The effect of thermite on steel is well enough established.
No. It's not. No melting, no signs of the excessive temperatures associated with thermite.
It should have been 'microstructure' as the structure is in the micrometer range, not the nanometer range (which would be... atoms almost) and the microspheres still corroborate a thermite theory even if you do not acknowledge that this type of microsphere could not have been created by torches of any kind.
Nope. Sorry. They do not.
And not only that, you're not explaining how the microstructure "corroborates" a thermite theory. You're merely asserting it. Not proving it.
Yet the building was designed to withstand an impact like that. I acknowledge that there is a small chance that it *could* happen anyways, that the towers would collapse upon impact of an aircraft.
But obviously to the people who perpetrated this heinous attack, this chance was not good enough, so they assisted the collapse with thermite
Yes, they were indeed designed to handle the impacts. As NIST shows, they did do that. They did it quite admirably, in fact, and remained standing for a period of time. But the damage from the impacts allowed the fire to degrade the ability of the structure to support the weight of the section above the impact zone.
This is rather common knowledge, Dabljuh. I figured you'd know that by now.
Oh, yes, why would they, I really can't think of a reason...
Sarcasm instead of a reasoned response. And you're being logical and scientifc how again? Way to demonstrate that intellect.
What your opinion on whether the airplanes alone would have sufficed or the Edinburgh/Arup's opinion is, is irrelevant. To the people who put thermite into the building, it was obviously not enough. And for good reason: The building was rated against aircraft impacts, remember?
And do I need to even raise the point I made above again? You don't seem to truly understand the theory you seek to disprove, do you?
On top of that, it's not irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that a noted fire engineering group has argued that the fires were sufficient to bring the towers down. Your post is not a good dodge of the argument, and not a good attempt to distract from the point. Try addressing the point.
With access to the elevator system, the core should be easy. There's enough witness testimony about funny business going on in the weeks before 9/11 to refute your objection. Also, the presence of the thermate.
Without shutting down or otherwise interrupting elevator service? And how does that explain the destruction of the lateral supports? Those aren't all in the core. And the bowing of the exterior columns demonstrates that the lateral supports were indeed affected.
On top of that, how does that explain the "metal" flow you and others were arguing earlier? The one seen in the corner around the 82nd floor? The one you did a color analysis on? That's well away from the core shafts. How'd that region of the fire get so hot if it was so far away from the thermite. Or if the thermite was indeed there, how'd it get installed without people working in that area knowing?
the Biederman and Sisson note you're arguing is full of fail and aids, to create an eutectic, you need to melt both materials in question first, which can be a real problem if you for example want to create a tungsten eutectic where the tungsten melts only at a temperature where most other metals already evaporate.
Wrong, actually. You only have to reach the temperature of the component that melts at the lowest. Otherwise, like I noted in an earlier post, it doesn't have to melt to be a component of the eutectic mix. It only has to be mixed in with whatever was in the liquid phase. Again, water ice in an alcohol forming a slurry.
Also: Tungsten? Sisson and Biederman were strictly referring to the iron-oxide iron-sulfide eutectic. Whatever tungsten was present in the steel was never mentioned in their analysis.
And too, simply declaring that an argument is "full of fail" doesn't falsify it, as it doesn't demonstrate what's wrong with the argument. You are not demonstrating what's wrong with their argument. You're just demonstrating your misunderstanding of the eutectic mixture that was formed.
You can't spray sulfur on solid structural steel and expect it to melt at 1000°C suddenly. And even then, the paper only gives 1000°C as a lower bound for the temperature not knowing that for an eutectic to form from pure metals, you need to heat both pure metals to their respective melting temperature.
Who said anything about melting? Again, their argument is eutectic corrosion, and yes, such does happen at temperatures associated with structure fires.
And no, again, you misunderstand what a eutectic is. It's a heterogenous mix, not all of which was rendered molten. I suggest you do a search in this forum for that term and pay attention to the posts R.Mackey has written.
And still: Heating steel structures to 1000°C? That is almost impossibly reached by an office fire. Only a few fires in the WTC complex ever got this hot for a short time, and you need a long time to heat something to such a high temperature. And so by the sheer amount of samples you could rule this mechanic out as a reason even if it would work
Nitpick: They said "approached ~1,000ºC". Furthermore, they said "this region of the steel beam". We're not talking the whole compartment the beam was found in, let alone the whole beam itself.
But to the meat of the argument: Why is it "almost impossible"? You don't demonstrate that. You merely assert. I find it incredible too, but I trust a university fire researcher over your argument from incredulity. Show your work. Show how there's not enough energy in the contents to account for such a temperature. I'll let Biederman and Sisson handle their disagreement with the NIST engineers' temperature assesment.
You seem under the impression the spheres were the only thing he investigated. Your confusion when I mentioned 'nanostructure' gives away that you have no clue about the scope of Jones' investigation.
I have read Jones's work. He's dropped most of the claims of the investigation prior to his microspheres assessment; once again, I point at the 1,3-DPP misrepresentation he engaged in.
And that still doesn't explain what about the structure of the spheres points at thermite. Could it be that you yourself can't explain it?
this is why I ignored you. You don't seem intellectually capable of reading something simple and understanding what it means. You simply lack the intelligence or the scientific judgment. The 1,3-DPP was not added after the collapse. They measured for a time after that collapse and during that time they measured 1,3-DPP.
"The 1,3-DPP was not added after the collapse". And that negates the point how? Your argument doesn't do anything to deny Jones's misrepresentation of its significance. Recall, Jones attributed the signature to the gel holding the thermite in place. Why there would be continued generation of the signature is the whole point falsifying his attribution; it was obviously from the combustion of plastics in the towers. Why else would generation continue past the collapse? Why else would the signatures not decrease until the fires had mostly gone out?
The 1,3-DPP announcement is a sign that Jones is willing to misrepresent phenomena.
That's the significance of it. And that you tried to defend it earlier shows that
you're willing to accept misrepresentation. Not a very scientifc outlook.
Some people are just not made out to be skeptics.
Stop embarassing yourself and stop wasting my time and yours. I'll keep you on ignore.
That's the second (or third?) time you've offered to put me on ignore. So go ahead. As I've said, I'm posting for lurkers and other readers; you are not capable of seeing beyond your delusions.
And embarrasing myself? Please. I'm not the one posting misrepresentations and dodging questions. I'm the one demonstrating your misperceptions and falsifying your assertions. And also demonstrating the lack of substance behind your arguments.
