, not exclusively caused the swiss cheese effect you claim is caused by thermate/thermite.

Christopher7

22nd July 2008, 02:36 PM

Is this an effort to completely eliminate corrosion as a cause for the erosion of structural members in the debris pile?No

If you are going to make a claim like this then source it. Corrosion of steel is a chemical process, and temperature influences the speed of chemical reactions. Your claim stands as false:FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation, sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C (1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3.The sulfidation attack of the steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Smoldering fires cannot attain 1,000°C.

Gypsum [drywall] is used for fireproofing. The sulfur in gypsum is locked in a chemical cage. Before claiming that the sulfur in gypsum could somehow be released and erode steel, provide an example of this occurring.

Molten metal found weeks following the collapse of the towers would require that your 'thermate' did the following:

Make it inside the buildings without the least bit of suspicion
Survive the collapse in such condition that it retains functionality
Be supplied with a sufficiently hot ignition source to spontaneously ignite at random points in time.
or
Be able to sustain a reaction for several weeks straight
The 'steel' would have to be able to maintain a liquid state long enough to be found in a liquid state.
Leave traces of Barium Nitrate in the debris pile

Reverse logic. The question is:
What liquefied the steel ?
Thermate is the only known explanation for the eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

Can you clear these conditions? Was Barium Nitrate found in the debris pile? Will you evade these problems with your assertion again?What does Barium Nitrate have to do with the liquefied steel beam?

Jonnyclueless

22nd July 2008, 02:40 PM

Hmm, I guess those fires that melted the steel in california causing a bridge to collapse were "magical".

Say, in 121 pages of posts, has anyone provided any physical evidence of a controlled demolition yet?

Grizzly Bear

22nd July 2008, 02:55 PM

FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation, sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C (1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3.The sulfidation attack of the steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Smoldering fires cannot attain 1,000°C.

Gypsum [drywall] is used for fireproofing. The sulfur in gypsum is locked in a chemical cage. Before claiming that the sulfur in gypsum could somehow be released and erode steel, provide an example of this occurring.

This is nice, but not what I was asking a source for.
I asked you to source this claim:
Steel does not normally erode when heated.

In the end, this was a strawman argument anyway, because as far as corrosion is concerned high temperatures serve only as catalysts, not the dominant force driving the corrosion process.

Reverse logic. The question is:
What liquefied the steel ?
Thermate is the only known explanation for the eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

THis is thr 3rd tiome my question has been evaded. In order for thermate to be responsible for the material in the first place it would have required that enough survived the collapse of all three towers in cohesive shape and retai normal functionality and a sufficient ignition source. How long do you intend to evade and tap dance around the problems with your claims?

What does Barium Nitrate have to do with the liquefied steel beam?

Barium Nitrate is one of the ingredients of your thermate concoction,

In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate)

I am gathering none was found since you've yet to source such proof that it was

Christopher7

22nd July 2008, 03:01 PM

Hmm, I guess those fires that melted the steel in california causing a bridge to collapse were "magical". Wrong again.
The steel in the overpass DID NOT MELT.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

Christopher7

22nd July 2008, 03:32 PM

This is nice, but not what I was asking a source for.

Steel does not normally erode when heated.
I asked you to source this claim:

In the end, this was a strawman argument anyway, because as far as corrosion is concerned high temperatures serve only as catalysts, not the dominant force driving the corrosion process. Can you provide an example of high temp steel erosion?

You are using this statement to avoid the question:

What liquefied the steel?

I cannot prove a negative so i will withdraw the statement.

THis is thr 3rd tiome my question has been evaded. In order for thermate to be responsible for the material in the first place it would have required that enough survived the collapse of all three towers in cohesive shape and retai normal functionality and a sufficient ignition source. How long do you intend to evade and tap dance around the problems with your claims?
I don't know the answers to those questions.
You ask questions that require speculation in an effort to avoid the question:

What liquefied the steel?

In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature

I am gathering none was found since you've yet to source such proof that it wasWhat part of sometimes don't you understand?

How do you account for the melting of the steel beam other than thermate?

Grizzly Bear

22nd July 2008, 03:49 PM

Can you provide an example of high temp steel erosion?

You are using this statement to avoid the question:

Exactly WHAT examples do you want me to provide? You're argument is a straw man. High temperatures do not dominate the corrosion process, the only role temperature plays is in catalyzing it and speeding the chemical reactions that drive the corrosion process.

What part of catalyst do you not understand?

You ask questions that require speculation

Do you see my point now? If you have to speculate how thermate or thermite got there in the first place it renders your argument quite flimsy. By asserting that it is the only possible cause, you are ignoring these problems.

You are ignoring the excessively high chances that if we assumed that therm?te really was there, and was somehow successfully placed inside the towers, that the collapse would have rendered the therm?te mix of any unignited sources useless. Point out to me a single computer, a single desk, a single object that was inside of those towers that was remotely identifiable other than structural members.

You are continuing to state that this therm?te some how magically ignited from a fire that did not exceed 800 oC in most cases after the collapse of the towers. Therm?te requires a highh activation temperature.

So in order to assert that therm?te could even remotely be plausible you have to be able to determine whether the conditions in the debris pile even allowed for it in the first place, and for that matter weeks later....

Christopher7

22nd July 2008, 04:21 PM

So in order to assert that therm?te could even remotely be plausible you have to be able to determine whether the conditions in the debris pile even allowed for it in the first place, and for that matter weeks later....Reverse logic. Let's deal with the known facts.

FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation, sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C (1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3.The sulfidation attack of the steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Smoldering fires cannot attain 1,000°C.

I am looking at the result and asking the question:

How do you account for the melting of the steel beam other than thermate?

Major_Tom

22nd July 2008, 06:04 PM

Rather than specifying thermite, I prefer to generically refer to a "highly exothermic chemical reaction" intentionally placed in key locations within the collapse initiation zones to artificially raise steel temps past the point of failure.

Hence everything looks natural from the outside. No big "booms" during collapse initiation, ect...

There are interesting possibilities for substances used other than thermite.

bio

23rd July 2008, 01:33 AM

Reverse logic. Let's deal with the known facts.

FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation, sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C (1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3.The sulfidation attack of the steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Smoldering fires cannot attain 1,000°C.

I am looking at the result and asking the question:

How do you account for the melting of the steel beam other than thermate?

THANK YOU for this information. But why did Prof. Sisson say in the hit-piece of the BBC about WTC 7, that ...
"I don't find it bring mysteries at all. That if I had steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere, that is rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect."

Why did he not say: The high temperatures were unusual for a smoldering fire.

Christopher7

23rd July 2008, 05:07 AM

Christopher7

23rd July 2008, 05:20 AM

THANK YOU for this information. But why did Prof. Sisson say in the hit-piece of the BBC about WTC 7, that ...
"I don't find it bring mysteries at all. That if I had steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere, that is rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect."

Why did he not say: The high temperatures were unusual for a smoldering fire.He made three false statements.

1) It was NOT a "high temperature atmosphere"
Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C.

2) It was NOT "rich in oxygen".
The fires in the debris pile smoldered due to lack of air flow.

3) It was NOT "rich in sulfur".
The sulfur in gypsum is locked in a chemical cage.
Gypsum is used for fireproofing. It does not contain the stuff matches are made of.

funk de fino

23rd July 2008, 05:21 AM

C7

Is this you completely backtracking on your earlier CD with explosives argument?

You are now looking at silent thermite destruction?

funk de fino

23rd July 2008, 05:53 AM

He made three false statements.

Incorrect

1) It was NOT a "high temperature atmosphere"
Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600[COLOR=#000000]°C.

It is 20 deg ouside today if the atmosphere was 500 to 600 degrees it would be very hot and I would not survive, a high temperature environment if you will.

Bring us proof of the fire temps and then you can call someone a liar.

2) It was NOT "rich in oxygen".
The fires in the debris pile smoldered due to lack of air flow.

Source and proof there was not sufficient air in the piles?

3) It was NOT "rich in sulfur".
The sulfur in gypsum is locked in a chemical cage.
Gypsum is used for fireproofing. It does not contain the stuff matches are made of.

What are you wittering about here? Did you read the rest of the FEMA report you linked to with the chemical analysis of the samples which showed sulphur? Where did it come from if there was no sulphur from the gypsum?

Grizzly Bear

23rd July 2008, 06:08 AM

1) It was NOT a "high temperature atmosphere"
Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C.

Now you have 'defined' what counts as a high temperature atmosphere?
Do you have a source which explains this rule you have established?
1100 degrees Fahrenheit does not count as 'high temperature by your standard? Then define the set boundary and source it.

The abstract of this article: LINK (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=722C78731612A5A1D9F6 629CC06B2138?contentType=Article&contentId=876614) seems to be concerned with high temperature corrosion resistance applications on steel in a temperature range of 500-700 oC

So where have you dawn the line to distinguish high temperature environments from the non?

2) It was NOT "rich in oxygen".
The fires in the debris pile smoldered due to lack of air flow.

My my, if you don't read the information I post you won't learn anything:

Corrosive gases

Air, oxygen: The reaction between air and a material is normally called oxidation and is quite often observed as a separate discipline in regard to corrosion science. In most industrial cases where metal is in contact with air, the oxidation processes are not as much determined by plain oxidation by oxygen but one has to consider all possible contaminants of the air which can have disastrous consequences for the oxidation resistance.

Steam: Steam in contact with steel can effect the carbon level of the steel can also oxidize the iron.

Carbon, carbon oxides and methane: Compounds of carbon like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane can change the carbon level in the steel and subsequently influence the mechanical properties of the metal.

Sulfur containing Gases: Even in small amounts, sulfur in various forms can accelerate corrosion at high temperatures.

Hydrogen: Hydrogen gas is a reducing agent and in contact with steel at high temperatures can result in decarburization and the subsequent formation of hydrogen carbons; C(Fe) + 2H2 <==> CH4

Nitrogen: Nitrogen plays in most cases no role in oxidation phenomena as it is overshadowed to the large effect of oxygen and most nitrides are only formed at high temperatures. However, active nitrogen produced from ammonia can form nitrides below 540oC.

Combustion gases: The gas mixture arising from combustion of fuels contains for a large part carbon oxides and water vapor together with nitrogen. In situations with incomplete combustion hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and several hydrocarbons are present as well as oxygen. Most fuels contain sulfur compounds so that sulfur oxides and even hydrogen sulfide will be present in the combustion gases resulting in more severe corrosive conditions.

Chlorine and hydrogen chloride: Dry chlorine and hydrogen chloride do not cause major problems as far as corrosion is concerned however, accidental or deliberate increases of the moisture in the gas result in rapid localized attack.

3) It was NOT "rich in sulfur".
The sulfur in gypsum is locked in a chemical cage.
Gypsum is used for fireproofing. It does not contain the stuff matches are made of.

Gypsum decomposes when exposed to the elements and constant heat source.

bio

23rd July 2008, 12:54 PM

I have the impression, the "debunkers" here ignore following statement:

FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation, sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C (1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3.The sulfidation attack of the steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

phunk

23rd July 2008, 02:04 PM

So when are you going to prove that the fires couldn't reach 1000C?

Jonnyclueless

23rd July 2008, 03:24 PM

So when are you going to prove that the fires couldn't reach 1000C?

The irony being that they repeatedly prove that fires can get to those temperatures, while at the same time arguing that it's not possible.

Things that make you go hmm...

Major_Tom

23rd July 2008, 05:30 PM

C7, Apollo20 has given some pretty interesting arguments involving ammonium perchlorate.

One link to a post of his is here

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2474191#post2474191

If you read the posts by Apollo20 in the thread "Debate, what debate?" he builds some very good arguments critical of the NIST report and towards other ways of viewing the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. He is a PhD Chemist and analyzes chemical signatures within the rubble in a way that I think you would appreciate.

It is an interesting read.

I'll try to put together the best links that cover some of these ideas.

bio

25th July 2008, 12:17 AM

So when are you going to prove that the fires couldn't reach 1000C?

a smoldering fire cannot reach 1000 Grad C.

Fundamentals
The fundamental difference between smouldering and flaming combustion is that smouldering occurs on the surface of the solid rather than in the gas phase. The characteristic temperature and heat released during smouldering are low compared to those in the flaming combustion (i.e., ~600°C vs. ~1500°C).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoulder

I am talking about folowing statement:

FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation, sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C (1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3.The sulfidation attack of the steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

GlennB

25th July 2008, 12:49 AM

a smoldering fire cannot reach 1000 Grad C.

Fundamentals
The fundamental difference between smouldering and flaming combustion is that smouldering occurs on the surface of the solid rather than in the gas phase. The characteristic temperature and heat released during smouldering are low compared to those in the flaming combustion (i.e., ~600°C vs. ~1500°C).

What makes you think the fires stopped vigorously burning (flaming) after the collapse?

Christopher7

25th July 2008, 03:26 AM

What makes you think the fires stopped vigorously burning (flaming) after the collapse?What makes you think they didn't?

Do you see fires burning vigorously in these photos?

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2510/wtc7debris2iu7.jpg

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/33/wtc7debris3bw2.jpg

The ventilation in a debris pile is very restricted. Fires cannot burn vigorously without an unrestricted air supply.

Christopher7

25th July 2008, 04:17 AM

The irony being that they repeatedly prove that fires can get to those temperatures, while at the same time arguing that it's not possible.Not in a debris pile.

Posted by GlennB
"A fire in solid fuel which is heat-limited will smoulder and the maximum expected temperatures would be in the order of 500 - 600°C rather than the normal values of 900°C.
The rate of combustion is very slow. Pyrolysis of any flammable material will produce smoke, but the radiant heat output is insufficient to ignite the gases, or other solid objects in the scene. Some convection may be present in the immediate vicinity but the lower temperatures cannot develop a plume so ventilation which is limited anyway can not develop and therefore the fire cannot generate a sustainable self perpetuating air flow. This lack of oxygen will limit the development of the fire and not permit a flaming fire to occur... there is just enough air entering the system to allow the pyrolosis of the materials.

The rate of combustion is very slow. Pyrolysis of any flammable material will produce smoke, but the radiant heat output is insufficient to ignite the gases, or other solid objects in the scene. Some convection may be present in the immediate vicinity but the lower temperatures cannot develop a plume so ventilation which is limited anyway can not develop and therefore the fire cannot generate a sustainable self perpetuating air flow. This lack of oxygen will limit the development of the fire and not permit a flaming fire to occur... there is just enough air entering the system to allow the pyrolosis of the materials.

Given the idea of temperature gradient, we then have to conclude that no amount of insulation will get the surroundings of a smouldering fire to a higher temperature than the fire itself.

This appears to suggest that the higher temperatures required for the eutectic corrosion [1000°C] would need to be present at the point of collapse (then maintained for a time, presumably) or there were areas where the flames were being fed by localised air supply (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread).

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3699111#post3699111

WTC 7 did not have a basement and the subway tunnels were several stories below ground.

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1361/buildingnorthofwtc7jg5.jpg

GlennB

25th July 2008, 05:24 AM

What makes you think they didn't?

The ventilation in a debris pile is very restricted. Fires cannot burn vigorously without an unrestricted air supply.

Nonsense. I can make a bonfire on flat solid ground and it will burn like crazy. Air enters from the sides through things known in the firefighting business as "holes" or - sometimes - "gaps". The WTC7 debris pile (as you have illustrated) was not one solid compacted mass.

And it would be nice if you could post a date and time taken against your photos before using them to claim there were no vigorous fires after the collapse. There are no fires there today, right? So would that prove there were not vigorous fires there, post-collapse, on 9/11 itself and up to the point when your photos were taken?

funk de fino

25th July 2008, 06:14 AM

Post 4821 please C7?

Christopher7

25th July 2008, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7
1) It was NOT a "high temperature atmosphere"*
Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C.

*WTC7 debris pile
Now you have 'defined' what counts as a high temperature atmosphere?
Do you have a source which explains this rule you have established? FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C (1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

The abstract of this article: LINK (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=722C78731612A5A1D9F6 629CC06B2138?contentType=Article&contentId=876614) seems to be concerned with high temperature corrosion resistance applications on steel in a temperature range of 500-700 oCAbstract:
Relates to the development of high temperature resistant coating applicable in the temperature range of 500°C to 700°C. A12O3, TiO2 and ZrO2 have been incorporated in aluminium phosphate and ivory-400 used as binders. Aluminium phosphate as a binder has not performed well in comparison to ivory-400. Aims mainly to study and to highlight the behaviour of the corrosion-resistant coating at high temperature.

So where have you dawn the line to distinguish high temperature environments from the non?There is no "line" but 500-600°C is 400°C below the "approaching 1000°C" necessary to result in "the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

Corrosive gases
Air, oxygen:, Steam:, Carbon, carbon oxides and methane:, Sulfur containing Gases:[etc.] These take place in small amounts over a period of time.

The "high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation" is unique to this beam.

There have been more intense, longer lasting fires, and there is no other reported case of this happening.

Gypsum decomposes when exposed to the elements and constant heat source.The gypsum [drywall/wallboard] falls apart but the gypsum molecules don't. The chemical bonds are very strong. If gypsum released its sulfur in a fire, it wouldn't be used for fireproofing.

