POSITIVE EVIDENCE for WTC7 Controlled Demolition

[Gravy]

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

Now you're posting definitions of "anomaly," when you've been told again and again and again that the eroded steel was highly anomalous?

Do not pretend to be that stupid, Sizzler. Your act is rude and immature.

So Gravy, my next question is;

Why hasn't this anomaly been further investigated?

Had you read the material I directed you to, you'd know that it has been further investigated. How many times do you have to be told not to argue from ignorance?

Eighth 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.

 

[Sizzler]

Now you're posting definitions of "anomaly," when you've been told again and again and again that the eroded steel was highly anomalous?

Do not pretend to be that stupid, Sizzler. Your act is rude and immature.

Had you read the material I directed you to, you'd know that it has been further investigated. How many times do you have to be told not to argue from ignorance?

Eighth 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.

The links you provided me to only have the abstracts available. My question remains:

Is there a likely source of available sulfur?

And, could this likely source have been available before the collapse, thus contributing to the weakening of the steel?

Acid rain and batteries have been discussed. Have any tests been done to see if they are likely sources? That is my question. The abstracts of the papers you linked me to do not specify.

And if there haven't been any tests, will NIST be looking into this?

And although only a few pieces were saved for examination, does that mean they are the only pieces? Or is it more likely that there were indeed several more pieces that were unknowingly recycled?

 

[Gravy]

The links you provided me to only have the abstracts available.

You falsely claimed that no further research was done. I suggest that you contact Messrs. Barnett, Biederman, Sisson, and Gayle for more information.

Will you?

 

[Gravy]

My question remains:

Is there a likely source of available sulfur?

And, could this likely source have been available before the collapse, thus contributing to the weakening of the steel?

Acid rain and batteries have been discussed. Have any tests been done to see if they are likely sources? That is my question. The abstracts of the papers you linked me to do not specify.

You apparently didn't even read the abstracts. The experiments concerned tests on steel as if it were in the standing building. The various additive powders are listed.

 

[Sizzler]

You falsely claimed that no further research was done. I suggest that you contact Messrs. Barnett, Biederman, Sisson, and Gayle for more information.

Will you?

Ok Gravy. I made a false claim based on ignorance.

Your links did not answer my questions and thus my ignorance remains.

Now there are 3 choices.

1. I remain ignorant.
2. I contact authors of papers I've seen abstracts of, to see if they have done the tests I am curious about
3. You tell me if they have done them or not.

So, my question to you remains.

Have there been any tests done to determine the likelyhood of a natural source of sulfur, and, was that source only available after the collapse?

 

[Sizzler]

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 0^oC, salt melts at 802^oC, but the mixture melts at a lower temperature than either -- perhaps -20^oC.

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.

Thanks. The salt water example helped a lot.

What does a eutectic mixture look like?

Does it look like liquid steel? And if the eutectic mixture continued to eat away at the steel structure, would it eventually become a pool of molten liquid?

 

[Gravy]

So, my question to you remains.

Have there been any tests done to determine the likelyhood of a natural source of sulfur, and, was that source only available after the collapse?

How would I know? The important thing to know is, did this, or can this, happen to a standing building? I directed you to people who have expertise in these matters, and who have done some experiments to look further into this fascinating phenomenon.

You claim to be interested in learning more. So what are you going to do?

 

[Sizzler]

How would I know? The important thing to know is, did this, or can this, happen to a standing building? I directed you to people who have expertise in these matters, and who have done some experiments to look further into this fascinating phenomenon.

You claim to be interested in learning more. So what are you going to do?

So you haven't actually read the papers then?

 

[Gravy]

So you haven't actually read the papers then?

Was something unclear about what the abstracts of the seminar presentations describe, or about my last posts?

You now know of experts you can turn to. What will you do?

 

[Brainache]

Was something unclear about what the abstracts of the seminar presentations describe, or about my last posts?

You now know of experts you can turn to. What will you do?

I think I know the answer to that one: "I'm just asking questions"

 

[Sizzler]

Gravy;

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.

From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.

The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples. They are continuing their microscopic studies on the samples prepared by graduate student Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio, the 2001–02 Helen E. Stoddard Materials Science and Engineering Fellow.

the above is from 2002.

I asked if those studies had been done. And if not, why not.

You said I hadn't done my homework and pointed me in this direction.

From 2003

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

So the abstract does not give results.

Do you know these results? Can you lend a hand? Can you link me to something that gives the results?

 

[Gravy]

Gravy;
the above is from 2002.
I asked if those studies had been done. And if not, why not.
You said I hadn't done my homework and pointed me in this direction.
From 2003
So the abstract does not give results.
Do you know these results? Can you lend a hand? Can you link me to something that gives the results?

The repetitive babblefest continues. Did you somehow miss this one?

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel (WPI Seminar, September, 2003. Presented by Erin Sullivan.)

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

Third time: Do not repeat your questions. You have nothing to be afraid of, Sizzler. Since this issue interests you so much (it is very interesting) why not learn all you can about it? You now know of experts you can turn to.

Sizzler, what will you do?

 

[Sizzler]

The repetitive babblefest continues. Did you somehow miss this one?

Third time: Do not repeat your questions. You have nothing to be afraid of, Sizzler. Since this issue interests you so much (it is very interesting) why not learn all you can about it? You now know of experts you can turn to.

Sizzler, what will you do?

So the important questions;

"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from?

need to be explored;

"All of these things have to be explored," he says.

and hopefully NIST will fund more research.

The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples

so far, they have only done tests like this one;

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

so, no tests have been done to determine the possible source of sulfur, and if this source would be available before collapse.

right?

the answers i want have not been discovered. and if they have, just tell me.

1. where the sulfur likely came from (source)

2. if the sulfur was available before the collapse (source)

 

[Gravy]

Fourth time, Sizzler: Do not repeat your questions. You have nothing to be afraid of. Research (unless you are Crazy Chainsaw) cannot kill you. Since this issue interests you so much, why not learn all you can about it? You now know of experts you can turn to.

Sizzler, what will you do?

If you reply with the same repetitive mantra, we will know that you will do absolutely nothing, and that you're just JAQing off.

 

[Sizzler]

Fourth time, Sizzler: Do not repeat your questions. You have nothing to be afraid of. Research (unless you are Crazy Chainsaw) cannot kill you. Since this issue interests you so much, why not learn all you can about it? You now know of experts you can turn to.

Sizzler, what will you do?

If you reply with the same repetitive mantra, we will know that you will do absolutely nothing, and that you're just JAQing off.

OK Gravy.

I guess I will have to ask the experts if I want to know.

Don't you want to know?

 

[Gravy]

OK Gravy.

I guess I will have to ask the experts if I want to know.

What a capital idea! I'm ashamed I didn't think of it.

Don't you want to know?

Sure. In fact, this is number 636,041 on my bucket list. I look forward to your report.

 

[Sizzler]

What a capital idea! I'm ashamed I didn't think of it.

Sure. In fact, this is number 636,041 on my bucket list. I look forward to your report.

you could have just told me that you didn't know the answers to my questions.

 

[Gravy]

you could have just told me that you didn't know the answers to my questions.

You could have just told me that you're the only sighted person in the world who can write but not read.

How would I know?

 

[Sizzler]

You could have just told me that you're the only sighted person in the world who can write but not read.

You claimed I hadn't done my homework and directed me resources that did not answer my questions. Had you not done your homework? I highly doubt that.

So are you the one JAQing off?

Or is this your way of derailing the importance and anomalous nature of sulfidation?

At least others have taken my questions serious in this thread.

 

[DGM]

You claimed I hadn't done my homework and directed me resources that did not answer my questions. Had you not done your homework? I highly doubt that.

So are you the one JAQing off?

Or is this your way of derailing the importance and anomalous nature of sulfidation?

At least others have taken my questions serious in this thread.

But what does this have to do with controlled demolition? If anything it goes against it because CD's happen all the time and this effect is not seen.

Do you think this may be proof of no CD?