10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

Were these people "mistaken" too?

[FONT=&quot]Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all subgrade levels[/FONT][FONT=&quot], stated "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot] was still running[/FONT][FONT=&quot]." [/FONT](source_SEAU.org)

[FONT=&quot]“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 [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot],” Fuchek said. [/FONT](source)

[FONT=&quot]"I saw [/FONT]melting of girders[FONT=&quot] in World Trade Center[/FONT][FONT=&quot]." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. [/FONT](source)(audio)

[FONT=&quot]"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw [/FONT]molten metal[FONT=&quot] trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe [/FONT](source)(audio)

[FONT=&quot]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 [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot] beams[/FONT][FONT=&quot] to human remains...." [/FONT](source)

[FONT=&quot]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 [/FONT]molten steel[FONT=&quot]." [/FONT](source)

 

[Christopher7]

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]

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
(...)
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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Christopher7]

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]

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 was

What part of sometimes don't you understand?


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

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Please name one.

 

[Christopher7]

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.