Just for S&G, this is cool:
[left click and hold on molecule, as you move the mouse around, you can rotate the molecule in any direction]
CaSO4
http://www.webmineral.com/jpowd/JPX/jpowd.php?target_file=Gypsum_1.jpx

Gypsum
[the roller will zoom in and out on this one]
http://openmopac.net/data_solids/Gypsum%20(CaSO4_2H2O)_Jmol.html (http://openmopac.net/data_solids/Gypsum%20%28CaSO4_2H2O%29_Jmol.html)

GlennB

25th July 2008, 06:59 AM

Christopher7

25th July 2008, 08:12 AM

Nonsense. I can make a bonfire on flat solid ground and it will burn like crazy. Air enters from the sides through things known in the firefighting business as "holes" or - sometimes - "gaps". The WTC7 debris pile (as you have illustrated) was not one solid compacted mass.Be sure to crush your combustible material between 40 concrete slabs in your bonfire and cover it with the exterior walls like this:

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2510/wtc7debris2iu7.jpg

Certainly not airtight but air flow is severely restricted in this debris pile.

And it would be nice if you could post a date and time taken against your photos before using them to claim there were no vigorous fires after the collapse. There are no fires there today, right? So would that prove there were not vigorous fires there, post-collapse, on 9/11 itself and up to the point when your photos were taken?The only reference i could find as to when the picture was taken is this:
"Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11"
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Christopher7

25th July 2008, 08:49 AM

Diesel oil contains sulphur.

WTC7, as we know, contained diesel.

Personally, I would consider the diesel as a prime candidate for both fuelling the fires and providing the detected sulphur. But that's no better than an educated guess.There's a couple problems with that.

1) Diesel fuel is a carbon fuel like office contents. It can only burn at about 500-600°C in an air restricted environment, 400°C below the 1000°C" necessary to result in "the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

2) The diesel fuel was in the west end of the building* and the hottest spot was in the east end of the building.

*see: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf page 14

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3638/hotspotscompositrm5.jpg

Christopher7

25th July 2008, 09:26 AM

C7

Is this you completely backtracking on your earlier CD with explosives argument?

You are now looking at silent thermite destruction?No, i'm just pointing out that the only known explanation for;
"The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."
is Thermate.

funk de fino

25th July 2008, 09:34 AM

No,

Why use explosives and thermate?

i'm just pointing out that the only known possible explanation for;
"The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."
is Thermate.

No you are not. This is a lie.

If you have a fire, sulphur, water, oxygen present then you can have the same. You have to provide proof that it could only have been thermate and then proof of the thermate. Did the study on this metal not say it occured while in the pile lying flat?

Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of exceedingly high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades.

How would this have led to molten metal for many weeks?

funk de fino

25th July 2008, 09:50 AM

2) The diesel fuel was in the west end of the building* and the hottest spot was in the east end of the building.

And the steel was from where in the building?

You do not know do you?

Where is your source for the hottest spot?

Grizzly Bear

25th July 2008, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7
1) It was NOT a "high temperature atmosphere"*
Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C.

*WTC7 debris pile
FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C (1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

I am not asking what FEMA stated about the temperatures in the debris pile. What temperatures define a high temperature atmosphere? That is all I asked.

Abstract:
Relates to the development of high temperature resistant coating applicable in the temperature range of 500°C to 700°C. A12O3, TiO2 and ZrO2 have been incorporated in aluminium phosphate and ivory-400 used as binders. Aluminium phosphate as a binder has not performed well in comparison to ivory-400. Aims mainly to study and to highlight the behaviour of the corrosion-resistant coating at high temperature.

"The abstract of this article: LINK seems to be concerned with high temperature corrosion resistance applications on steel in a temperature range of 500-700 oC"

I can bold things too Chris... Perhaps I'm never clear enough on context with you. The coatings are intended to be applied to steel to protect the STEEL from corrosion in a high temperature environment. These corrosion resistant coatings are intended to be applicable in the 500-7-00 oC range

Why would they study the performance of corrosion resistant coating for steel in high temperature environments if there were no real possibility of corrosion in such conditions?

These take place in small amounts over a period of time.

The "high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation" is unique to this beam.

In red: So a few months worth of heating at between 500 and 600 oC, hot enough to create such an environment capable of expediting the process of severe corrosion of metals?

There have been more intense, longer lasting fires, and there is no other reported case of this happening.
That were of the same construction as any one of the three towers? That were still on fire when they collapsed entirely? Do tell....

Although I get the impression you're about to slap me with an example like the windsor tower, or another building which did not collapse due to any number of differences in construction, construction methods, or otherwise.

The gypsum [drywall/wallboard] falls apart but the gypsum molecules don't. The chemical bonds are very strong. If gypsum released its sulfur in a fire, it wouldn't be used for fireproofing.

This would be negligible any way since the sulfur wouldn't cause immediate oxidation of the steel if it were immediately released. The heat releases the water composed in the wallboard ensuring that temperature do not rise above 212 oF. Sorry to say, I'm not as familiar with the sulfur properties in gypsum wallboard but there are certainly other sources available in the lack thereof from the drywall

phunk

25th July 2008, 10:21 AM

There's a couple problems with that.

1) Diesel fuel is a carbon fuel like office contents. It can only burn at about 500-600°C in an air restricted environment, 400°C below the 1000°C" necessary to result in "the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

2) The diesel fuel was in the west end of the building* and the hottest spot was in the east end of the building.

*see: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf page 14

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3638/hotspotscompositrm5.jpg

Those are surface temps, the fire is necessarily hotter under the surface where it's actually burning. And the surface temp is not necessarily directly proportional to the underground temp, as the depth of the fire and the composition of the pile will change how much heat reaches the surface.

Christopher7

12th August 2008, 12:16 AM

Why use explosives and thermate?Why not?
This is speculation, it proves nothing and it's a waste of time.

i'm just pointing out that the only known possible explanation for;
"The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."
is Thermate.
If you have a fire, sulphur, water, oxygen present then you can have the same.This is an unprecedented and unproven theory, pure speculation.

You have to provide proof that it could only have been thermate and then proof of the thermate. No, i have quoted the FEMA C report and noted that Thermate is one possible explanation for the liquified steel.
There are no other known possibilities.

FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C(1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

Did the study on this metal not say it occurred while in the pile lying flat?FEMA Apx.C pg 13
"It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakining of the steel structure."

How would this have led to molten metal for many weeks?I don't know and there is no point in speculating.

What i do know is; Thermite is the only known explanation for the liquified steel.

Christopher7

12th August 2008, 12:27 AM

And the steel was from where in the building?

You do not know do you?Correct

Where is your source for the hottest spot?
http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/3638/hotspotscompositrm5.jpg

Christopher7

12th August 2008, 01:45 AM

I am not asking what FEMA stated about the temperatures in the debris pile. What temperatures define a high temperature atmosphere? That is all I asked.As you well know, there is no set definition of for high temperature atmosphere.

I was referring to the statement by Prof. Sisson:
"I don't find it bring mysteries at all. That if I had steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere, that is rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect."

Prof. Sisson is referring to what caused the liquified steel when he says "high temperature atmosphere"

Steel normally melts around 1500°C.
One would not expect steel to erode in this manner below 1500°C without Thermate because that has never happened before.

The beam from WTC 7 was heated to around 1000°C.
One would not expect steel to erode in this manner below this temperature even with Thermate.

Prof. Sisson was referring to these temperatures when he said:
"high temperature atmosphere"

Smoldering fires do not burn anywhere near 1000°C.

Hence, my statement:
It was NOT a "high temperature atmosphere"

It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakining of the steel structure."

"The abstract of this article: LINK seems to be concerned with high temperature corrosion resistance applications on steel in a temperature range of 500-700 oC"

The coatings are intended to be applied to steel to protect the STEEL from corrosion in a high temperature environment. These corrosion resistant coatings are intended to be applicable in the 500-7-00 oC range

Why would they study the performance of corrosion resistant coating for steel in high temperature environments if there were no real possibility of corrosion in such conditions?

In red: So a few months worth of heating at between 500 and 600 oC, hot enough to create such an environment capable of expediting the process of severe corrosion of metals?

This would be negligible any way since the sulfur wouldn't cause immediate oxidation of the steel if it were immediately released. The heat releases the water composed in the wallboard ensuring that temperature do not rise above 212 oF. Sorry to say, I'm not as familiar with the sulfur properties in gypsum wallboard but there are certainly other sources available in the lack thereof from the drywallSpeculation

Can you find an example of this kind of erosion that was not the result of Thermate?

funk de fino

12th August 2008, 01:59 AM

C7, you are babbling

Probably best to stick to LCF with the half wits?

GlennB

12th August 2008, 08:21 AM

Steel normally melts around 1500°C.
One would not expect steel to erode in this manner below 1500°C without Thermate because that has never happened before.

Babbling indeed.
Look at your own post #4843

GlennB

12th August 2008, 08:28 AM

Steel normally melts around 1500°C.
One would not expect steel to erode in this manner below 1500°C without Thermate because that has never happened before.

Duplicate

Christopher7

13th August 2008, 12:40 AM

Those are surface temps, the fire is necessarily hotter under the surface where it's actually burning. And the surface temp is not necessarily directly proportional to the underground temp, as the depth of the fire and the composition of the pile will change how much heat reaches the surface.Yes, the temperatures under the pile here greater than the surface temperatures.

The thermal image was taken 5 days after the collapse and the surface temperature was 727°C.
That means the temperature under the pile was considerably greater.
FEMA 403 Appendix C C.3 Summary for Sample 1
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000°C(1800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

Office contents, crushed between concrete floors, with restricted air flow, cannot burn anywhere near that hot.
The diesel fuel was at the other end of the building except for one 6,000 tank, a little west of center.

Office contents can only reach 1000°C with full ventilation. In a debris pile, the air flow is restricted. Office contents, or even diesel fuel, could not burn hot enough to liquefy the steel.

Jonnyclueless

13th August 2008, 02:47 AM

So temperatures under the surface have to be hotter

BUT because there is less air flow under the debris, it can't burn hotter.

And you guys wonder why people laugh at you.

phunk

13th August 2008, 07:27 AM

Office contents, crushed between concrete floors, with restricted air flow, cannot burn anywhere near that hot.

You troothers keep saying that, yet I've never seen one of you offer any sort of evidence as to what temperature a giant burning rubble pile should reach.

Tell me, how hot should it be, and why?

funk de fino

13th August 2008, 08:07 AM

Did the study on this metal not say it occurred while in the pile lying flat?

FEMA Apx.C pg 13
"It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakining of the steel structure."

Note here - this was the summary about Sample 1 (apparently from WTC7) and Sample 2 (from one of the Towers). This quote was for both samples.

Then we look at the NIST report specifically NCSTAR 1-3C - 6.3.4 for further research on Sample 2. It clearly states that this sample did not contribute to the collapse of the building and the erosion/corrosion (not melting) occured after collapse in the pile. It also states that any high temps reached were not long lasting and only for short times. It also gives suggestions for other sources of sulphur apart from gypsum.

C7 has done his usual flip flop between NIST and FEMA pulling out what he thinks support his guff.

Then in another post he contradicts an earlier argument he made about no diesel in the west of the building by stating.

The diesel fuel was at the other end of the building except for one 6,000 tank, a little west of center.

How much is a little C7? You have made a quite clear and categoric claim that this erosion can only have been caused by thermate/mite and you are wrong. You say we should not speculate when it suits you not to answer yet then proceed to make the biggest speculations of anyomne in this thread.

You are a hypocrite.

Christopher7

13th August 2008, 03:00 PM

So temperatures under the surface have to be hotter

BUT because there is less air flow under the debris, it can't burn hotter.

And you guys wonder why people laugh at you.Only because you refuse to consider the other possibility:

FEMA Apx. C pg 13
It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.

Christopher7

13th August 2008, 03:22 PM

You troothers keep saying that, yet I've never seen one of you offer any sort of evidence as to what temperature a giant burning rubble pile should reach.

Tell me, how hot should it be, and why?The "giant burning rubble pile" was primarily steel, concrete, drywall and other non-flammable building materials.

The rubble pile was smoldering, not burning.

Originally posted by GlennB
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3699111#post3699111
jaydee - the following quote might be of interest. A few years ago I was trying to learn more about this entire subject and I put some questions to a UK fire technician over on the UK firefighters forum. He replied:

"A fire in solid fuel which is heat-limited will smoulder and the maximum expected temperatures would be in the order of 500 - 600°C rather than the normal values of 900°C.

The rate of combustion is very slow. Pyrolysis of any flammable material will produce smoke, but the radiant heat output is insufficient to ignite the gases, or other solid objects in the scene. Some convection may be present in the immediate vicinity but the lower temperatures cannot develop a plume so ventilation which is limited anyway can not develop and therefore the fire cannot generate a sustainable self perpetuating air flow. This lack of oxygen will limit the development of the fire and not permit a flaming fire to occur... there is just enough air entering the system to allow the pyrolosis of the materials.

Smouldering fires are slow, circa 5-6cm / hour, so the heat build up tends to be local and can maintain the peak for periods of weeks given the circumstances of building collapses, especially when buried under materials such as concrete which give some insulation but more they hold the heat well (look at the principle of electric storage heaters).

So to answer your question... no the temperature of a smouldering fire cannot get hotter than a flaming fire.... if it did the smouldering material would burst into flame."

Given the idea of temperature gradient, we then have to conclude that no amount of insulation will get the surroundings of a smouldering fire to a higher temperature than the fire itself.

This appears to suggest that the higher temperatures required for the eutectic corrosion would need to be present at the point of collapse (then maintained for a time, presumably) or there were areas where the flames were being fed by localised air supply (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread).

*****************

FEMA Apx. C pg 13
It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.

lapman

13th August 2008, 03:40 PM

Speculation

Can you find an example of this kind of erosion that was not the result of Thermate? Can you provide a non-9/11 related example of this kind of erosion that was the result of Thermate?

Jonnyclueless

13th August 2008, 04:48 PM

Only because you refuse to consider the other possibility:

FEMA Apx. C pg 13
It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.

And you're fine with completely contradicting yourself so long as it helps your beliefs. Thank you for clarifying that your objective has nothing to do with truth or facts but simply to argue for an imaginary conspiracy theory at all costs. your dishonesty is noted.

Christopher7

13th August 2008, 05:19 PM

Can you provide a non-9/11 related example of this kind of erosion that was the result of Thermate?No
To my knowledge, this phenomenon has never been seen before.

From the BBC "Third Tower" program transcript:

[Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute]
Well it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.

In other words, a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen came in contact with sample 1 and caused the erosion.

The question here is:

What melted the steel?

FEMA Apx. C pg 13
"It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings.

Smoldering fires cannot attain the temperatures needed to melt steel.

It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."

Thermite/thermate is the only KNOWN explanation for the molten metal and the erosion seen in sample 1.

Jonnyclueless

13th August 2008, 09:42 PM

So you're saying it was the first time in history to have happened? That sounds kind of familiar...

Christopher7

14th August 2008, 06:33 PM

Reply to Funk 8 13 08
Note here - this was the summary about Sample 1 (apparently from WTC7) and Sample 2 (from one of the Towers). This quote was for both samples.Correct

Then we look at the NIST report specifically NCSTAR 1-3C - 6.3.4 for further research on Sample 2. It clearly states that this sample did not contribute to the collapse of the building and the erosion/corrosion (not melting) occured after collapse in the pile. . Correct
Referring to Sample 1 from WTC 7:
[Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute]
“Well it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.”
It also states that any high temps reached were not long lasting and only for short times. It also gives suggestions for other sources of sulphur apart from gypsum.
Do you mean this?
Pg 231 [281 on counter]
Therefore it is unknown what specific items (e.g., office furniture, office supplies, carpeting) were the sources of the corroding elements found in the scale, how long this process occurred, or at what temperature.
Thremate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.
Then in another post he contradicts an earlier argument he made about no diesel in the west of the building by stating.I have previously stated that there were no diesel fuel tanks in the EAST half of WTC 7.
[see FEMA Ch. 5 pg 14 for location of the tanks and pg 6 for the location of low-rise elevators in east elevator shaft]

You have made a quite clear and categoric claim that this erosion can only have been caused by thermate/mite.You are wrong!
I have stated that Thermate is the only KNOWN explanation for the molten metal and the erosion of sample 1.

funk de fino

15th August 2008, 02:05 AM

Reply to Funk 8 13 08
Correct

Hope you were not trying to deceive?

Correct

Referring to Sample 1 from WTC 7:
[Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute]
“Well it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.”

Water, iron, sulphur, heat and oxygen. All were present in the rubble piles. There is not evidence at all of thermite/ate. Zero.

Why use thermite and explosives? You were very tied to the CD with explosives and you seem to be distancing yourself from this?

Do you mean this?
Pg 231 [281 on counter]
Therefore it is unknown what specific items (e.g., office furniture, office supplies, carpeting) were the sources of the corroding elements found in the scale, how long this process occurred, or at what temperature.

No, earlier in the page C7. It gives two possible sources for the sulphur. Strange you miss that eh? Start at the end of the first line on that page.

Thremate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

Speculation and also untrue.

I have previously stated that there were no diesel fuel tanks in the EAST half of WTC 7.
[see FEMA Ch. 5 pg 14 for location of the tanks and pg 6 for the location of low-rise elevators in east elevator shaft]

I apologize C7, I was incorrect.

You are wrong!
I have stated that Thermate is the only KNOWN explanation for the molten metal and the erosion of sample 1.

This is also incorrect, it is not the only explanation.

Christopher7

15th August 2008, 03:32 AM

Water, iron, sulphur, heat and oxygen. All were present in the rubble piles.So what?
There was insufficient heat to liquefy steel.
The only KNOWN mechanism for infusing the sulphur into the steel is thermate.

There is not evidence at all of thermite/ate. Zero.On the contrary, the presence of liquid slag containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is evidence of thermate.

Why use thermite and explosives? You were very tied to the CD with explosives and you seem to be distancing yourself from this?Subject shift.

No, earlier in the page C7. It gives two possible sources for the sulphur. Strange you miss that eh? Start at the end of the first line on that page.Oh, right, " . . . an external source must have supplied this specie (e.g. plastic, rubber)" [Dell Taco hot sauce]

They haven't got a clue. This is pure speculation.

I apologize C7, I was incorrect.Thank you

Originally Posted by C7
I have stated that Thermate is the only KNOWN explanation for the molten metal and the erosion of sample 1.
This is also incorrect, it is not the only explanation.Do you know of another explanation?
Does NIST?

funk de fino

15th August 2008, 03:55 AM

So what?
There was insufficient heat to liquefy steel.

This is speculation, you have no proof. Where do NIST say that the sample 2 was liquefied? Was there enough heat to cause a speeding up of a corrosive/erosive reaction?

The only KNOWN mechanism for infusing the sulphur into the steel is thermate.

This is incorrect. NIST explaining how it happens you just do not like their explanation

On the contrary, the presence of liquid slag containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is evidence of thermate.

Amongst others, but it is specualtion again on your part

Subject shift.

You were happy tp talk about Cd with explosive searlier and this thread is about WTC7 so why is this a subject shift? You were happy to use Barry Jennings to support your CD and the witness reports of explosions and faked photos and noiseless edited videos. Why do you not want to clarify this now?

Why would thermate/ite be used in addition to the explosives you were sure about? You are flip flopping between theories as you are shown to be wrong.

right, " . . . an external source must have supplied this specie (e.g. plastic, rubber)" [Dell Taco hot sauce]

They haven't got a clue. This is pure speculation.

So I was correct then in my claim? If this is speculation are you saying there was no plastics or rubber in the piles?

Thank you

You're welcome

I have stated that Thermate is the only KNOWN explanation for the molten metal and the erosion of sample 1.
Do you know of another explanation?
Does NIST?

Yes, read the NIST report. All the elements required to cause this were available. If thermite/ate was the cause of the collapse then why did they state that sample 2 suffered the erosion in the pile? If thermite/ate was the cause then why out of all the other multitudes of tons of steel was only two pieces like this found and tested? Why was no more found when all the steel from GZ was forensically tested and catalogued?

C7, if you go and look at the FEMA report again it even states that Sample one was APPARENTLY from WTC7. They are not sure where it came from, so even this is speculation and as you want to strike all speculation then you must strike this? No?

They know where the sample 2 came from and have deemed it to have not happened prior to collapse. If thermite/ate was used then all we know at the minute from samples is that it was definately not used for the initiation of the collapse. If it was not used for this then what was it used for?

funk de fino

15th August 2008, 04:12 AM

Quick one C7

What are Sulfuric Acid components and how can it be formed?

What can sulfuric acid do to metals? (Concentrated and diluted)

15th August 2008, 04:21 AM

Quick one C7

What are Sulfuric Acid components and how can it be formed?

What can sulfuric acid do to metals? (Concentrated and diluted)

what do you think the Sulfur came from?

Dave Rogers

15th August 2008, 05:11 AM

I have stated that Thermate is the only KNOWN explanation for the molten metal and the erosion of sample 1.

This is wrong on two counts. First of all, corrosion in a sulfur-rich atmosphere is a known explanation for partial melting and erosion of sample 1. Secondly, thermate is not a known explanation of the following observation:

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

If you dispute this, please post a mechanism by which thermate can achieve this result. Note that this is clearly not the result of heating the metal above its melting point, which would have rounded off edges due to surface tension.

Dave

funk de fino

15th August 2008, 05:55 AM

what do you think the Sulfur came from?

I cannot say for certain where it came from but there were sources for sulphur in the building when it collapsed. See NIST for possible sources. They know better than me. If you disagree that sulphur could have been present in the WTC complex please present your evidence of this.

It could have been rubber, it could have been plastics, it could have been diesel fuel, it could have been gypsum. Who knows?

Its not me saying thermite/ate is the only answer.

Jonnyclueless

15th August 2008, 09:29 AM

Ah right C7, you have no explanation for how thermate could have caused molten metal, but it DOES fit into your little conspiracy theory, so that is all that matters right? What's the point of discussing actual facts and using actual evidence when clearly that means nothing to you.

By it being the only explanation, you mean it's the only one that fits your pre-determined conclusion that you decided upon before you ever even looked.

Christopher7

16th August 2008, 04:39 AM

This is wrong on two counts. First of all, corrosion in a sulfur-rich atmosphere is a known explanation for partial melting and erosion of sample 1.That is not an explanation of how it occurred, it's a description of what occurred. NIST has not offered an explanation for the liquid slag, only speculation of possible sources of the sulpher, and NO explanation for the heat necessary to melt the slag in the first place.

Secondly, thermate is not a known explanation of the following observation:The hell it isn't. Thermate melts steel. That is a known fact. Then sulphur in thermate lowers the melting point of steel.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

If you dispute this, please post a mechanism by which thermate can achieve this result. Note that this is clearly not the result of heating the metal above its melting point, which would have rounded off edges due to surface tension.

DaveThat is all speculation, not demonstrable fact. They offer no mechanism for the phenomenon.
They and you keep ignoring the FACT that the fires in the debris pile were not any where near hot enough to melt steel.

Thermate burns at about 2500°C, melts steel, and results in a liquid slag.
The sulpher is infused into the steel at this extreme temperature. There is no other known mechanism for melting steel outside a blast furnace or forced air kiln. [B]Building fires cannot and do not melt steel.

Grizzly Bear

16th August 2008, 07:19 AM

The hell it isn't. Thermate melts steel. That is a known fact. Then sulphur in thermate lowers the melting point of steel.

Therm*te leaves razor sharp edges? O_o

That is all speculation, not demonstrable fact. They offer no mechanism for the phenomenon.
They and you keep ignoring the FACT that the fires in the debris pile were not any where near hot enough to melt steel.

Thermate burns at about 2500°C, melts steel, and results in a liquid slag.
The sulpher is infused into the steel at this extreme temperature. There is no other known mechanism for melting steel outside a blast furnace or forced air kiln. [B]Building fires cannot and do not melt steel.

Yet you refuse to answer to why the characteristics of such samples are inconsistent with therm*te (IE the razor sharpness of the edges of the hole). You completely dismiss other chemical reactions as speculation when you yourself continue to speculate therm*te. Congratulations you're the top hypocrite of my August 2008 list.

Jonnyclueless

16th August 2008, 10:38 AM

"The hell it isn't. Thermate melts steel. That is a known fact. Then sulphur in thermate lowers the melting point of steel."

How about an example of thermate melting steel in large pools for months. I would really like to see an example of that.

Dave Rogers

16th August 2008, 11:27 AM

Chris, you've completely avoided the question. How can thermate produce edges thinned to razor-sharpness in a one-inch column? If you can't answer that, then you have no argument.

Dave

Christopher7

16th August 2008, 03:15 PM

Chris, you've completely avoided the question. How can thermate produce edges thinned to razor-sharpness in a one-inch column? If you can't answer that, then you have no argument.

DaveReferring to Sample 1 from WTC 7:
[Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute]
Well it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.

"You can see what it does is it attacks the grain boundaries and this-this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack."

Thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

Norseman

16th August 2008, 06:04 PM

Referring to Sample 1 from WTC 7:
[Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute]
Well it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.

"You can see what it does is it attacks the grain boundaries and this-this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack."

Thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

This was an erosive process eating the steel away over time. This is what professor Sisson told the BBC, my emphasis:
Professor Richard Sisson says it did not melt, it eroded. The cause was the very hot fires in the debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel over days and weeks.

Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:

"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."
Source: BBC: "Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm)
No support for your fantasy here C7.

Christopher7

16th August 2008, 09:02 PM

This was an erosive process eating the steel away over time. This is what professor Sisson told the BBC, my emphasis:

Source: BBC: "Q&A: The collapse of Tower 7" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm)
No support for your fantasy here C7.We covered the "high temperature atmosphere" already.
Smoldering fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel.

Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

The liquid slag is not "fantasy" it is fact!

You all keep ignoring the liquid slag and try to double talk around it.

Thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

Jonnyclueless

17th August 2008, 12:19 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stundie.

bio

17th August 2008, 01:44 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stundie.

Your :confused:outburst:confused: says much about your current mindset.

Grizzly Bear

17th August 2008, 04:50 AM

Your :confused:outburst:confused: says much about your current mindset.

Well we know C7's mindset quite clearly ;)
Completely dismiss the person when it outright contradicts his theory, and totally agree with the same person when he says something he thinks is in in support... He can't seem to answer how therm*te leaves razor sharp edges in metal, he keeps covering his ears no matter what contradicts therm*te no matter how loudly it screams in his face. It takes a special kind of ignorance to cover the ears that tightly and tapdance around it. Perhaps you'd be willing to take a shot at answering how the erosion of a steel beam supports the silly therm*te fantasy since you appear interested in the progression of this thread?

Christopher7

17th August 2008, 04:58 AM

Your :confused:outburst:confused: says much about your current mindset.Your inability to acknowledge the FACT that the only explanation for the molten metal is thermate, lays bare your mindset.

Blind faith is a beautiful thing. It allows you to believe the Bush administration lies and ignore any evidence that contradicts the official conspiracy theory.

They have finally admitted to the existence of molten metal [liquid slag] that bears the fingerprint of thermate.

Office fires cannot melt steel. smoldering fires cannot melt steel.

Thermate is the only known thing that can melt steel outside a foundry.

Christopher7

17th August 2008, 05:48 AM

Well we know C7's mindset quite clearly ;)
Completely dismiss the person when it outright contradicts his theory, and totally agree with the same person when he says something he thinks is in in support... He can't seem to answer how therm*te leaves razor sharp edges in metal,I did answer that, or rather Prof. Sisson did.
"You can see what it [liquid slag] does is it attacks the grain boundaries and this-this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack."

he keeps covering his ears no matter what contradicts therm*te no matter how loudly it screams in his face.There is nothing to contradict the possibility that thermate created the liquid slag.

It takes a special kind of ignorance to cover the ears that tightly and tapdance around it.Talk to yourself much.
Can you bring yourself to admit that thermate is the only known source for the molten metal.

Perhaps you'd be willing to take a shot at answering how the erosion of a steel beam supports the silly therm*te fantasy since you appear interested in the progression of this thread?This is how Prof. Sisson explained the erosion of the steel beam.
The beam was attacked by liquid slag [molten steel] containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.
Did i mention that thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

NIST has offered other possibilities for the presence of sulphur but no explanation for the temperatures necessary to melt steel.

Grizzly Bear

17th August 2008, 06:51 AM

Your inability to acknowledge the FACT that the only explanation for the molten metal is thermate, lays bare your mindset.
<snipped for brevity>

I think you have bio's position confused... but ok.. whatever floats your boat? :confused:

I did answer that, or rather Prof. Sisson did.
"You can see what it [liquid slag] does is it attacks the grain boundaries and this-this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack."

There is nothing to contradict the possibility that thermate created the liquid slag.

Dr. Sisson disagrees with your position that the erosion represents evidence of therm*te:

Professor Richard Sisson says it did not melt, it eroded. The cause was the very hot fires in the debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel over days and weeks.

Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:

"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."

Then again, it should come as no surprise that you continue with your predetermined conclusion and total dismissal of alternative corrosive reactions which were entirely possible, as well as shifting the subject. Thanks for further proving my point. Sisson did answer the question, he firmly believes that therm*te was not responsible for the observed erosion on the sample beam.

Talk to yourself much.
Can you bring yourself to admit that thermate is the only known source for the molten metal.

This is how Prof. Sisson explained the erosion of the steel beam.
The beam was attacked by liquid slag [molten steel] containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.
Did i mention that [I][B]thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

Repeat much? Argued ad nauseum eh? Sorry Jones has shattered his credibility with other errors in arguing for controlled demolition, essentially he's a fraud. I simply cannot agree to a conclusion for which there is no evidence of...

Jonnyclueless

17th August 2008, 10:49 AM

Your inability to acknowledge the FACT that the only explanation for the molten metal is thermate, lays bare your mindset.

Blind faith is a beautiful thing. It allows you to believe the Bush administration lies and ignore any evidence that contradicts the official conspiracy theory.

They have finally admitted to the existence of molten metal [liquid slag] that bears the fingerprint of thermate.

Office fires cannot melt steel. smoldering fires cannot melt steel.

Thermate is the only known thing that can melt steel outside a foundry.

:dl: :dl: :dl:

Stop! you're killing me here!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I guess desperate times call for desperate claims. LOL!

Christopher7

17th August 2008, 12:07 PM

:dl: :dl: :dl:

Stop! you're killing me here!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I guess desperate times call for desperate claims. LOL!
Dear laughing dog

Fact: There was molten metal under all three buildings.

Fact: Prof. Sisson acknowledged that liquid slag [molten steel] eroded the beam from WTC 7.

Fact: The only known explanation for the liquid slag is thermate.

funk de fino

17th August 2008, 12:22 PM

Dear laughing dog

Fact: There was molten metal under all three buildings.

All three? Possibly

Fact: Prof. Sisson acknowledged that liquid slag [molten steel] eroded the beam from WTC 7.

They are not even sure the beam was from WTC7. Indications of Sample 2 state it was attacked in the pile. I assume Sample 1 would be the same.

Fact: The only known explanation for the liquid slag is thermate.

This is a speculation or a lie. You missed two of my posts earlier C7

bio

17th August 2008, 12:42 PM

Dr. Steven E Jones:
"Nevertheless, we will provisionally accept their analysis that a steel (not air) temperature of about 1,000 C was reached, pending understanding of the source of the observed sulfur. (The XEDS plots by the authors show sulfur without concomitant calcium, which would be present for a calcium-sulfate (gypsum) contamination."

Can you prove an alternative, science based reason, why there was no calcium in the XEDS plots?

Jonnyclueless

17th August 2008, 12:51 PM

Fact: There was molten metal under all three buildings.

INCORRECT.

Fact: Prof. Sisson acknowledged that liquid slag [molten steel] eroded the beam from WTC 7.

INCORRECT. It was explained how the steel got in that condition, but being the absolutely dishonest con artist you are, you are making sure to leave that part out.

Fact: The only known explanation for the liquid slag is thermate.

INCORRECT.

Please stop lying Chris. Many of your previous lies are bad enough. but now you are not even trying. You are simply making completely incorrect statements and using your own claim of them as proof they are true. Not even the general public will fall for these kind of con artist antics. They are completely laughable. And like a true con artist, you and the many others conveniently happen to skip all the really important questions that are asked of you. It's like you are here 24/7 answering every post, and somehow you ACCIDENTALLY skip over all the really important ones. OOOPS!!

So mr Con, please again show us some examples where thermate has kept steel melted for months. I mean since it's the ONLY thing that can do it, let's see it doing it.

Dave Rogers

17th August 2008, 12:54 PM

Thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

No, eutectic melting in a sulfur-rich atmosphere at a temperature typical of those caused by an office contents fire is a known explanation for the liquid slag, however many times you choose to pretend it isn't. And, as usual, you're evading a question you can't answer: how does thermate explain the thinning of metal edges to razor sharpness?

Dave

bio

17th August 2008, 01:23 PM

Why do you blame Christopher, he would be lying? No, in contrast he could be right. His claiming has scientific proof.

"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."
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

I am irritated, why Prof. Sisson said in the BBC-"hit"-piece about WTC7, there was nothing unusual.

Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute:
"It was a surprise to me, because it was so eroded and deformed, and so... uhm... we took it for analysis in the lab." "All it was attacked by, what we determined, was a liquid's like. When we did the analysis, we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen." - "You can see, what it does is, it attacks the grain boundaries, and this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack."
"I don't find it bring mysteries at all. That if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere, that's rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect." (49:22)

Christopher7

17th August 2008, 01:33 PM

They are not even sure the beam was from WTC7. Indications of Sample 2 state it was attacked in the pile. I assume Sample 1 would be the same. [Professor Jonathan Barnett, Fire Protection Engineer, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger]
It came from a much larger beam… This was the size of steel that they used in the construction of Tower 7. They didn't use this particular kind of steel in Towers 1 or Towers 2. So that's why we know its pedigree. It was a surprise to me because it was so eroded and deformed and so we took it for analysis in the lab.
[Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute]
Well it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.

Originally Posted by C7
Fact: The only known explanation for the liquid slag is thermate.
This is a speculation or a lie. You missed two of my posts earlier C7The by product of thermate is liquid iron with sulphur and oxygen.

Can you name another demonstrable possibility for the liquid slag?

Originally Posted by C7
There was insufficient heat to liquefy steel.
This is speculation, you have no proof.see post #4854
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3943403#post3943403

Also:
NISTIR 7213

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf

The gas temperatures measured in the room were similar for both experiments prior to ventilation as each fire grew to an initial peak of approximately 800 °C (1470 °F).
Figure 31 shows that maximum temperatures were attained in about 8 minutes and dropped to 400 °C (735 °F) at 16 minutes.

Figure 32 - Natural Ventilation Room Temperatures pg 41 [43 on pg counter]
The fire reaches 800°C [1472°F] in about 4 minutes and drops off to 75° C [170°F] at 24 minutes.
When the window is opened at about 6 minutes, the fire jumps to between 900°C and 1000°C [1652°F - 1832°F] for about 4 minutes.

Air flow in a debris pile is restricted, therefore the temperatures would be below 800°C. Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C.

Jonnyclueless

17th August 2008, 01:34 PM

No Bio, he IS lying and he does NOT have scientific proof. It only seems like it to you, because you, like him, decided long ago what you wanted to believe and thus you, like true twoofers only see what you want to see.

What you are doing is taking ONLY the stuff that tells you what you want to hear, and you are discarding all the info that tells you otherwise. That is what makes someone (like you) dishonest. And when the purpose is to intentionally mislead people, such as Chris is trying to do, that is no different than lying.

It's like saying the cigarette companies weren't lying just because they neglected to mention that they did testing that found smoking to cause cancer. Hey, they didn't "lie" right? They were busy stating lots of proven things, they just let some o them out that the public may have needed to make a properly informed decision.

It's LYING any way you slice it kiddo.

Dave Rogers

17th August 2008, 01:57 PM

I am irritated, why Prof. Sisson said in the BBC-"hit"-piece about WTC7, there was nothing unusual.

He didn't say there was nothing unusual, he said there was no mystery. Since his job is to understand what happened, and hence to dispel any mysteries, you're simply irritated that he's good at his job. That's not what I'd expect from someone who's genuinely trying to understand what happened.

Dave

Christopher7

17th August 2008, 03:08 PM

No, eutectic melting in a sulfur-rich atmosphere at a temperature typical of those caused by an office contents fire is a known explanation for the liquid slag,Source?

how does thermate explain the thinning of metal edges to razor sharpness?
DaveI did answer that, or rather Prof. Sisson did.
"You can see what it [liquid slag] does is it attacks the grain boundaries and this-this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack."

You can also read FEMA 403 Appendix C; C.4 pg C-5.

This is a diversion from the FACT that:
There was molten metal in the debris pile of WTC 7

Jonnyclueless

17th August 2008, 03:14 PM

And it's also a FACT that its very common to see these kinds of chemical reactions in regular fires.

It's also a FACT that it is in no way shape or form indicative of thermate let along Chris's LIE that it can only be caused by thermate.

Jonnyclueless

17th August 2008, 03:15 PM

Oh and while I am at it, jsut to drive home the point I made about how certain "people" tend to conveniently skip over repeated questions that stand to expose their fraud, I will ask again.

Please show us an example of thermate causing steel to melt and remain molten for weeks.

PS - No one questions there being molten metal, it's the issue of it being steel.

Christopher7

17th August 2008, 03:36 PM

Fact: There was molten metal under all three buildings.
INCORRECT.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels," Loizeaux said[B]. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm

(http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm)
Mr. Bryan:
I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.
Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.
Regards,
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all subgrade levels, stated "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (source_SEAU.org) (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf)

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (source) (http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news)

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. (source) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html)(audio) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2007/05/10/20070510_overpass28.mp3)

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20021006003613/http:/www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm)(audio) (http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adis/rm/adis_trimpe.rm)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source) (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/)

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source (http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948)) (http://web.archive.org/web/20041223152148/http:/www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm)

Fact: Prof. Sisson acknowledged that liquid slag [molten steel] eroded the beam from WTC 7.
INCORRECT. It was explained how the steel got in that condition They explain how the beam eroded.
They do not explain what melted the liquid slag.

Fact: The only known explanation for the liquid slag is thermate.
INCORRECT.You offer insults instead of information in rebuttal.
If you know of another explanation for the liquid slag [molten metal], please post it.

Christopher7

17th August 2008, 03:50 PM

Please show us an example of thermate causing steel to melt and remain molten for weeks.To my knowledge, there are no such examples.
Please explain how office fires melted the steel in the first place, given that this has never happened.
Then explain how fires smoldering at about 500-600°C kept the steel molten for months.

PS - No one questions there being molten metal, it's the issue of it being steel." we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen."

Christopher7

17th August 2008, 04:42 PM

And it's also a FACT that its very common to see these kinds of chemical reactions in regular fires.Source?

Jonnyclueless

17th August 2008, 04:50 PM

Chris, you and I know very well that all those quotes you are using have been discussed to death. please stop being dishonest. Do we really need to reastart the same conspiracy theories that have been throughly debunked in this very thread already? Do we really need to go back and once again point out how all that 2nd hand information was shown to be incorrect? Do we really need to go back and show quotes from those same people where they correct the misquotes that were dishonestly taken out of context and used misleadingly by con artists such as yourself?

And let's get this right. you claim thermate is the only thing that can cause melted steel, yet you can provide not a single exmple of this ever happening? And yet we can find plenty of examples of where it has happened from fire alone. And you are going to sit here and continue to claim that it's not possible form fire, but only possible from thermate. YOU ARE A FLAT OUT LIAR. Please stop LYING.

And this wasn't simply an office fire. You cannot quantiy every variable and every material and every combination of mixtures of materials in the building. What you are doing is dishonestly taking the common notion of what TYPICAL office fire temperatures reach. And you are DISHONESTLY trying to mislead people into believing that it's an absolute fact, when it is anything but. Even the sources you try to quote from also state that it is absolutely possible for the fire alone to have melted steel even though they don't think it happened. But yet you don't bother to quote that do you Chris? Why is that Chris? It's because you are a con artist. You have no interest in being honest for presenting truth. You are simply cherry picking the information you want and hoping no one notices all the stuff you are intentionally leaving out. This is what makes you a liar Chris.

just like you leave out the part about the chmical reactions being the cause of the slag and how this can be caused by mid temperatures and does not even require the temperatures that steel melts at to happen. mackie has even pointed out links to books that explain in great detail how this works. So have some of the scientists you have quoted. But yet for some odd reason Chris, you leave that part out. And you do so intentionally because you are a dishonest con artist intent on misleading people.

And as for fires smoldering for months, there are cases of fires smoldering for centuries. It's not uncommon. But it is noted how you again dishonestly claim that steel was molten for months, which again you have no evidence of. Your only evidence is by your dishonest cherry picked quotes which have been proven wrong many times on these forums and have been pointed out by many of the people who the quotes were taken from themselves to be untrue.

I can only hope there aren't too many people who are mislead by your outright lying Chris. It's a shame the world has to deal with people like you who pretend to be looking for "truth" but make up these lies such as you continue to do so here.

Jonnyclueless

17th August 2008, 04:58 PM

Source?

You're kidding right? You already provided the source. Go read the studies you left out on your search to find only information that helps back your conspiracy theory. you expect us to believe that you did this research and quoted people and just coincidentally happened to miss out everything that doesn't paint a conspiracy theory? I call BS on you.

But aside form the fact that your own sources that you cherry picked form explain it, here's another: LINK (http://books.google.com/books?id=vy2_QnyojPYC&pg=PA373&lpg=PA373&dq=eutectic+iron+sulfur&source=web&ots=uPvDddh9vQ&sig=JxPgo14RDEomfa_xIkAm0FF1TCs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA374,M1)

And once again, you calling something a fact such as thermate being the only cause for something, and not backing it up with any actual scientific evidence of such claim means it's not a fact. And when someone calls you on your fraud such as this, it's not lobbing insults, it's pointing out your fraud. I don't need to back it up with a source, YOU do. You claim thermate is the only possible cause, I call bullsh*t. YOU made the claim, YOU back it up. I don't need to prove something as Bullsh*t as that claim is untrue, you need to prove it's true. But you can't do that and you know you can't do that. So you continue to put on a show in hopes that people you are trying to mislead won't doubt you.

That's it Chris, just keep shouting that it's a fact and see how many suckers you can convince.

Christopher7

17th August 2008, 06:18 PM

you claim thermate is the only thing* that can cause melted steel, yet you can provide not a single exmple of this ever happening?Thermi(a)te melts steel.
*outside a foundry
And yet we can find plenty of examples of where it has happened from fire alone.Wrong!
Please provide an example or stop making that claim.

And you are going to sit here and continue to claim that it's not possible form fire, but only possible from thermate. Yes, carbon based fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel without a great deal of forced air.
Thermate is the only know explanation for the liquid slag.

And this wasn't simply an office fire.NIST Approach Summary 12-18-07 pg 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

Even the sources you try to quote from also state that it is absolutely possible for the fire alone to have melted steel Wrong again.
Please post the statement and the source before making that claim.

you leave out the part about the chmical reactions being the cause of the slag and how this can be caused by mid temperatures and does not even require the temperatures that steel melts at to happen.Your ability to get things wrong is unlimited.
Nowhere does NIST say that.

mackie has even pointed out links to books that explain in great detail how this works. So have some of the scientists you have quoted.Please post the specific statements and source or stop making that claim.

But it is noted how you again dishonestly claim that steel was molten for months, which again you have no evidence of.A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source) (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/)

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source (http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948)) (http://web.archive.org/web/20041223152148/http:/www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm)

Norseman

17th August 2008, 06:51 PM

Air flow in a debris pile is restricted, therefore the temperatures would be below 800[/COLOR]°C. Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600[COLOR=#000000]°C.

In Australia there is coal fire that has been burning for 5500 years:

The fire burns 30 metres underground, moving at the slow rate of one metre south every year. The lack of oxygen underground means the fire burns slowly, and with 6 km of burnt area, the fire is estimated to be about 5,500 years old.

The seam was once exposed to the surface, so it is possible a bushfire may have ignited it, scientists say. Sulphurous smoke comes from fissures in the ground, and sulphur is known to be capable of spontaneous combustion if it is heated.

The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground. But the land above is also heated, and at the firefront reaches 350°C.
Source: Underground coal fires a looming catastrophe (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm)

From a paper on the above fire:
The temperatures attained in this zone were well in excess of l000oC and, since some of the altered clayrocks in close proximity to the burnt seam have apparently suffered plastic deformation, conceivably in places they reached 1750oC, the softning point of the material
Source: http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/AM66/AM66_997.pdf

The WTC 7 pile would contain tons and tons of hydrocarbon fuel in layers consisting of paper, computers, furniture, etc.....

So if a underground oxygen restricted coal fire can reach temperatures in excess of 1000oC, why shouldn't the fires in the WTC 7 pile be able to do the same?

Grizzly Bear

17th August 2008, 07:07 PM

Thermi(a)te melts steel.
*outside a foundry
Wrong!
Please provide an example or stop making that claim.

Quit it with the deductive fallacies... You repeat this ad nauseum hoping that after claiming this a few thousand times it will be taken as fact. On top of that you outright reject any alternative chemical processes dealing with corrosion that are expected conditions of long exposure to an uncontrolled environment.

Yes, carbon based fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel without a great deal of forced air.
Thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.
Fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel but I believe his case in point was that fires DO make steel structural members more vulnerable to failure via plastic creep, and thermal weakening. Therm*te is certainly not required for steel structural members to fail, and there is no evidence that the observed erosion of the samples played any role in collapse, I remind you that these samples were collected a fair amount of time following the collapses...

Professor Richard Sisson says it did not melt, it eroded. The cause was the very hot fires in the debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel over days and weeks.

Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:

"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."

NIST Approach Summary 12-18-07 pg 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

Of course lest not forget the role of potential structural damage to some critical support columns. While alone structural damage resulting directly from the collapse of the towers may not have resulted in the eventual collapse, you appear oblivious to the fact that it nevertheless weakens the structural integrity, making the structure itself more vulnerable to the fires.

Wrong again.
Please post the statement and the source before making that claim.

Apparently none of the sources you use have come to the same conclusion as yourself. Do we really need to repeat this [yet again]? Sisson provides what his conclusion, included above.

Your ability to get things wrong is unlimited.
Nowhere does NIST say that.
Of course it doesn't appear that he is referring to NIST in this case. Or do you prefer making specialized red herrings to cast doubt on the subject?

Please post the specific statements and source or stop making that claim.
You need not look further than your own posts... not that I expect you to read back and take it in... that'd be asking for too much. ;)

In fact you forgot to quote this in your response:
But yet you don't bother to quote that do you Chris? Why is that Chris? It's because you are a con artist. You have no interest in being honest for presenting truth. You are simply cherry picking the information you want and hoping no one notices all the stuff you are intentionally leaving out. This is what makes you a liar Chris.

Norseman

17th August 2008, 07:43 PM

Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

The liquid slag is not "fantasy" it is fact!

You all keep ignoring the liquid slag and try to double talk around it.

Thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

Nonsense. The slag in question was formed on the surface of the piece in question in the presence of a sulphur rich atmosphere, read combustion gases from the fire inside WTC 7 containing sulphur compounds.

Here is some more information about sulfidation, hopefully this will help you to understand

This what the book "Engineering Materials-properties and Applications of Metal and Alloys" says about the process that corroded the steel piece in question:
2.3 How does sulphur induce brittleness?
Ans. Sulphur combines with iron to form iron sulphide (FeS) which is present in the form of a thin film along the grain boundaries. Such condition imparts brittleness in steel.

2.4 What is hot shortness?
Ans. Iron sulphide forms a eutectic with iron that melts at 988oC. This eutectic gets converted to liquid mass at normal rolling and forging temperatures (1000-1200oC) for steel. Therefore, on hot working, steel gets either cracked or torned off. This phenomenon is know as hot shortness or red shortness.

Source: Engineering Materials-properties and Applications of Metal and Alloys (http://books.google.com/books?id=azrYvJZhYaUC&pg=PA28&vq=eutectic&dq=eutectic+iron+sulphur&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1&sig=ACfU3U2X3iUuRjMeXVabyjsohbEpIcgfFA#PPA28,M1)

This was in relation the negative effects of sulphur impurities in the steel. The sulphur in this case would of course be coal used in the steel making. To remove sulphur manganese is added during the steel making process.

But even though the negative aspects of sulfidation can be avoided in the production stage of steel making, it still well known problem in the process industry. As discussed for instance here:
An example of under deposit attack is shown below. This 1/4” (6.35mm) RA 253 MA plate sample came from a kiln processing ferrous sulfate monohydrate to red iron oxide pigment. The atmosphere was air, plus the SO2 and SO3 driven off in the process, operating temperature 1840°F (1004°C). After about a year the RA 253 MA kiln shell had developed holes roughly 3/4” (20mm) across, some rather long. Previously used RA310 had failed by more uniform thinning, and lasted 2 to 2 1/2 years.

Source: http://www.rolledalloys.fr/trcdocs/heatresist/SULPHIDATION.pdf
The article contains a picture of a steel sample with similar corrosion as the piece found in the FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf).

For instance in relation to coal fired power plants:
The eutectic melting point in the FeO-FeS system is of critical importance in slagging process in coal firing plants. The FeO-FeS particles melt and bind the fly ash particles together, leading to the formation of slag deposits. These deposits inhibit heat transfer, cause corrosion,....
Source: Thermal analysis of fly ashes sourced from European non-blended coals (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/90512751/PDFSTART)

Here is a post I wrote in January that also contains some useful information:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3329908#post3329908

Christopher7

17th August 2008, 09:31 PM

In Australia there is coal fire that has been burning for 5500 years:

Source: Underground coal fires a looming catastrophe (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm)

From a paper on the above fire:

Source: http://www.minsocam.org/ammin/AM66/AM66_997.pdf

The WTC 7 pile would contain tons and tons of hydrocarbon fuel in layers consisting of paper, computers, furniture, etc.....

So if a underground oxygen restricted coal fire can reach temperatures in excess of 1000oC, why shouldn't the fires in the WTC 7 pile be able to do the same?You are comparing a coalmine fire with a smoldering debris pile. Coal is concentrated carbon and the mine has been burning for thousands of years. The fire started at the surface and therefore has an air supply.
To burn at 1000°C, a fire needs full ventilation as is evidenced in the NISTIR 7213 test:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf

The layers of hydrocarbon fuel in WTC 7 was crushed between 40 + concrete slabs and airflow was restricted.

Do you have any scientific data to back up your personal belief that smoldering fires in a rubble pile, consisting primarily of non combustible materials, can burn as hot as a coal seam?

Grizzly Bear

17th August 2008, 09:48 PM

You are comparing a coalmine fire with a smoldering debris pile. Coal is concentrated carbon and the mine has been burning for thousands of years. The fire started at the surface and therefore has an air supply.
To burn at 1000°C, a fire needs full ventilation as is evidenced... <snip>

Underground coal fire in Australia
Australia is the home of one of the world's few naturally burning coal seams, Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, in northeastern New South Wales. The burning coal seam extends from the main coalfields of the Hunter Valley.

The fire burns 30 metres underground, moving at the slow rate of one metre south every year. The lack of oxygen underground means the fire burns slowly, and with 6 km of burnt area, the fire is estimated to be about 5,500 years old.

The seam was once exposed to the surface, so it is possible a bushfire may have ignited it, scientists say. Sulphurous smoke comes from fissures in the ground, and sulphur is known to be capable of spontaneous combustion if it is heated.

The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground. But the land above is also heated, and at the firefront reaches 350°C. The intense heat on the surface kills off vegetation, leaving a carpet of white sinter, alum and sulphur deposited on the surface through the condensation of the highly acidic gases

Apparently the rule you have established does not apply to the Australian fire... Oxygen is sparse leading to an extremely slow rate of combustion, though according to the article the temperatures are nevertheless quite high.

bio

17th August 2008, 10:53 PM

I would like to say C7 and you "debunkers" here. :)
I really get the point:

1. The steel piece was eroded. This could have happened in the debris pile with 1000 C heat.
2. ... but this piece was eroded by a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen
.
The question is: Is a liquid containing iron proof for molten steel? If yes, then: How could steel melt in the debris pile or in the office-fire and then cause the steel to erode?

Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute,is talking about the steel piece and not about the liquid:

"It was a surprise to me, because it was so eroded and deformed, and so... uhm... we took it for analysis in the lab." "All it was attacked by, what we determined, was a liquid's like. When we did the analysis, we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen." - "You can see, what it does is, it attacks the grain boundaries, and this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack."
"I don't find it bring mysteries at all. That if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere, that's rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect." (49:22)

Jonnyclueless

17th August 2008, 11:49 PM

Thermi(a)te melts steel.
*outside a foundry

And yet you cannot provide a single example of this happening. And neither can anyone else. Not in the way it did in the buildings, if it even did happen in teh buildings. Why is that Chris? it's because you are being dishonest again and trying to mislead people into thinking that thermate can explain what you think happened in WTC 7. And that would be a lie Chris. You are lying.

Wrong!
Please provide an example or stop making that claim.

No, not wrong kiddo. This has been discussed and addressed to death here already. Please stop putting up a fake front by asking me to repost the evidence that has already been presented repeatedly here too many times. While I am sure your goal is to mislead new readers into thinking that this has not already been addressed, it should be noted that you are simply being a con artist here. You know very well examples have most certainly already been provided to you here. So for you to sit here and pretend examples which you have personally responded to have never been presented just shows that youa re once again LYING.

Yes, carbon based fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel without a great deal of forced air.
Thermate is the only know explanation for the liquid slag.

Once again Chris STOP LYING. That statement you made is again a 100% complete utter lie. No it is NOT impossible for office fires to reach temperatures to melt steel. it's just not common. And the fact that the debris was underground is what makes it hotter, not it being open and exposed to air. This is how fires burn underground for centuries. Your absurdly false notion that fires need air to get oxygen is another example o your fraud. Try to prey on people who do not understand that there are other means of feeding fire than fresh air. STOP LYING.

Likewise never in the history of man has thermate ever been able to cause steel to melt and remain melted. Yet you claim it is the only explanation.

*********YOU ARE LYING ***********

You aren't simply misinformed for uneducated, you are KNOWINGLY lying here because you know this claim is untrue and yet you make it knowing it to be a lie.

NIST Approach Summary 12-18-07 pg 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

That is CORRECT. You should read it. It does not say melted steel caused the collapse does it? No it doesn't. It was caused by a local failure NOT THERMATE. Which brings us to another point, which is that even if it was shown that there was melted steel (which is still in question despite your LIES), it still does not support your LIE that Thermate is the only explanation.

Wrong again.
Please post the statement and the source before making that claim.

I already have. Are you going to post your sources that the only explanation is thermate? No, you're not going to Chirs, because your re flat out LYING. And it's important that readers know you are LYING.

Your ability to get things wrong is unlimited.
Nowhere does NIST say that.

Chris, I know you are a fraud, but no one is going to buy your playing dumb act.

Please post the specific statements and source or stop making that claim.

They have been posted Chris, please stop with the con artist antics. You can't play dumb here.

[SIZE=3]A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source) (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/)

Chris, we have been over this already. Unless you have some kind o evidence, 2d had witnessing is inadmissible. It's already been pointed out in your attempts to defraud people by pretending that many statements were made proving moletn steel turned out to be false and were simply 2nd hand information that originated from people who like yourself would have no understanding of the material they saw melted and simply ASSUMED it was steel.

The fact that you are trying to use people who have no expertise in metalergy making assumptions on a material makeup as being proof of molten steel just further proves YOU ARE LYING. You should be ashamed of yourself and the world doesn't need any more Con artist. So please do the world a favor and start being honest.

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source (http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948)) (http://web.archive.org/web/20041223152148/http:/www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm)

Once again Chris, please stop being dishonest. Can you please prove to us that it was actually molten steel and not someone simply assuming it was molten steel? How do you know the person did not simply assume it was steel? The majority of people would would see a melted metal would instantly assume it to be steel. So how to you determine which witnesses are actually seeing steel when even an expert cannot make such a determination without testing?

Come on Chris, you know the answer to that one. You CAN'T. And you KNOW you can't. But because you are dishonest, you won't bother to admit that since it would expose you as the fraud you are.

It's time to stop the lying. It might have been acceptable in the first 50 pages or so, but at this point with months and months of endless lying on your part and complete dishonesty enough is enough.

Jonnyclueless

17th August 2008, 11:55 PM

You are comparing a coalmine fire with a smoldering debris pile. Coal is concentrated carbon and the mine has been burning for thousands of years. The fire started at the surface and therefore has an air supply.
To burn at 1000°C, a fire needs full ventilation as is evidenced in the NISTIR 7213 test:
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf

The layers of hydrocarbon fuel in WTC 7 was crushed between 40 + concrete slabs and airflow was restricted.

Do you have any scientific data to back up your personal belief that smoldering fires in a rubble pile, consisting primarily of non combustible materials, can burn as hot as a coal seam?

Again with the endless dishonesty Chris. So now you are basically claiming that if a fire starts above ground, it needs air and therefore can't burn in a pile. Of course this is 100% absolute nonsense on your part.

But more importantly is the irony of your post where you ask for evidence of a common phenominon. Yet what evidence to you present to show that thermate could do this? You finally have been forced to admit that never has it ever happened, yet you claim it's the only explanation and the amoun o proof you offer for the claim:

0 (ZERO!!!)

Once again, you are a fraud and this is simply an example of why you are a fraud. This isn't about facts or truth, this is simply a game where you see how much data you can manipulate and how much you can distort presentations to mislead people with false and incomplete information along with hypocritical logic.

This is why on a scientific level you are laughed and an not taken seriously. Because when it comes down to real scientific findings all you can do is take pot shots at others and can't back up any of your claims at all. As soon as someone asks you to, your response is simply to try and turn the subject around on others in hopes that no one notices that in 100s of pages of this thread, you have offered not one single piece of physical evidence to back your absurd claims.

The best you have done is simply blurting out that something is a fact, and claiming that the lack of evidence is the evidence.

bio

18th August 2008, 12:08 AM

Jonnyclueless

18th August 2008, 01:48 AM

You are claiming, that C7 is a lier - without any proof and on the basic of assumptions like:

"No it is NOT impossible for office fires to reach temperatures to melt steel."
"And the fact that the debris was underground is what makes it hotter, not it being open and exposed to air."
In the case of WTC-7? Please provide a reference, that this is real world.

It's only basica assumptions like that to you bio because you haven't been bothering to actually read the thread other than the parts you want to hear. If you read my detailed explanations of exactly why he is a liar that I have repeated many times, then you would understand. But until you stop reading only what you want to hear, you aren't much different. The key here is knowing the facts and intentionally misrepresenting them with the intent to mislead people.

And the fact that these issues have been backed up with references and the BOTH of you continue to pretend they haven't just drives the point home even further. Bio, your dishonesty may not be intentional, but Chris's dishonesty certainly is. You may have just skipped over things by accident, but there is no way that after the year or so this thread has been up that Chris has skipped over so many things by accident. There is no way he misquotes and misrepresents quotes by accidents. There is no way he accidentally uses eyewitness testimony to make scientific claims and doing so even though some of his own witnesses who made the quotes have confessed to being wrong an those letters have been posted here.

Now Bio, if you continue to be dishonest, it will now be intentional and not accidental. I suggest you read more than just what you want to believe. 123 pages where this has been covered and you continue to pretend it hasn't been referenced, when it has been referenced 100s of times already with many MANY examples from many sources. But with out you learning to read beyond only what you want to hear, you're never going to see them and we're not going to keep reposting the same things over and over again just because you are going to pretend they don't exist as you guys conveniently somehow managed to "accidentally" skip every post that provides the information you pretend doesn't exist. While at the same time you guys continually repeat the same claims that have been show to be wrong in those posts that you guys "accidentally" seem to keep missing.

bio

18th August 2008, 02:41 AM

I read the last pages and the only one, who brings references is C7. Your response are insults. Why you cannot bring your references once again like C7?

Jonnyclueless

18th August 2008, 02:43 AM

I read the last pages and the only one, who brings references is C7. Your response are insults. Why you cannot bring your references once again like C7?

I rest my case. Thank you very much!

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 03:04 AM

Source?

Your own source says this.

Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.
However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says: "I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."

Sulphur from the wallboard, heat from the fires, oxygen from the atmosphere. This is the source of the liquid slag. What Sisson is describing here is eutectic melting.
I did answer that, or rather Prof. Sisson did.
"You can see what it [liquid slag] does is it attacks the grain boundaries and this-this bit would eventually have fallen out and it would continue the attack."

Your lying is getting a little more clever, I must admit. Sisson is claiming that the liquid slag is eroding the steel, and explains the origin of the liquid slag elsewhere. Thermate will produce liquid iron at a temperature far above the melting point of steel. For the effect you're claiming as evidence, the temperature has to be well below the melting point of steel. Thermate simply burns too hot to do what you're claiming. Therefore, you're claiming that thermate is a necessary condition for the effects seen, when it isn't even a sufficient condition.

Dave

bio

18th August 2008, 03:26 AM

Your own source says this.

Sulphur from the wallboard, heat from the fires, oxygen from the atmosphere. This is the source of the liquid slag. What Sisson is describing here is eutectic melting.

Dave

... essentially you are saying, that sulfur from the wallboard, heat from the fire (1000 degree C) and oxygen can melt steel. If correct, please provide reference.
For all:
We are talking about the slag of iron, sulfur and oxygen, which eroded the steel piece, we are not talking about the eroded steel piece itself!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slag

Basic slag

Basic slag is a byproduct of steelmaking by the basic version of the Bessemer process or the Linz-Donawitz process. It is largely limestone or dolomite which has absorbed phosphate from the iron ore being smelted.

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 03:43 AM

... essentially you are saying, that sulfur from the wallboard, heat from the fire (1000 degree C) and oxygen can melt steel. If correct, please provide reference.

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr. (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html#authors)

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

The original claim was that the erosion of the steel required temperatures in excess of 1500ºC, and that these are not achieved in an office contents fire. The above reference states that erosion of the steel appears to have taken place at below 1000ºC (note the significance of the word "approached"), within the range of temperatures of an office contents fire. The "eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide" referred to above is the "liquid slag" mentioned elsewhere in this thread, from which it is clear that the presence of this liquid slag does not imply the presence of molten steel. The original claim is therefore rejected.

Note, also, that the description of "basic slag" as produced by the Bessemer process is a specific type of slag; the usage of the word by Sisson is much looser, and from its context it clearly is not intended to suggest that the composition is anything other than some iron oxide/iron sulfide mixture.

Dave

bio

18th August 2008, 04:03 AM

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr. (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html#authors)

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

The original claim was that the erosion of the steel required temperatures in excess of 1500ºC, and that these are not achieved in an office contents fire. The above reference states that erosion of the steel appears to have taken place at below 1000ºC (note the significance of the word "approached"), within the range of temperatures of an office contents fire. The "eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide" referred to above is the "liquid slag" mentioned elsewhere in this thread, from which it is clear that the presence of this liquid slag does not imply the presence of molten steel. The original claim is therefore rejected.
Note, also, that the description of "basic slag" as produced by the Bessemer process is a specific type of slag; the usage of the word by Sisson is much looser, and from its context it clearly is not intended to suggest that the composition is anything other than some iron oxide/iron sulfide mixture.
Dave

Why are you talking about the eroded steel piece, if we are talking about the slag, which caused the eroding? Please provide reference for above claim (bold).
How is "a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen" basically different from molten steel?

I would ask you politely to answer my question of post 4884. You find it in this page.

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 05:03 AM

How is "a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen" basically different from molten steel?

Asked and answered, multiple times. From the above reference, "The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel." What was present, therefore, was a eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide, which at temperatures approaching 1000ºC is "a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen". This is basically different from molten steel in that it has a different chemical composition and a different melting point. Since the whole argument was that temperatures were above the melting point of this liquid, the conclusion is that temperatures approached 1000ºC but need not have been as high as 1500ºC.

The idea that iron oxide and iron sulfide are basically different from pure iron is one that I was taught, and verified for myself experimentally, when I was eleven years old, in a first-year high school chemistry lesson. The inductive conclusion that they are also basically different from molten steel should not be a difficult one.

Dave

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 05:10 AM

Can you prove an alternative, science based reason, why there was no calcium in the XEDS plots?

I'm not a chemist, but I would imagine it goes something like this:

Calcium sulphate, in the presence of water and heat, will dissociate partially to form calcium oxide and sulphuric acid. The calcium oxide is insoluble and melts at over 2500ºC, so it will stay where the reaction occurs, whereas the sulphuric acid will be vapourised and will diffuse away from the reaction zone. The sulphuric acid will attack the steel elsewhere, in the presence of oxygen, resulting in an iron oxide/iron sulphide eutectic containing no calcium.

On the other hand, if an agent were present that produced temperatures in excess of the melting point of calcium oxide - for example, thermite - we might see some incorporation of calcium into the slag. Therefore, the absence of calcium may possibly be evidence for the absence of thermite.

Dave

bio

18th August 2008, 05:33 AM

Asked and answered, multiple times. From the above reference, "The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel." What was present, therefore, was a eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide, which at temperatures approaching 1000ºC is "a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen". This is basically different from molten steel in that it has a different chemical composition and a different melting point. Since the whole argument was that temperatures were above the melting point of this liquid, the conclusion is that temperatures approached 1000ºC but need not have been as high as 1500ºC.

The idea that iron oxide and iron sulfide are basically different from pure iron is one that I was taught, and verified for myself experimentally, when I was eleven years old, in a first-year high school chemistry lesson. The inductive conclusion that they are also basically different from molten steel should not be a difficult one.

Dave

good for you, that you are an expert! Feel free to answer or not. Thank you.

From where did the iron oxid and iron sulfide come from? From the steel, which was liquefied?

bio

18th August 2008, 05:42 AM

I'm not a chemist, but I would imagine it goes something like this:

Calcium sulphate, in the presence of water and heat, will dissociate partially to form calcium oxide and sulphuric acid. The calcium oxide is insoluble and melts at over 2500ºC, so it will stay where the reaction occurs, whereas the sulphuric acid will be vapourised and will diffuse away from the reaction zone. The sulphuric acid will attack the steel elsewhere, in the presence of oxygen, resulting in an iron oxide/iron sulphide eutectic containing no calcium.

On the other hand, if an agent were present that produced temperatures in excess of the melting point of calcium oxide - for example, thermite - we might see some incorporation of calcium into the slag. Therefore, the absence of calcium may possibly be evidence for the absence of thermite.

Dave

okay - but Dr. Jones says, that the sulfur itself showed no concomitant calcium.

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 06:17 AM

From where did the iron oxid and iron sulfide come from? From the steel, which was liquefied?

There was no need for the steel to be liquefied. Normal corrosion of steel in an oxygen-containing atmosphere produces iron oxide in the form of rust, and this will accelerate at higher temperatures. Sulphuric acid and heat acting on steel will (I assume, my chemistry runs out somewhere around here) produce iron sulphate, which degrades thermally to iron sulphide. Both can be produced without the temperature getting high enough to liquefy the steel.

Dave

bio

18th August 2008, 06:21 AM

2. Heating in an environment containing oxygen and sulfur resulted in intergranular melting which transformed to an Iron Oxide and Iron Sulfide eutectic mixture on cooling.
www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

1. What was melted and transformed to an Iron Oxide an Iron Sulfide? If steel then question 2:
2. Can sulfur and oxygen during an office-fire or the smoldering fire at WTC-7 melt steel?

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 06:22 AM

okay - but Dr. Jones says, that the sulfur itself showed no concomitant calcium.

That's not how I read it. He's saying that the XEDS plots showed sulphur, but did not show concomitant calcium. In other words, there are multiple elements present, and sulphur is one of them but calcium is not. He doesn't appear (unless I'm mistaken) to claim to have found pure elemental sulphur. Therefore, what he's observed is exactly what would be expected from thermal decomposition of calcium sulphate and subsequent corrosion of steel by evolved sulphuric acid vapour.

Dave

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 06:29 AM

2. Heating in an environment containing oxygen and sulfur resulted in intergranular melting which transformed to an Iron Oxide and Iron Sulfide eutectic mixture on cooling.

Correct. The oxygen and sulphur in the atmosphere attack the steel in a high temperature corrosion process, which takes place preferentially at the grain boundaries of the steel. This process can take place substantially below the melting point of pure steel.

1. What was melted and transformed to an Iron Oxide an Iron Sulfide?

Wrong paradigm. There were not two successive processes, the first of which melted the steel and the second of which transformed it to a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide. There was a single process which produced iron oxide and iron sulphide at the grain boundaries of the metal (which, like most metals, has a polycrystalline structure), and formed a liquid eutectic.

If steel then question 2:
2. Can sulfur and oxygen during an office-fire or the smoldering fire at WTC-7 melt steel?

No, they cannot melt steel, but they are sufficiently high for a chemical reaction to take place which produces a liquid, chemically different from steel, but containing iron as one of its chemical constituents.

This is all fairly straightforward chemistry; I'd expect it to be fairly clear to anyone with GCSE chemistry or equivalent (i.e. having studied chemistry in school up to age 16).

Dave

bio

18th August 2008, 06:48 AM

What is "intergranular melting" of steel, which produced the eutectic mixture / slag? According to you, this can be labeled "temperature corrosion process", too. Right?

bio

18th August 2008, 06:53 AM

That's not how I read it. He's saying that the XEDS plots showed sulphur, but did not show concomitant calcium. In other words, there are multiple elements present, and sulphur is one of them but calcium is not. He doesn't appear (unless I'm mistaken) to claim to have found pure elemental sulphur. Therefore, what he's observed is exactly what would be expected from thermal decomposition of calcium sulphate and subsequent corrosion of steel by evolved sulphuric acid vapour.

