POSITIVE EVIDENCE for WTC7 Controlled Demolition

Daleks did it, here's the proof:

wtc7-daleks.jpg


Note to mod's the image is hosted on my own website.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
what does this mean then?
Click to expand...

Sizzler the kindling temperature of steel is 980c, lower if acids are present and burning steel produces temperatures of over 3000c.

You have tons of burning plastics in the rubble pile releasing HCl that is going to have a definite effect on the steel just as it has an effect on steel in fires.

The intergrandular melting simply means that the Crystalline lattice structure broke down, that can occur if chloride at lower temperature, and if the metals is then exposed to sulfates a replacement reaction can take place replacing the chlorides with sulfates.

At temperatures above 520 the steel will actually give off the sulfates as SO2, do to the break down of the bonds between the sulfates and the steel.
 
Sizzler said:
Dude I don't care to reply because your question is stupid.
I can post more than photo of a large fire in an skyscraper that is cited as being 800C.

Thus I use that figure for WTC7 even though the fire is smaller.

So whatever, right.

800C is fair.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because your statement was stupid.

How can you possibly maintain the position that you can tell the temperature of a building on fire by looking at it?

That seems quite absurd to me- but apparently to you it's kosher. Can you explain the method of determining temperature by visual comparison? Let's make sure you're not just making this crap up- and that it's a repeatable and objective estimation.

You can start by posting the pictures of the fires you're referencing for your visual comparison.
 
Sizzler said:
Thanks. You helped me out a lot.

I'll start with this.

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

Again, I think the key factor is what form the available sulfur is in. In a fire, sulfur often exists as H2S gas, which is quite reactive. In things like unrefined diesel fuel, there's a significant quantity of sulfuric acid. The sulfur in wallboard is in a much less reactive form. I'm not a chemist, mind you, this is just my interpretation, but I've read Biederman's work and he considers the wallboard well down on his list of possibilities. He even lists acid rain as a potential source of slowly built-up iron sulfides, that catalyze later when the fire hits.

Sizzler said:
but then I read this about the Twin Towers,


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

So I assumed the WTC7 steel would experience similar temperatures before collapse.

So I wonder how some beams increased from 750-800C to nearing 1000C. And, where did the sulfur come from?
Click to expand...

You need to keep in mind that Eagar's paper came out very quickly after the collapses, and is not up to date. Also, he's describing the temperatures before collapse, not afterward. Any structure will probably hit a maximum temperature before it collapses. It may burn hotter after it collapses, simply because less heat will be lost through open windows and exposed surface area. We expect the WTC fires to have been hotter in some places after collapse than before collapse.

And again, "hydrocarbon fires" can get quite hot. Cardington showed that office fires can get to 1200 oC or higher. Smouldering fires are not necessarily cooler, they just take longer to reach high temperatures.
 
Sizzler, please keep in mind that 40,000 gallons of diesel was consumed (probably burned) in WTC7 during the day.
 
Sizzler said:
what does this mean then?
Click to expand...
It means you're trying to falsely imply that the fires in the piles were pure hydrocarbon fires burning in open air. Why are you doing that, when you should be busy doing this:

Sixth time, Sizzler: present your evidence that the fires in the piles could not have have burned as they did.

Next, present your evidence that explosives or incendiaries like thermite cause months-long, spreading fires in rubble piles.
 
GT/CS said:
Sizzler, please keep in mind that 40,000 gallons of diesel was consumed (probably burned) in WTC7 during the day.
Click to expand...
I don't think the disposition of that fuel is known, and the NIST report is apparently not going to conclude that diesel fuel was a factor in the collapse.
 
NIST are being WAY too fair.

The fuel tanks were known to be nearly full before the attack.

The fuel tanks were found to be undamaged and empty during site clearing.

There was no fuel in the clay liner the tank was buried with.

WTC-7's Day Tank system was battery-operated and triggered by a pressure drop.

There is just no reasonable conclusion other than the fuel being pumped up to the generator floor where it flooded the floor and was consumed by fire.

And this has already been considered in the design of buildings with generator systems since that date.
 
R.Mackey said:
Again, I think the key factor is what form the available sulfur is in. In a fire, sulfur often exists as H2S gas, which is quite reactive. In things like unrefined diesel fuel, there's a significant quantity of sulfuric acid. The sulfur in wallboard is in a much less reactive form. I'm not a chemist, mind you, this is just my interpretation, but I've read Biederman's work and he considers the wallboard well down on his list of possibilities. He even lists acid rain as a potential source of slowly built-up iron sulfides, that catalyze later when the fire hits.



