10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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]

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]

Quick one C7

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

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

 

[DC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Dave

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 [bellows] kiln. Building fires cannot and do not melt steel.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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?

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 [bellows] kiln. 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]

"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]

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]

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

Referring to Sample 1 from WTC 7:
[FONT=&quot][Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"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." [/FONT]


Thermate is the only known explanation for the liquid slag.

 

[Norseman]

Referring to Sample 1 from WTC 7:
[FONT=&quot][Professor Richard Sisson, Worcester Polytechnic Institute][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well[/FONT] [FONT=&quot] 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"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." [/FONT]


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"
No support for your fantasy here C7.

 

[Christopher7]

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"
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]

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

Stundie.

 

[bio]

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

Stundie.

Your outburst says much about your current mindset.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Your outburst 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]

Your outburst 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]

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.
[FONT=&quot]"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." [/FONT]

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]

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?

I did answer that, or rather Prof. Sisson did.
[FONT=&quot]"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." [/FONT]

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 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...