Dave

this interpretation could be right / i do not know.
If right, then it could happened by chance, that the calcium was somewhere else, than the sulfur. Probability for that - seeing the compressed debris pile?

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 07:00 AM

What is "intergranular melting" of steel, which produced the eutectic mixture / slag? According to you, this can be labeled "temperature corrosion process", too. Right?

OK, back to basics.

Metals in general, and steel in particular, have a polycrystalline structure. This means that they are composed of large numbers of very small crystals, stuck together in random orientations. Within each individual crystal, the chemical bonds between atoms are very strong, because the regular arrangement of the atoms allows all the unpaired electrons of each atom to pair with one from another atom. At the regions where two different crystals are in contact (known as grain boundaries), however, the arrangement of atoms is irregular, and there can therefore be unpaired electrons. These are available for other chemicals to bond with, and hence attack the crystal. For example, sulphuric acid will tend to attack atoms at the grain boundaries, forming iron oxide and sulphide. If the temperature is high enough, these can be liquefied and will flow out of the grain boundary, leaving a fresh iron surface with unpaired electrons for further reactions with the acid. This is what is being referred to as "intergranular melting", because it produces a liquid at the boundary between grains.

Since it's a chemical process (which means, incidentally, that the word "melting" is misleading; normal melting is a simple phase transition with no chemical reaction involved, which isn't the case here) in which the steel is attacked by a corrosive chemical at a high temperature(and hot sulphuric acid is extremely corrosive), then yes, the intergranular melting that Barnett and co-workers describe can be described as a high temperature corrosion process.

Dave

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 07:15 AM

If right, then it could happened by chance, that the calcium was somewhere else, than the sulfur. Probability for that - seeing the compressed debris pile?

It's nothing to do with chance. Heating calcium sulphate in the presence of water produces solid calcium oxide and sulphuric acid vapour. The solid calcium oxide doesn't do anything, it's just present as a powder in the rubble; when it cools and water is sprayed on it, it turns to calcium hydroxide. That's soluble enough (about 1g/litre) that it will easily wash away. The sulphuric acid is a vapour at the temperatures we're talking about, so it will spread out over a large volume - most of which isn't occupied by the calcium oxide - and attack any steel within it. A sample of steel and accompanying slag taken from the top of the rubble pile would be expected to have had any calcium compounds simply washed away by the water that was sprayed over the pile. Therefore the eutectic slag that was taken for analysis is expected to contain iron, sulphur and oxygen but no calcium.

Dave

GlennB

18th August 2008, 07:17 AM

Since it's a chemical process (which means, incidentally, that the word "melting" is misleading; normal melting is a simple phase transition with no chemical reaction involved, which isn't the case here) in which the steel is attacked by a corrosive chemical at a high temperature(and hot sulphuric acid is extremely corrosive), then yes, the intergranular melting that Barnett and co-workers describe can be described as a high temperature corrosion process.

Dave

My bolding.

And this is exactly the point C7 is unable (or refuses) to understand.

bio

18th August 2008, 07:26 AM

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 07:39 AM

... but the calcium powder can burn into the slag and the attacked steel and cannot be washed away so.

Possibly, if calcium oxide forms any kind of eutectic with iron oxide or iron sulphide, but only in the extremely small fraction of the total volume where calcium oxide is in intimate contact with the steel being corroded. Any steel that is not in contact with a chunk of wallboard - which could well be the vast majority of it - will still be corroded by the acid vapour, which will diffuse outwards into a volume many orders of magnitude larger than that occupied by the calcium. The expectation would therefore be that no significant amount of calcium would be found in the slag.

Dave

tsig

18th August 2008, 08:07 AM

Thermi(a)te melts steel.
*outside a foundry
Wrong!
Please provide an example or stop making that claim.

Yes, carbon based fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel without a great deal of forced air.
Thermate is the only know explanation for the liquid slag.

NIST Approach Summary 12-18-07 pg 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

Wrong again.
Please post the statement and the source before making that claim.

Your ability to get things wrong is unlimited.
Nowhere does NIST say that.

Please post the specific statements and source or stop making that claim.

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source) (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/)

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source (http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948)) (http://web.archive.org/web/20041223152148/http:/www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm)

Slag isn't a liquid.

Jonnyclueless

18th August 2008, 12:27 PM

bio

18th August 2008, 01:44 PM

And the response will simply be:

FACT: Thermate is the only thing that can cause this.

And the endless cycle of idiocy will continue no matter how much explaining Dave does. Dave, stop hiding behind science and facts.

Well - there were office fire in steel framed high-rise buildings, which even burned longer, and there are no references of intergranular melting of steel.

That is a valid point!

Jonnyclueless

18th August 2008, 02:03 PM

Well - there were office fire in steel framed high-rise buildings, which even burned longer, and there are no references of intergranular melting of steel.

That is a valid point!

How many of those buildings were hit by planes and as a result suffered severe structural damage? And why that NOT a valid point to you guys?

Why are the instances of regular fires causing steel to melt NOT a valid point to you guys?

I wil tell you why. Because you guys decided long before you did any research exactly what you wanted to find. And that is a conspiracy theory. Thus the reason why you systematically ignore all these things that don't add up to your pre-determined conclusion.

It's like me pointing out some smokers who haven't gotten cancer as proof that smoking doesn't cause cancer. It's pretty sound so long as I ignore all the people who DO get cancer from smoking.

bio

18th August 2008, 02:13 PM

How many of those buildings were hit by planes and as a result suffered severe structural damage? And why that NOT a valid point to you guys?

Why are the instances of regular fires causing steel to melt NOT a valid point to you guys?

I wil tell you why. Because you guys decided long before you did any research exactly what you wanted to find. And that is a conspiracy theory. Thus the reason why you systematically ignore all these things that don't add up to your pre-determined conclusion.

It's like me pointing out some smokers who haven't gotten cancer as proof that smoking doesn't cause cancer. It's pretty sound so long as I ignore all the people who DO get cancer from smoking.

No plane hit WTC 7 & The meridian plaza burnt for 19 hours on 8 flours.

Christopher7

18th August 2008, 02:56 PM

Apparently the rule you have established does not apply to the Australian fire... Oxygen is sparse leading to an extremely slow rate of combustion, though according to the article the temperatures are nevertheless quite high.You don't know what the conditions are including air flow.

Christopher7

18th August 2008, 03:20 PM

Slag isn't a liquid.Excuse me.
Prof. Sisson said:
Well it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen.

Christopher7

18th August 2008, 03:27 PM

Why are the instances of regular fires causing steel to melt NOT a valid point to you guys?There are no instances of regular fires causing steel to melt.

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires.
Normal building fires cannot melt steel.

Christopher7

18th August 2008, 03:40 PM

Possibly, if calcium oxide forms any kind of eutectic with iron oxide or iron sulphide, but only in the extremely small fraction of the total volume where calcium oxide is in intimate contact with the steel being corroded. Any steel that is not in contact with a chunk of wallboard - which could well be the vast majority of it - will still be corroded by the acid vapour, which will diffuse outwards into a volume many orders of magnitude larger than that occupied by the calcium. The expectation would therefore be that no significant amount of calcium would be found in the slag.

DaveAll this esoteric chemistry talk ignores the point:

Normal building fires cannot melt steel.

Liquid slag containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is melted steel.

Jonnyclueless

18th August 2008, 04:32 PM

No plane hit WTC 7 & The meridian plaza burnt for 19 hours on 8 flours.

Bio, you to a wonderful job of constantly proving my point. You claim no plane hi WTC7. You also forgot to mention that it was damaged much worse than if by a plane. 100s o ton of falling building came down upon it and scooped out an entire side of the building. While I am sure some people might not notice a section of the building being completely removed, so you not think it's something to note? Can yous see how you are being dishonest here and that this dishonesty of yours is the same as lying? That's correct, it makes you a liar because we both know that you are well aware of this damage and you INTENTIONALLY left it out.

Just like you also left out the fact that the Meridian plaza also had firefighting efforts going on and WTC 7 not only had no firefighting efforts, it didn't even have any water for its own fire protection systems. Tell us Bio, why do you leave these crucial details out?

And why do you leave out the details such as the plaza was a concrete core and that the steel portions DID collapse, just like the steel portion of WTC7?

I stand corrected bio, YOU are also an absolute LIAR. You, like Chris are clearly here with the intent to mislead people. You know the facts and you choose to intentionally leave them out so as to create a false image of the scenario that might sway people towards your pre-determined conclusion.

Let me state once again, your leaving out the most important fact intentionally is a lie. The intent to mislead people is a lie. Some people leave out important information simply because the are not aware of it. That's not a lie. But here, you have been shown this information many times and you continue to leave it out intentionally. Just like you sat here and pretended that many issues were not addressed and no examples were given when clearly they had indeed been given multiple times. THAT is dishonesty at its finest.

Jonnyclueless

18th August 2008, 04:34 PM

There are no instances of regular fires causing steel to melt.

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires.
Normal building fires cannot melt steel.

This again as pointed out many times is in fact a lie. And one of Chris's own sources points out how this is not mysterious behavior.

And again to point our Chris's outright lies and dishonesty, the cause of the collapse is not being claimed to have been caused by molten steel. Just as the possible molten steel does not have to be caused by the cause of the collapse.

Chris, please stop lying.

Jonnyclueless

18th August 2008, 04:36 PM

All this esoteric chemistry talk ignores the point:

Normal building fires cannot melt steel.

Liquid slag containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is melted steel.

Chris, again, please stop lying. This has already been addressed.

BTW Bio, is this response of his not what I predicted would happen? It's because Chris knows he is wrong and he knows he is lying and so all he can do is continue to make the same baseless claims. This is to keep the attention away form some of his other lies such as thermate being the only possible cause. Even though his own sources say otherwise.

Chris, please stop lying.

DGM

18th August 2008, 05:12 PM

Well - there were office fire in steel framed high-rise buildings, which even burned longer, and there are no references of intergranular melting of steel.

That is a valid point!
There has never been "office fires" that burned longer. The tower piles burned for weeks (Months even), no building fire has come close. Try being honest for once.

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 07:40 PM

Well - there were office fire in steel framed high-rise buildings, which even burned longer, and there are no references of intergranular melting of steel.

The underground fires in the rubble pile at ground zero burned for weeks, during which time the intergranular melting occurred. Name a single steel framed building that burned for that long and you'll have a point.

Dave

Dave Rogers

18th August 2008, 07:48 PM

All this esoteric chemistry talk ignores the point:

Normal building fires cannot melt steel.

Liquid slag containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is melted steel.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, I give you Christopher7's ultimate departure from reality. "Liquid slag containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is melted steel", is it, Chris? Let me show you how utterly, ridiculously wrong you are.

One of the other residues observed at Ground Zero was a liquid slag containing oxygen and hydrogen. Using the Christopher7 view of chemistry, we can conclude that liquid slag containing oxygen and hydrogen is liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen liquefies at -252.87ºC, therefore, the rubble pile at Ground Zero must have experienced temperatures below -250ºC for this liquid to form. How did it get so cold, Chris?

Or could it be, as Western civilisation has known for centuries, I learned when I was 11, and it seems Christopher7 has yet to find out, that elements chemically combined have different physical properties from their constituents?

Dave

Jonnyclueless

18th August 2008, 07:50 PM

Unfortunately for these con artists, science doesn't lie.

R.Mackey

18th August 2008, 10:22 PM

It's nothing to do with chance. Heating calcium sulphate in the presence of water produces solid calcium oxide and sulphuric acid vapour. The solid calcium oxide doesn't do anything, it's just present as a powder in the rubble; when it cools and water is sprayed on it, it turns to calcium hydroxide. That's soluble enough (about 1g/litre) that it will easily wash away. The sulphuric acid is a vapour at the temperatures we're talking about, so it will spread out over a large volume - most of which isn't occupied by the calcium oxide - and attack any steel within it. A sample of steel and accompanying slag taken from the top of the rubble pile would be expected to have had any calcium compounds simply washed away by the water that was sprayed over the pile. Therefore the eutectic slag that was taken for analysis is expected to contain iron, sulphur and oxygen but no calcium.

Good explanation. However, be advised that NIST's examination of the special cases actually did reveal traces of calcium in the eutectic slag as well. See NCSTAR1-3C, pg. 228 and 230. Apparently not all of it washed away after all.

As I'm sure you know but bears repeating for the newcomers, even if we could trust Dr. Jones's analysis, his sampling approach is woefully inadequate. There's no telling what his few samples represent, their true origin, or their potential for contamination. Fortunately, we have much better results from reputable scientists and need not try to figure out where Dr. Jones went wrong.

Christopher7

18th August 2008, 10:34 PM

This again as pointed out many times is in fact a lie. And one of Chris's own sources points out how this is not mysterious behavior.

And again to point our Chris's outright lies and dishonesty, the cause of the collapse is not being claimed to have been caused by molten steel. Just as the possible molten steel does not have to be caused by the cause of the collapse.

Chris, please stop lying.Would you care to back up your accusation withe a fact?

You might try attacking the argument, rather than the arguer.

I believe Darat has requested that we do so.

Jonnyclueless

18th August 2008, 11:24 PM

Would you care to back up your accusation withe a fact?

You might try attacking the argument, rather than the arguer.

I believe Darat has requested that we do so.

Ah I can see how you would see it that way. But if you actually read my posts you would have the answers to your questions. but this post of yours just further drives home the point I have been making repeatedly about how you somehow conveniently miss all the key posts that address everything you continue to claim doesn't get addressed. So for course you once AGAIN conveniently missed those facts which were posted repeatedly and you again conveniently missed the explanation for the attack.

Chris you are a fraud and a liar. That's what it's about. You have been shown to be lying in this thread and that you have been intentionally trying to mislead people. That is now the argument. You are making false claims and not backing them up and then continually trying to throw up this phoney nonsense to try and get people distracted from the fact that you have been lying.

If you are going to continue to jsut blurt out baseless false claims such as "It's a fact that thermate is the only possible explanation" while not backing up that claim and then when called on it accusing others of not backing up their claims despite them having done so repeatedly, then the argument becomes your dishonest debate methods.

Or perhaps you can change your ways and simply back up what you call facts. Show us just one single example of thermate melting steel and keeping it melted for months.

And Bio can show us a regular office fire that burned for more than several months.

Dave Rogers

19th August 2008, 02:47 AM

Would you care to back up your accusation with a fact?

Here's a fact. A liquid mixture of iron sulphide and iron oxide is a different material to molten steel, with different physical properties. When you claim, therefore, that "Liquid slag containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is melted steel", after having been informed of this difference, and presented with references that back it up, you are therefore deliberately lying.

Dave

Christopher7

25th August 2008, 11:26 AM

Here's a fact. A liquid mixture of iron sulphide and iron oxide is a different material to molten steel, with different physical properties. When you claim, therefore, that "Liquid slag containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is melted steel", after having been informed of this difference, and presented with references that back it up,

DaveYou have NOT provided information showing that the liquid slag was something other than molten steel.
How is "a liquid slag containing iron, oxygen and hydrogen different from molten steel?
Please provide a source.

beachnut

25th August 2008, 12:16 PM

Christopher7

25th August 2008, 07:55 PM

You are not a chem engineer; are you?Are you?

Let's take i one element at a time.

1) oxygen is a gas not a liquid.

2) sulphur
the melting point of sulfur is +119 C
the flash point of sulfur is +207.2 C
the self ignition point of sulfur is +232.2 C
the liquid slag was at least 1000 C

The liquid slag was primarily
3) iron, containing oxygen and sulphur.

Steel normally melts at about 1500 C but the sulphur in thermate lowers the melting point. Thermate also contains an oxidation agent. The byproduct of thermate is liquid iron containing oxygen and sulphur.

Do you know of another explanation for the liquid slag ?

Jonnyclueless

25th August 2008, 08:02 PM

You have NOT provided information showing that the liquid slag was something other than molten steel.
How is "a liquid slag containing iron, oxygen and hydrogen different from molten steel?
Please provide a source.

You have not shown that the slag was from thermate/thermite charges. In fact i the 1000s of posts on this thread, you have still yet to offer a single piece of physical evidence. And now the final report pretty much puts the issue to bed.

Dave Rogers

26th August 2008, 03:20 AM

You have NOT provided information showing that the liquid slag was something other than molten steel.
How is "a liquid slag containing iron, oxygen and hydrogen different from molten steel?
Please provide a source.

Chris, you've gone a long way past sane discussion here. First of all, it was "a liquid slag containing iron, oxygen and sulphur". Secondly, you're the one making the positive claim that a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is the same as molten iron, rather than me making the claim that it isn't. Thirdly, since oxygen and the oxides of sulphur are gases at room temperature, the only way they can both be present in a liquid containing iron, oxygen and sulphur is if they are chemically bound to the iron as iron oxide, iron sulphide and/or iron sulphate, none of which are chemically the same as pure iron and all of which behave radically differently. Fourthly, the reference you're asking for has been given multiple times in this thread:

The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

This is co-authored by Sisson, the origin of your quote about "a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen". Sisson is talking about the same material. Since it's a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide, it isn't iron.

If you're asking me to provide a source that states that chemical compounds are different to their consitiuents, try Wikipedia.

Compounds have different physical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property) and chemical properties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_property) from their constituent elements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound

Iron(II) sulfide is a chemical compound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound) with the formula FeS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_sulphide

I haven't been able to find a reference stating that iron oxide is a chemical compound. I suggest you satisfy yourself as to the veracity of that claim by trying to build a structural member out of rust. Alternatively, first-year high school chemistry lessons would probably be helpful.

Dave

Dave Rogers

26th August 2008, 03:24 AM

The liquid slag was primarily
3) iron, containing oxygen and sulphur.

Post your source that describes the liquid slag as "primarily" iron.

Do you know of another explanation for the liquid slag ?

Yes, but since you're determined not to read it, would posting it yet again really help?

Dave

Norseman

26th August 2008, 01:29 PM

I haven't been able to find a reference stating that iron oxide is a chemical compound. I suggest you satisfy yourself as to the veracity of that claim by trying to build a structural member out of rust. Alternatively, first-year high school chemistry lessons would probably be helpful.

In case Christopher7 should be in doubt:
iron(II) oxide
(chemistry) A name for the chemical compound FeO, iron oxide where iron has a valence of +2. This is the IUPAC preferred nomenclature. The old term was ferrous oxide.
Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iron(II)_oxide

Or from a chemistry textbook:
The compound FeO is therefore 'iron(II)oxide'....
Source: Advanced Chemistry (http://books.google.com/books?id=qciCdSFpFPkC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=iron(II)+oxide+compound&source=web&ots=vK94txHZjR&sig=N_JmAVU7mU6b1KekrUeX2Xv3CVk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result)

Christopher7

27th August 2008, 04:22 AM

In case Christopher7 should be in doubt:

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iron(II)_oxide (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iron%28II%29_oxide)

Or from a chemistry textbook:

Source: Advanced Chemistry (http://books.google.com/books?id=qciCdSFpFPkC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=iron%28II%29+oxide+compound&source=web&ots=vK94txHZjR&sig=N_JmAVU7mU6b1KekrUeX2Xv3CVk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result)I don't know enough chemistry to argue with you further.

If the liquid slag was not molten iron, then what else could it be?

Dave Rogers

27th August 2008, 04:36 AM

I don't know enough chemistry to argue with you further.

If the liquid slag was not molten iron, then what else could it be?

Having already said this more times than I can count, once more probably won't hurt.

There are two possibilities. One is that the liquid slag is a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide. This should of course be the first possibility to consider, because that is exactly what Barnett, Biederman and Sisson say it was. Since they are your source for the statement that there was a liquid slag present, why do you persist in cherry-picking by pretending not to see the part where they identify the composition of the slag?

The second possibility, and I'm not entirely certain it's a distinctly different phenomenon, is that the liquid slag was a mixture of iron, iron sulphide, and iron oxide. A quick look at Google produced the following quote, properly sourced below:

The presence of sulfur in steel causes the danger of so-called "red brittleness" and "hot brittleness". Red brittleness may occur during hot forging or hot rolling of steels having a high sulfur content (sometimes a sulfur content of 0.03% is considered high enough). Thus, it may occur in the temperature range of 900-1000ºC. The reason is that the Fe-FeS eutectic melts at 985ºC. Its melting point is decreased in the presence of iron oxide. Iron sulfide and nickel sulfide solidify last from the liquid, as a network along grain boundaries.

"Physical Metallurgy for Engineers", Miklos Tisza, ASM International 2001, ISBN 087170725X, 9780871707253, p294. My bolding.

Therefore it appears that a suitable mixture of iron, iron sulphide and iron oxide can have a melting point below 985ºC.

Now, going back to your original argument: your claim was that the presence of a liquid slag indicated temperatures in excess of 1000ºC in the fires in the rubble pile. I've given you two possible accounts of what the liquid slag could be, neither of which requires temperatures in excess of 1000ºC to form. In particular, the source for the existence of the liquid slag that formed your original claim (Professor R. D. Sisson Jr.) is co-author of the paper that describes the composition of the liquid slag as being a mixture of iron sulphide and iron oxide that formed at a temperature that "approached ~1000ºC"; in other words, below 1000ºC.

If you don't know enough chemistry to follow this line of argument, could you consider the possibility that your understanding of events is not as complete as those who do?

Dave

Christopher7

3rd September 2008, 04:55 AM

Deleted

Christopher7

4th September 2008, 04:46 AM

Having already said this more times than I can count, once more probably won't hurt.

There are two possibilities. One is that the liquid slag is a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide.OK, so what is "a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide". If not liquid iron, then what is it? Where did it come from?

The second possibility, and I'm not entirely certain it's a distinctly different phenomenon, is that the liquid slag was a mixture of iron, iron sulphide, and iron oxide. A quick look at Google produced the following quote, properly sourced below:
Same question, isn't that liquid iron? A rose by any other name . . .

Therefore it appears that a suitable mixture of iron, iron sulphide and iron oxide can have a melting point below 985ºC.
Which is far hotter than smoldering debris in an oxygen starved debris pile can attain.

Now, going back to your original argument: your claim was that the presence of a liquid slag indicated temperatures in excess of 1000ºC in the fires in the rubble pile. I've given you two possible accounts of what the liquid slag could be, neither of which requires temperatures in excess of 1000ºC to form. In particular, the source for the existence of the liquid slag that formed your original claim (Professor R. D. Sisson Jr.) is co-author of the paper that describes the composition of the liquid slag as being a mixture of iron sulphide and iron oxide that formed at a temperature that "approached ~1000ºC"; in other words, below 1000ºC.
OK, Fe-FeS eutectic melts at 985ºC. This is still 300-400ºC above what smoldering fires can attain.

Dave Rogers

4th September 2008, 07:13 AM

OK, so what is "a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide". If not liquid iron, then what is it?

In the face of this staggering level of wilful ignorance, I give up. Chris, the oceans are full of liquid hydrogen, the air is full of vapourised carbon, and you can keep on sprinkling frozen chlorine on your chips. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise, because learning things is bad.

Dave

GlennB

4th September 2008, 08:20 AM

OK, Fe-FeS eutectic melts at 985ºC. This is still 300-400ºC above what smoldering fires can attain.

Why would it have to have happened in a smouldering fire? Given that both debris piles were full of holes and voids a free-burning fire is perfectly possible.

And I'd like to echo what Dave Rogers said. Chris, you don't seem to understand the difference between a mixture and a compound. Try to put a mixture of sodium and chlorine on your boiled egg and you're in a heap of trouble. Put NaCl on it and the only risk is to your blood pressure.

Christopher7

4th September 2008, 09:01 AM

Chris, the oceans are full of liquid hydrogen, the air is full of vapourised carbon
DavePlease, we are discussing a liquid slag that eroded a steel beam, not water or air.

Liquid slag containing iron, oxygen and sulphur is a byproduct of thermate.

You do not have another explanation for the liquid slag so you talk in circles.

Grizzly Bear

4th September 2008, 09:47 AM

Please, we are discussing a liquid slag that eroded a steel beam, not water or air.

Yet you ignored, as you always have, the crux issue he was making... good job. Do you know the difference between compounds and mixtures?

Dave Rogers

4th September 2008, 10:44 AM

Please, we are discussing a liquid slag that eroded a steel beam, not water or air.

Liquid slag containing iron, oxygen and sulphur is a byproduct of thermate.

You do not have another explanation for the liquid slag so you talk in circles.

No, Chris. As everyone else on this forum can see, your knowledge of chemistry is so utterly lacking that you are unable to understand anything I am saying. That's why I've decided I simply have to give up talking to you; you simply don't speak the language that you're trying to have this debate in. I have explained the liquid slag in language that would be perfectly clear to a first-year high school chemistry student of average ability, and done so ten times in this thread. You don't understand it because you don't have enough basic knowledge to understand it, not because there's anything unclear about the way I'm stating it. I'm not going to keep on trying. Therefore, when you go back to whatever truther circles you like to mix in and crow about your victory here, please make sure to pass on to your friends that the nature of your victory is that you persuaded yourself that a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide is the same as liquid iron. When they laugh, they won't be laughing at me.

Dave

Christopher7

14th September 2008, 01:01 AM

. . . . you persuaded yourself that a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide is the same as liquid iron.
DaveI have an explanation for the corroded beam, Do you?

There was molten metal in the debris pile and the liquid slag was this molten metal dripping on the beam and corroding it.

Don't bother with the phony chemistry expert stuff. You are an anonymous poster on a forum and your claims of superior knowledge are of no value.

NIST tried to say the sulphur in drywall was the source of the sulphur in the corroded steel beam.

The Final draft has been released and they do not address the corroded beam we have been discussing.

GlennB

14th September 2008, 04:37 AM

Chris, your posts are getting wilder and wilder
.

There was molten metal in the debris pile and the liquid slag was this molten metal dripping on the beam and corroding it.

"Molten metal" and "liquid slag" are far from the same thing. This is what you have failed/refused to understand all along. Just put "slag" into Wikipedia, read, and you'll get a clue. If molten metal had been dripping on the beam then it would probably have increased in thickness, not reduced.

Don't bother with the phony chemistry expert stuff. You are an anonymous poster on a forum and your claims of superior knowledge are of no value.

You are also anonymous. He has demonstrated (not claimed) a far greater understanding of chemistry than you.

NIST tried to say the sulphur in drywall was the source of the sulphur in the corroded steel beam. The Final draft has been released and they do not address the corroded beam we have been discussing.

If you're talking about the WTC7 report, then where was an explanation of the corroded beam any part of their objectives?

Dave Rogers

15th September 2008, 02:48 AM

I have an explanation for the corroded beam, Do you?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

First of all, corrosion in a sulfur-rich atmosphere is a known explanation for partial melting and erosion of sample 1.

No, eutectic melting in a sulfur-rich atmosphere at a temperature typical of those caused by an office contents fire is a known explanation for the liquid slag, however many times you choose to pretend it isn't.

Sulphur from the wallboard, heat from the fires, oxygen from the atmosphere. This is the source of the liquid slag. What Sisson is describing here is eutectic melting.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
The above reference states that erosion of the steel appears to have taken place at below 1000ºC (note the significance of the word "approached"), within the range of temperatures of an office contents fire. The "eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide" referred to above is the "liquid slag" mentioned elsewhere in this thread, from which it is clear that the presence of this liquid slag does not imply the presence of molten steel.

From the above reference, "The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel." What was present, therefore, was a eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide, which at temperatures approaching 1000ºC is "a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen". This is basically different from molten steel in that it has a different chemical composition and a different melting point.

There was no need for the steel to be liquefied. Normal corrosion of steel in an oxygen-containing atmosphere produces iron oxide in the form of rust, and this will accelerate at higher temperatures. Sulphuric acid and heat acting on steel will (I assume, my chemistry runs out somewhere around here) produce iron sulphate, which degrades thermally to iron sulphide. Both can be produced without the temperature getting high enough to liquefy the steel.

The oxygen and sulphur in the atmosphere attack the steel in a high temperature corrosion process, which takes place preferentially at the grain boundaries of the steel. This process can take place substantially below the melting point of pure steel.
There were not two successive processes, the first of which melted the steel and the second of which transformed it to a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide. There was a single process which produced iron oxide and iron sulphide at the grain boundaries of the metal (which, like most metals, has a polycrystalline structure), and formed a liquid eutectic.

Here's a fact. A liquid mixture of iron sulphide and iron oxide is a different material to molten steel, with different physical properties. When you claim, therefore, that "Liquid slag containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is melted steel", after having been informed of this difference, and presented with references that back it up, you are therefore deliberately lying.

Dave

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

This is co-authored by Sisson, the origin of your quote about "a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen". Sisson is talking about the same material. Since it's a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide, it isn't iron.

There are two possibilities. One is that the liquid slag is a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide. This should of course be the first possibility to consider, because that is exactly what Barnett, Biederman and Sisson say it was.
The second possibility, and I'm not entirely certain it's a distinctly different phenomenon, is that the liquid slag was a mixture of iron, iron sulphide, and iron oxide.

Conversely, your "explanation" of the corroded beam makes no sense. Thermite burns too hot to do what you want it to.

Don't bother with the phony chemistry expert stuff. You are an anonymous poster on a forum and your claims of superior knowledge are of no value.

I'm not a chemistry expert, I'm a physicist. The chemistry I'm quoting, as I've said several times, is high school stuff.

From Wikipedia:

Chemistry (from Egyptian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language) kēme (chem), meaning "earth" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#cite_note-0)) is the science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) concerned with the composition, structure, and properties of matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter), as well as the changes it undergoes during chemical reactions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_reaction).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#cite_note-1)

You've shown repeatedly in this thread that you are unable to conceive of the possibility that a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide can have different physical properties than pure molten iron. This change in properties is one of the changes that matter undergoes in a chemical reaction. It would not be mere hyperbole, therefore, to say that you literally do not know the first thing about chemistry. To be quite honest and literal, I have yet to meet an adult who can't claim superior knowledge to you.

Anything and everything I've said in this thread can be verified through publicly available sources. Your inability to comprehend due to your shameful level of ignorance doesn't constitute a victory in debate.

Dave

Christopher7

16th September 2008, 09:48 PM

1)First of all, corrosion in a sulfur-rich atmosphere is a known explanation for partial melting and erosion of sample 1.
2) No, eutectic melting in a sulfur-rich atmosphere at a temperature typical of those caused by an office contents fire is a known explanation for the liquid slag, however many times you choose to pretend it isn't.
Atmosphere? The sulphur did not climb into the steel, it was a high temperature atmosphere [approaching 1000ºC] that corroded the beam.
Only fully ventilated fires can attain those temperatures. Smoldering fires in a debris pile cannot.
They had been pouring water on the hot spots for 5 days when the thermal images showed temperatures of 727ºC on top of the pile. This can only be the molten metal that Mark Loizeaux and others spoke of. Any fire would have been doused by 5 days of water being applied.

3) No, eutectic melting in a sulfur-rich atmosphere at a temperature typical of those caused by an office contents fire is a known explanation for the liquid slag, it isn't.Typical? This was an unprecedented event. You are talking thru your hat.

Enough of this Merry-go-Round.

Why don't you send your data, based on your chemistry expertise, to NIST?
They need some help.

They did not mention the corroded beam in their final draft!

The FEMA report stated that further study was needed.

Why hasn't this study been done?

Why is NIST ignoring the corroded beam and the molten metal?

Jonnyclueless

17th September 2008, 02:10 AM

Because there is nothing to even remotely suggest that the metal corrosion occurred before or during the collapse. They studied the cause of the collapse, not what happened to the material after the collapse.

Dave Rogers

17th September 2008, 04:11 AM

Atmosphere? The sulphur did not climb into the steel, it was a high temperature atmosphere [approaching 1000ºC] that corroded the beam.

Hot enough, therefore, that any sulphuric acid resulting from thermal decomposition of gypsum wallboard in the presence of water must have been present in the vapour phase. In other words, it boiled, after which it could easily spread upwards, like steam from a kettle. The high temperature atmosphere you're talking about contained sulphuric acid vapour, which is where the sulphur came from. As I explained a hundred or so posts ago. Again, you're embarrassing yourself by not having any idea what you're talking about.

Only fully ventilated fires can attain those temperatures. Smoldering fires in a debris pile cannot.

Give some evidence, or stop repeating a mere assertion. Smouldering vegetation fires don't count; anyone should be able to see that they're not thermally insulated to the same degree.

They had been pouring water on the hot spots for 5 days when the thermal images showed temperatures of 727ºC on top of the pile. This can only be the molten metal that Mark Loizeaux and others spoke of. Any fire would have been doused by 5 days of water being applied.

This is completely absurd. If there were no fire, then hot metal would have been cooled even faster. The only possible source of heat after days of dousing was a continuing fire too large for the water to extinguish. Any thermite reaction would have burned out in minutes, not days. A smouldering contents fire is the only possible heat source.

Oh, and steel is solid at 727ºC, so that rather suggests that any molten metal wasn't steel.

Why don't you send your data, based on your chemistry expertise, to NIST?

Because they already know about all this.

They did not mention the corroded beam in their final draft!

The FEMA report stated that further study was needed.

Why hasn't this study been done?

Why is NIST ignoring the corroded beam and the molten metal?

Let's take this one step at a time.

Metallurgical analysis of the corroded beam shows that the corrosion was due to a high temperature atmosphere containing sulphur, in the form of sulphuric acid vapour.

This requires a large quantity of gypsum to have been heated in the presence of water, in a confined space, fairly close to the steel column.

These conditions are known to have existed in the rubble pile after the collapse.

These conditions are known not to have existed in the building prior to, or during, the collapse.

Therefore, the corrosion of the steel is concluded to have taken place after the collapse.

NIST's investigation was to determine the cause of the collapse.

Things that happened after the collapse can't have caused the collapse.

Therefore, NIST's report into the causes of the collapse doesn't include any investigation of the corrosion of the steel.

Dave

Christopher7

17th September 2008, 04:50 PM

Hot enough, therefore, that any sulphuric acid resulting from thermal decomposition of gypsum wallboard in the presence of water must have been present in the vapour phase. In other words, it boiled, after which it could easily spread upwards, like steam from a kettle.
DaveFascinating speculation. Unfortunately, there is no science to back it up.

Christopher7

17th September 2008, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7
They had been pouring water on the hot spots for 5 days when the thermal images showed temperatures of 727ºC on top of the pile. This can only be the molten metal that Mark Loizeaux and others spoke of. Any fire would have been doused by 5 days of water being applied.

The only possible source of heat after days of dousing was a continuing fire too large for the water to extinguish.Fire too large?
47 stories were compacted into a rounded pile about 4 stories at the highest point. There was no room for a large fire. The combustible contents were crushed between concrete floors, steel framework, drywall and other noncombustible materials.

Furthermore
The fire could not burn for 5 days. There just wasn't enough fuel.

Any thermite reaction would have burned out in minutes, not days. You are a master of missing the obvious.

A thermite reaction burns out in minutes as you say, but it burns at 4500ºF and results in molten iron at 4500ºF. This is over 1300ºF above the melting point of iron. Insulated in the debris pile, the molten metal [described by Mark Loizeaux and many others] was still near or at the melting point weeks later.

funk de fino

17th September 2008, 08:57 PM

So, the millions of gallons of firefighter water that C7 claims put out the fire quickly could not cool the molten metal?

Em....OK

I did not think this thread could get any worse. I was wrong.

Please tell us why out of all the thousands of tons of steel from WTC1, 2 and 7 that were inspected only two small beams showed any evidence of this phenomena if thermite was used for demolition?

Really, only two samples?

C7 the apparent chemist has also failed to answer as to how sulphuric acid is created and what it does to steel/metal, especially when diluted and heated.

Jonnyclueless

17th September 2008, 09:03 PM

Fascinating speculation. Unfortunately, there is no science to back it up.

Yes, like your controlled demolition theories are just the paramount of science.

"Hey it looks like a CD, so it must be one".

Yeah, like you have any business being judgmental over science.

"47 stories were compacted into a rounded pile about 4 stories at the highest point. There was no room for a large fire. The combustible contents were crushed between concrete floors, steel framework, drywall and other noncombustible materials. "

And then immediately afterwords you completely make things up like in that statement which is complete nonsense and doesn't contain any truth or reality what so ever.

Dave Rogers

18th September 2008, 02:28 AM

Fascinating speculation. Unfortunately, there is no science to back it up.

Chris, I don't know how to put this strongly enough: if you don't know the difference, as you've repeatedly stated, between an iron oxide / iron sulphide mixture and molten iron, then you know nothing about science beyond how to spell the word. You have no understanding of thermal conductivity if you believe that the rubble pile could have taken a matter of weeks to cool from 4500ºF to 3200ºF. You have no understanding of chemistry when you claim that there is no science to back up the claim that sulphuric acid is a vapour at 1000ºC. And you have no understanding of the mechanics of combustion when you claim that there "was no room for a large fire" in the rubble pile. All you're doing in this thread is shouting your ignorance from the rooftops, then claiming that your ignorance is knowledge.

The combustibles were compressed and heated. Air diffused in through the rubble pile, and when and where air came into contact with the hot combustibles, i.e. round the edges of large combustible regions, combustion took place. When and where hot combustibles were starved of air, i.e. in the centre of such large regions, combustion stopped, but the temperature could not fall because combustion was still generating heat around the regions where air was excluded, so the heat could not escape because the surrounding regions were at a higher temperature; this is basic thermodynamics. The surrounding rubble enhanced this by insulating the combustibles, hence trapping the heat more effectively. As a result, combustion was slow but continuous for many weeks. This is what's meant by a smouldering, oxygen-limited fire. And all this is obvious; who's the master at missing it?

Dave

Christopher7

18th September 2008, 07:49 PM

So, the millions of gallons of firefighter water that C7 claims put out the fire quickly could not cool the molten metal?I know it sounds crazy but that appears to be the case.
Many highly qualified people stated that there was molten metal in the debris pile, weeks later.
You may think they are stupid or crazy or liars but then, you say that about anybody who says anything that destroys the official fairy tale.

Really, only two samples?Alas, only two.

Christopher7

18th September 2008, 08:05 PM

Chris, You have no understanding of thermal conductivity if you believe that the rubble pile could have taken a matter of weeks to cool from 4500ºF to 3200ºF.Dave, You have no appreciation for reality. There was molten metal in the debris pile weeks later.

The sulphur in drywall is locked in a chemical cage and there is no precedent or scientific proof that it could have been the source for the sulphur in the steel. This is pure speculation.

Your claim that it could is meaningless without a credible scientific source to back it up. You talk about sulpheric acid. Please give the source that states how the sulphur in drywall can freed to form sulphiric acid.

beachnut

18th September 2008, 08:20 PM

I know it sounds crazy but that appears to be the case.
Many highly qualified people stated that there was molten metal in the debris pile, weeks later.
You may think they are stupid or crazy or liars but then, you say that about anybody who says anything that destroys the official fairy tale.

Alas, only two. Sources? I heard hearsay, but no first hand or reason. But thermite was not the cause.

So list the highly qualified people. Bet they all agree with NIST. Darn.

The thermite idiot ideas are Jones and people with zero understanding that he made it up! He has no evidence, the same as you for CD! Only idiots would think molten metal was caused by thermite. Or real dumb people.

What do you think the cause of the hearsay molten metal is? 7 years and you are still a no evidence CD failed idea guy.

Dave Rogers

19th September 2008, 02:38 AM

Dave, You have no appreciation for reality. There was molten metal in the debris pile weeks later.

If this is true, then the high temperatures required could not have arisen shortly after the collapse and then persisted for weeks. The only possible explanation for molten metal weeks later is that fires continued to burn in oxygen-starved conditions in the rubble pile. The difference between our respective appreciations of reality is that you're ignoring thermal conduction, and I'm not.

The sulphur in drywall is locked in a chemical cage and there is no precedent or scientific proof that it could have been the source for the sulphur in the steel. This is pure speculation.

Your claim that it could is meaningless without a credible scientific source to back it up. You talk about sulpheric acid. Please give the source that states how the sulphur in drywall can freed to form sulphiric acid.

"Locked in a chemical cage"? Seriously, if you're arguing on the basis of colourful metaphors, you're making yourself look even more ridiculous.

OK, let's start from Gypsum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum

"Gypsum is a very soft mineral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral) composed of calcium sulfate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_sulfate) dihydrate, with the chemical formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_formula) Ca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium)S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur)O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen)4·2H2O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum#cite_note-0)"

"There are a large number of uses for gypsum throughout prehistory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory) and history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History). Some of these uses are:

Drywall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall)"
Now let's move on to the chemical properties of calcium sulphate.

http://www.pelchem.com/pdf/CaSO4-MSDS.pdf

This is a Material Safety Data Sheet for calcium sulphate, the main component of gypsum wallboard, and present in the WTC7 rubble in huge amounts. An MSDS is an important document which is used in determining safety precaustions in handling materials in industrial processes. Note the following points under section 10, Stability and Reactivity:

"Stability: Hygroscopic, heating can release dangerous gases."
"Hazardous decomposition products: Sulphur oxides."

The oxides of sulphur are sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_trioxide

"Sulfur Trioxide reacts with water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water) to create sulfuric acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid), though the reaction is too violent to be used in large-scale manufacturing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide

"Since coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal) and petroleum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum) often contain sulfur compounds, their combustion generates sulfur dioxide. Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide), forms H2SO4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid), and thus acid rain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide#cite_note-1)"

Therefore, the sulphur present in the wallboard is capable of decomposing when heated to liberate sulphur dioxide and trioxide, which combine with water to form sulphuric acid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid

"Boiling point 290ºC"

Above 290ºC, sulphuric acid is therefore a vapour, and able to diffuse away from its point of generation and corrode metals in other places.

Gypsum, heat and water; all that's needed to create a corrosive atmosphere. Is that enough science for you?

Dave

Christopher7

19th September 2008, 03:19 AM

If this is true, then the high temperatures required could not have arisen shortly after the collapse and then persisted for weeks. The only possible explanation for molten metal weeks later is that fires continued to burn in oxygen-starved conditions in the rubble pile. The difference between our respective appreciations of reality is that you're ignoring thermal conduction, and I'm not.

"Locked in a chemical cage"? Seriously, if you're arguing on the basis of colourful metaphors, you're making yourself look even more ridiculous.

OK, let's start from Gypsum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum

"Gypsum is a very soft mineral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral) composed of calcium sulfate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_sulfate) dihydrate, with the chemical formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_formula) Ca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium)S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur)O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen)4·2H2O (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsum#cite_note-0)"

"There are a large number of uses for gypsum throughout prehistory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory) and history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History). Some of these uses are:

Drywall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall)"

Now let's move on to the chemical properties of calcium sulphate.

http://www.pelchem.com/pdf/CaSO4-MSDS.pdf

This is a Material Safety Data Sheet for calcium sulphate, the main component of gypsum wallboard, and present in the WTC7 rubble in huge amounts. An MSDS is an important document which is used in determining safety precaustions in handling materials in industrial processes. Note the following points under section 10, Stability and Reactivity:

"Stability: Hygroscopic, heating can release dangerous gases."
"Hazardous decomposition products: Sulphur oxides."

The oxides of sulphur are sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_trioxide

"Sulfur Trioxide reacts with water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water) to create sulfuric acid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid), though the reaction is too violent to be used in large-scale manufacturing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide

"Since coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal) and petroleum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum) often contain sulfur compounds, their combustion generates sulfur dioxide. Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide), forms H2SO4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid), and thus acid rain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide#cite_note-1)"

Therefore, the sulphur present in the wallboard is capable of decomposing when heated to liberate sulphur dioxide and trioxide, which combine with water to form sulphuric acid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfuric_acid

"Boiling point 290ºC"

Above 290ºC, sulphuric acid is therefore a vapour, and able to diffuse away from its point of generation and corrode metals in other places.

Gypsum, heat and water; all that's needed to create a corrosive atmosphere. Is that enough science for you?

DaveVery impressive.

Has this ever actually happened in a fire? If so, please give a source.

If drywall is so dangerous, why do the use it for fireproofing?

Dave Rogers

19th September 2008, 04:23 AM

Has this ever actually happened in a fire? If so, please give a source.

Not necessary. The sole cause of decomposition is prolonged high temperature, and the high temperature caused by a fire is in no way different from the high temperature produced by any other means. The actual conditions in the WTC rubble pile fire were extremely rare, but we know that they included gypsum and temperatures close to 1000ºC. In those conditions, gypsum will decompose.

If drywall is so dangerous, why do the use it for fireproofing?

Because drywall is a hydrated form of calcium sulphate.

http://www.usg.com/resources/handbooks/ViewSection.do?bookId=1&chapterNum=0&sectionNum=7

Fire Resistance Neither gypsum nor portland cement panels will support combustion. When attacked by fire, the chemically combined water in the gypsum crystal is released and turns to steam to help retard the spread of flame and protect adjacent constructions. Cement board, too, is an effective fire barrier. Both constructions meet fire resistance and flame spread requirements of all model building codes. Fire resistance ratings up to four hours are available with specific gypsum partition, wall, floor-ceiling, beam and column fireproofing assemblies.

Note what this says: fire resistance up to four hours. Once the water of hydration is gone, the gypsum heats up and decomposes, but this requires times at elevated temperatures much greater than four hours. Several weeks, in this context, is very much greater than four hours.

Please note, also, the "up to". This is not a statement that structural members protected by gypsum wallboard cannot be damaged by fire exposures up to four hours, although I fully expect you to claim this in another thread.

Dave

Christopher7

19th September 2008, 05:40 AM

Not necessary. The sole cause of decomposition is prolonged high temperature, and the high temperature caused by a fire is in no way different from the high temperature produced by any other means. The actual conditions in the WTC rubble pile fire were extremely rare, but we know that they included gypsum and temperatures close to 1000ºC.Once again, fully ventilated fires burn at 1000ºC for a short time. Oxygen starved fires burn at 500 - 600ºC

Note what this says: fire resistance up to four hours. Once the water of hydration is gone, the gypsum heats up and decomposes,Where does it say that it releases the sulphur?

How and under what conditions are the strong bonds in the chemical cage broken? Please give a reputable source.

Dave Rogers

19th September 2008, 05:56 AM

Once again, fully ventilated fires burn at 1000ºC for a short time. Oxygen starved fires burn at 500 - 600ºC

Please give a reputable source.

How and under what conditions are the strong bonds in the chemical cage broken? Please give a reputable source.

I've had enough of running round after you. Look it up yourself.

Dave

funk de fino

19th September 2008, 06:34 AM

I know it sounds crazy but that appears to be the case. Many highly qualified people stated that there was molten metal in the debris pile, weeks later. You may think they are stupid or crazy or liars but then, you say that about anybody who says anything that destroys the official fairy tale.

Wrong. If the water put out the fires it would have cooled your molten metal. The water would have collected where the molten metal was. You are making the ridiculous claim.

I am not saying the fires would have been put out quickly.

Alas, only two.

Why only two out of the thousands of tons inspected by forensic investigators was there only two? If thremite was used why not more samples showing similar signs?

Miragememories

19th September 2008, 10:46 AM

"Why only two out of the thousands of tons inspected by forensic investigators was there only two? If thremite was used why not more samples showing similar signs?"
Please provide a source that supports your statement that "...thousands of tons was inspected by forensic investigators..."?

MM

jaydeehess

19th September 2008, 11:17 AM

Please, we are discussing a liquid slag that eroded a steel beam, not water or air.

Liquid slag containing iron, oxygen and sulphur is a byproduct of thermate.

You do not have another explanation for the liquid slag so you talk in circles.

"lead" solder contains a mix of lead and tin. Oddly enough, although I can melt the solder with my propane torch I cannot melt tin or copper with it. However when I solder copper using lead solder it not only melts the solder but also a thin layer of the copper forming the bond.

In fact solder is a eutectic mixture that functions to lower the melting temperature of the copper.

Sounds quite familiar in relation to the steel at WTC 7 , right?

funk de fino

19th September 2008, 11:43 AM

Please provide a source that supports your statement that "...thousands of tons was inspected by forensic investigators..."?

MM

Here you go. I imagine you have seen it before but I suspect you will handwave it away. If you have a problem with the claim please contact the relevant person and do not cry to me.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

Miragememories

19th September 2008, 12:16 PM

Here you go. I imagine you have seen it before but I suspect you will handwave it away. If you have a problem with the claim please contact the relevant person and do not cry to me.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

You suspect I will hand wave it away?

This is a thread about WTC7.

Maybe you expect me to hand wave your document away because in it's references to WTC7, it doesn't say anything about;

""...thousands of tons was inspected by forensic nvestigators..."

MM

funk de fino

19th September 2008, 12:40 PM

You suspect I will hand wave it away?

This is a thread about WTC7.

Maybe you expect me to hand wave your document away because in it's references to WTC7, it doesn't say anything about;

MM

All the steel from the site was taken to the inseoction areas. WTC7 and the towers steel was mixed together. The investigators inspected all steel. Therefore the steel from WTC7 was inspected as Blanchard states.

Did I say it was all in reference to WTC7 anyway? Lets see. I was talking about the two samples one of which was from the towers and one of which was from the WTC7.

Therefore you are wrong and I provided a source for my claims about the inspections. If you disagree with the claim contact Blanchard or the demo teams or the public officials and dont cry to me again.

PS The mentions of molten steel we are looking at in this thread are not exclusive to WTC7 either. Nice attempt to dodge rather than explain or admit the source is there.

Christopher7

20th September 2008, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7
Once again, fully ventilated fires burn at 1000ºC for a short time. Oxygen starved fires burn at 500 - 600º.

Please give a reputable source.Originally Posted by GlennB

"A fire in solid fuel which is heat-limited will smoulder and the maximum expected temperatures would be in the order of 500 - 600°C rather than the normal values of 900°C.

The rate of combustion is very slow. Pyrolysis of any flammable material will produce smoke, but the radiant heat output is insufficient to ignite the gases, or other solid objects in the scene. Some convection may be present in the immediate vicinity but the lower temperatures cannot develop a plume so ventilation which is limited anyway can not develop and therefore the fire cannot generate a sustainable self perpetuating air flow. This lack of oxygen will limit the development of the fire and not permit a flaming fire to occur... there is just enough air entering the system to allow the pyrolosis of the materials.

Smouldering fires are slow, circa 5-6cm / hour, so the heat build up tends to be local and can maintain the peak for periods of weeks given the circumstances of building collapses, especially when buried under materials such as concrete which give some insulation but more they hold the heat well (look at the principle of electric storage heaters).

So to answer your question... no the temperature of a smouldering fire cannot get hotter than a flaming fire.... if it did the smouldering material would burst into flame."

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3699111#post3699111

Jonnyclueless

20th September 2008, 09:24 AM

jaydeehess

20th September 2008, 08:59 PM

Of course underground fires that have burned for centuries put a damper in Chris's thnking. As does the fact that thermite does not cause material to stay melted for months, so we can rule that out right away.

Chris wants the insulation properties of the debris pile to be enough to have the heat released by the therm*te dissapate so slowly that the steel would remain molten for months.

Chris wants a published source to explain how an underground fire can reach 900 degrees.

How about Chris demonstrating the math that would allow the insulative properties of the debris pile to allow for metal made molten during collapse to remain molten for months. ( even if one ignores the heat escape after therm*te ignition and before collapse )

Seems we are at an impasse then. Chris simply cannot demonstrate that any therm*te was present or used and since no one can know exactly the air supply conditions in the debris pile neither side could possibly convince the other.

,,, or are we? At the very least the so-called 'official story' can show that there were regular office fires in WTC 7 and that the debris pile contained a large amount of combustible material. The CT cannot supply anything at all other than pure unadulterated conjecture.

As for slag and eutectic mixtures;
"lead" solder contains a mix of lead and tin. Oddly enough, although I can melt the solder with my propane torch I cannot melt tin or copper with it. However when I solder copper using lead solder it not only melts the solder but also a thin layer of the copper forming the bond.

In fact solder is a eutectic mixture that functions to lower the melting temperature of the copper.

Sounds quite familiar in relation to the steel at WTC 7 , right?