You need to keep in mind that Eagar's paper came out very quickly after the collapses, and is not up to date. Also, he's describing the temperatures before collapse, not afterward. Any structure will probably hit a maximum temperature before it collapses. It may burn hotter after it collapses, simply because less heat will be lost through open windows and exposed surface area. We expect the WTC fires to have been hotter in some places after collapse than before collapse.

And again, "hydrocarbon fires" can get quite hot. Cardington showed that office fires can get to 1200 oC or higher. Smouldering fires are not necessarily cooler, they just take longer to reach high temperatures.
Click to expand...

Your explanations make a lot of sense to me. What are some other sources of sulfur? I've always considered the wallboard a rather unusual source yet no one has ever conceded such. Thanks for helping me out.

I must admit I am still struggling with the rubble pile fires.

Why is thinned steel considered an anomoly?

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. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
Click to expand...

and...

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. 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 weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
Click to expand...
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

but you said:

In a fire, sulfur often exists as H2S gas, which is quite reactive
Click to expand...


So my question is;

Is melted steel an anomoly?
And, should further studies be done to determine if it is more likely to have occured before or after collapse or even at all? Do you think NIST is going to do detailed studies about this?

I mean, it could have occured before collapse, thus contributing to the weakening of the building. right?
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
So my question is;

Is melted steel an anomoly?
Click to expand...
No. As has been repeatedly explained to you, all 250,000 tons of steel in the towers and WTC 7 melted. That's why it was only necessary to preserve three small samples of steel that showed intergranular melting. :rolleyes:

I'm having a hard time believing that anyone can be this dense without trying to be.

Seventh time, Sizzler: present your evidence that the fires in the piles could not have have burned as they did.

Next, present your evidence that explosives or incendiaries like thermite cause months-long, spreading fires in rubble piles.

Time to crap or get off the pot, Sizzler. Do it now.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
I'm still working on my learning of debate fallacies; is crap or get off the pot a false dichotomy?
Click to expand...
If Sizzler were writing all of this to himself, he'd never have to get off the pot. He doesn't have that luxury in a forum. Endless arguments from ignorance and incredulity, and JAQing off, are rude and immature.
 
gravy

a·nom·a·ly
–noun, plural -lies. 1. a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
2. someone or something anomalous: With his quiet nature, he was an anomaly in his exuberant family.
3. an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.
4. an incongruity or inconsistency.
Click to expand...

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. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
Click to expand...

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

So Gravy, my next question is;

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 weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
Click to expand...

Why hasn't this anomaly been further investigated? And, will NIST do detailed studies to determine when and where sulfidation leading to intergranular melting occured?

This could have happened before collapse, as suggested by the link I provided and you are aware of. If this happened before collapse it would help to explain why the steel failed in the manner it did.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
If Sizzler were writing all of this to himself, he'd never have to get off the pot. He doesn't have that luxury in a forum. Endless arguments from ignorance and incredulity, and JAQing off, are rude and immature.
Click to expand...

Yup. Sadly, it appears that rudeness and immaturity are a badge of honor to some.
 
Sizzler said:
Your explanations make a lot of sense to me. What are some other sources of sulfur? I've always considered the wallboard a rather unusual source yet no one has ever conceded such. Thanks for helping me out.
Click to expand...

It would help if we new how widespread the sulfidation was. It's quite rare. Fuels are an obvious source, Biederman actually did say acid rain; there's been talk of large banks of lead-acid batteries in UPS systems too. Biological processes can theoretically provide sulfur but I doubt it.

Wallboard gives rise to H2S in landfills, through bacterial action, but it takes a lot of time. Years. And heat won't accelerate this, since it kills the bacteria. Wallboard plus hydrochloric acid might work...

Sizzler said:
I must admit I am still struggling with the rubble pile fires.

Why is thinned steel considered an anomoly?
Click to expand...
It's not common in building fires. Heck, it's not common in the WTC, either. Only one piece was found from the Towers, and less than ten, I think, from WTC 7. It's so anomalous that it may be insignificant to understanding the collapse, but it's weird enough to merit some attention.

Sizzler said:
So my question is;

Is melted steel an anomoly?
And, should further studies be done to determine if it is more likely to have occured before or after collapse or even at all? Do you think NIST is going to do detailed studies about this?
Click to expand...
This is a critical detail: The sulfidized steel is not melted steel. It did not melt. It was severely eroded, and its melting temperature lowered, but if it had actually melted, we would never have recovered it at all. It would turn into a puddle of slag, not a fancy thinned curved steel shape with holes eaten out of it. It is proof against melting.

Personally I think it should be studied. I think it's possible that there's an additional mechanism in office fires -- perhaps due to modern materials -- that accelerates chemical attack, and lowers the softening temperature of steel to the point that insulation is even more important.

I don't think this was significant in WTC 7, since there are so few pieces, but it might be significant someday. I also have no way of knowing if it happened while the building was standing (important) or after it collapsed (not so important).

I will be prodding NIST to comment on this in their WTC 7 report, if they don't on their own. It's interesting enough to try to learn from it.

Sizzler said:
I mean, it could have occured before collapse, thus contributing to the weakening of the building. right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think this is possible, though unlikely since it's such a rare thing. There are many different ways that fire affects steel. This is just one of them.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
It would help if we new how widespread the sulfidation was. It's quite rare. Fuels are an obvious source, Biederman actually did say acid rain; there's been talk of large banks of lead-acid batteries in UPS systems too. Biological processes can theoretically provide sulfur but I doubt it.

Wallboard gives rise to H2S in landfills, through bacterial action, but it takes a lot of time. Years. And heat won't accelerate this, since it kills the bacteria. Wallboard plus hydrochloric acid might work...


It's not common in building fires. Heck, it's not common in the WTC, either. Only one piece was found from the Towers, and less than ten, I think, from WTC 7. It's so anomalous that it may be insignificant to understanding the collapse, but it's weird enough to merit some attention.


This is a critical detail: The sulfidized steel is not melted steel. It did not melt. It was severely eroded, and its melting temperature lowered, but if it had actually melted, we would never have recovered it at all. It would turn into a puddle of slag, not a fancy thinned curved steel shape with holes eaten out of it. It is proof against melting.

Personally I think it should be studied. I think it's possible that there's an additional mechanism in office fires -- perhaps due to modern materials -- that accelerates chemical attack, and lowers the softening temperature of steel to the point that insulation is even more important.

I don't think this was significant in WTC 7, since there are so few pieces, but it might be significant someday. I also have no way of knowing if it happened while the building was standing (important) or after it collapsed (not so important).

I will be prodding NIST to comment on this in their WTC 7 report, if they don't on their own. It's interesting enough to try to learn from it.



Yes, I think this is possible, though unlikely since it's such a rare thing. There are many different ways that fire affects steel. This is just one of them.
Click to expand...

What does intergranular melting mean? I understand what rapid oxidation is but intergranular melting is reported too. What exactly is intergranular melting, and how would that differ from just using the word, melting?

Again, thanks for your comments. Very helpful.
 
Sizzler said:
What does intergranular melting mean? I understand what rapid oxidation is but intergranular melting is reported too. What exactly is intergranular melting, and how would that differ from just using the word, melting?

Again, thanks for your comments. Very helpful.
Click to expand...

As before, you're better off with a chemist, or better yet a metallurgist, but I'll do the best I can.

The steel has different "regions," think of it as edges of different crystal structures. Depending on how the steel is alloyed and how it's made, the regions will be different, as in ferrite, cementite, and martensite -- different configurations of steel.

The boundaries of these regions will exist as microscopic imperfections. Along with the type of steel itself, these boundaries govern the overall properties of steel. Hence a low-quality steel can have irregular crystals, while a very high-quality steel would be a single crystal or amorphous, and stronger, higher heat conduction, less vibrational damping, etc. as a result.

Caustic chemicals like our sulfur compounds will preferentially attack these region boundaries -- they're the weakest bound and easiest points of attack. The sulfur reacts with the steel, forming new compounds and exposing additional areas for future reactions. This is the "intergranular" part.

The new sulfur compounds and the steel can form a "eutectic mixture," that is to say, a combination of elements that has a melting temperature lower than any of its components. The example I use in my whitepaper is of ice and salt. Ice melts at 0oC, salt melts at 802oC, but the mixture melts at a lower temperature than either -- perhaps -20oC.

Something similar happens in the steel. Where the sulfur-iron compounds and ordinary iron compounds are well-mixed, a eutectic forms, and this can melt away, leaving holes and curled edges, etc. But -- and this is the key point -- neither the steel nor the sulfur compound, by themselves, melts. These survive. This is what Dr. Biederman is reporting on.


And with that, I am way out of my field, and heading still further out. Anyone who knows more about this stuff, please feel free to correct me about any of the above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom