10 story hole in WTC 7

[bio]

2. Heating in an environment containing oxygen and sulfur resulted in intergranular melting which transformed to an Iron Oxide and Iron Sulfide eutectic mixture on cooling.
www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

1. What was melted and transformed to an Iron Oxide an Iron Sulfide? If steel then question 2:
2. Can sulfur and oxygen during an office-fire or the smoldering fire at WTC-7 melt steel?

 

[Dave Rogers]

okay - but Dr. Jones says, that the sulfur itself showed no concomitant calcium.

That's not how I read it. He's saying that the XEDS plots showed sulphur, but did not show concomitant calcium. In other words, there are multiple elements present, and sulphur is one of them but calcium is not. He doesn't appear (unless I'm mistaken) to claim to have found pure elemental sulphur. Therefore, what he's observed is exactly what would be expected from thermal decomposition of calcium sulphate and subsequent corrosion of steel by evolved sulphuric acid vapour.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

2. Heating in an environment containing oxygen and sulfur resulted in intergranular melting which transformed to an Iron Oxide and Iron Sulfide eutectic mixture on cooling.

Correct. The oxygen and sulphur in the atmosphere attack the steel in a high temperature corrosion process, which takes place preferentially at the grain boundaries of the steel. This process can take place substantially below the melting point of pure steel.

1. What was melted and transformed to an Iron Oxide an Iron Sulfide?

Wrong paradigm. There were not two successive processes, the first of which melted the steel and the second of which transformed it to a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide. There was a single process which produced iron oxide and iron sulphide at the grain boundaries of the metal (which, like most metals, has a polycrystalline structure), and formed a liquid eutectic.

If steel then question 2:
2. Can sulfur and oxygen during an office-fire or the smoldering fire at WTC-7 melt steel?

No, they cannot melt steel, but they are sufficiently high for a chemical reaction to take place which produces a liquid, chemically different from steel, but containing iron as one of its chemical constituents.

This is all fairly straightforward chemistry; I'd expect it to be fairly clear to anyone with GCSE chemistry or equivalent (i.e. having studied chemistry in school up to age 16).

Dave

 

[bio]

What is "intergranular melting" of steel, which produced the eutectic mixture / slag? According to you, this can be labeled "temperature corrosion process", too. Right?

 

[bio]

That's not how I read it. He's saying that the XEDS plots showed sulphur, but did not show concomitant calcium. In other words, there are multiple elements present, and sulphur is one of them but calcium is not. He doesn't appear (unless I'm mistaken) to claim to have found pure elemental sulphur. Therefore, what he's observed is exactly what would be expected from thermal decomposition of calcium sulphate and subsequent corrosion of steel by evolved sulphuric acid vapour.

Dave

this interpretation could be right / i do not know.
If right, then it could happened by chance, that the calcium was somewhere else, than the sulfur. Probability for that - seeing the compressed debris pile?

 

[Dave Rogers]

What is "intergranular melting" of steel, which produced the eutectic mixture / slag? According to you, this can be labeled "temperature corrosion process", too. Right?

OK, back to basics.

Metals in general, and steel in particular, have a polycrystalline structure. This means that they are composed of large numbers of very small crystals, stuck together in random orientations. Within each individual crystal, the chemical bonds between atoms are very strong, because the regular arrangement of the atoms allows all the unpaired electrons of each atom to pair with one from another atom. At the regions where two different crystals are in contact (known as grain boundaries), however, the arrangement of atoms is irregular, and there can therefore be unpaired electrons. These are available for other chemicals to bond with, and hence attack the crystal. For example, sulphuric acid will tend to attack atoms at the grain boundaries, forming iron oxide and sulphide. If the temperature is high enough, these can be liquefied and will flow out of the grain boundary, leaving a fresh iron surface with unpaired electrons for further reactions with the acid. This is what is being referred to as "intergranular melting", because it produces a liquid at the boundary between grains.

Since it's a chemical process (which means, incidentally, that the word "melting" is misleading; normal melting is a simple phase transition with no chemical reaction involved, which isn't the case here) in which the steel is attacked by a corrosive chemical at a high temperature(and hot sulphuric acid is extremely corrosive), then yes, the intergranular melting that Barnett and co-workers describe can be described as a high temperature corrosion process.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

If right, then it could happened by chance, that the calcium was somewhere else, than the sulfur. Probability for that - seeing the compressed debris pile?

It's nothing to do with chance. Heating calcium sulphate in the presence of water produces solid calcium oxide and sulphuric acid vapour. The solid calcium oxide doesn't do anything, it's just present as a powder in the rubble; when it cools and water is sprayed on it, it turns to calcium hydroxide. That's soluble enough (about 1g/litre) that it will easily wash away. The sulphuric acid is a vapour at the temperatures we're talking about, so it will spread out over a large volume - most of which isn't occupied by the calcium oxide - and attack any steel within it. A sample of steel and accompanying slag taken from the top of the rubble pile would be expected to have had any calcium compounds simply washed away by the water that was sprayed over the pile. Therefore the eutectic slag that was taken for analysis is expected to contain iron, sulphur and oxygen but no calcium.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

Since it's a chemical process (which means, incidentally, that the word "melting" is misleading; normal melting is a simple phase transition with no chemical reaction involved, which isn't the case here) in which the steel is attacked by a corrosive chemical at a high temperature(and hot sulphuric acid is extremely corrosive), then yes, the intergranular melting that Barnett and co-workers describe can be described as a high temperature corrosion process.

Dave

My bolding.

And this is exactly the point C7 is unable (or refuses) to understand.

 

[bio]

It's nothing to do with chance. Heating calcium sulphate in the presence of water produces solid calcium oxide and sulphuric acid vapour. The solid calcium oxide doesn't do anything, it's just present as a powder in the rubble; when it cools and water is sprayed on it, it turns to calcium hydroxide. That's soluble enough (about 1g/litre) that it will easily wash away. The sulphuric acid is a vapour at the temperatures we're talking about, so it will spread out over a large volume - most of which isn't occupied by the calcium oxide - and attack any steel within it. A sample of steel and accompanying slag taken from the top of the rubble pile would be expected to have had any calcium compounds simply washed away by the water that was sprayed over the pile. Therefore the eutectic slag that was taken for analysis is expected to contain iron, sulphur and oxygen but no calcium.

Dave

... but the calcium powder can burn into the slag and the attacked steel and cannot be washed away so.

 

[Dave Rogers]

... but the calcium powder can burn into the slag and the attacked steel and cannot be washed away so.

Possibly, if calcium oxide forms any kind of eutectic with iron oxide or iron sulphide, but only in the extremely small fraction of the total volume where calcium oxide is in intimate contact with the steel being corroded. Any steel that is not in contact with a chunk of wallboard - which could well be the vast majority of it - will still be corroded by the acid vapour, which will diffuse outwards into a volume many orders of magnitude larger than that occupied by the calcium. The expectation would therefore be that no significant amount of calcium would be found in the slag.

Dave

 

[tsig]

Thermi(a)te melts steel.
*outside a foundry
Wrong!
Please provide an example or stop making that claim.

Yes, carbon based fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel without a great deal of forced air.
Thermate is the only know explanation for the liquid slag.

NIST Approach Summary 12-18-07 pg 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."

Wrong again.
Please post the statement and the source before making that claim.

Your ability to get things wrong is unlimited.
Nowhere does NIST say that.

Please post the specific statements and source or stop making that claim.

[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)

Slag isn't a liquid.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And the response will simply be:

FACT: Thermate is the only thing that can cause this.


And the endless cycle of idiocy will continue no matter how much explaining Dave does. Dave, stop hiding behind science and facts.

 

[bio]

And the response will simply be:

FACT: Thermate is the only thing that can cause this.


And the endless cycle of idiocy will continue no matter how much explaining Dave does. Dave, stop hiding behind science and facts.

Well - there were office fire in steel framed high-rise buildings, which even burned longer, and there are no references of intergranular melting of steel.

That is a valid point!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Well - there were office fire in steel framed high-rise buildings, which even burned longer, and there are no references of intergranular melting of steel.

That is a valid point!

How many of those buildings were hit by planes and as a result suffered severe structural damage? And why that NOT a valid point to you guys?

Why are the instances of regular fires causing steel to melt NOT a valid point to you guys?

I wil tell you why. Because you guys decided long before you did any research exactly what you wanted to find. And that is a conspiracy theory. Thus the reason why you systematically ignore all these things that don't add up to your pre-determined conclusion.

It's like me pointing out some smokers who haven't gotten cancer as proof that smoking doesn't cause cancer. It's pretty sound so long as I ignore all the people who DO get cancer from smoking.

 

[bio]

How many of those buildings were hit by planes and as a result suffered severe structural damage? And why that NOT a valid point to you guys?

Why are the instances of regular fires causing steel to melt NOT a valid point to you guys?

I wil tell you why. Because you guys decided long before you did any research exactly what you wanted to find. And that is a conspiracy theory. Thus the reason why you systematically ignore all these things that don't add up to your pre-determined conclusion.

It's like me pointing out some smokers who haven't gotten cancer as proof that smoking doesn't cause cancer. It's pretty sound so long as I ignore all the people who DO get cancer from smoking.

No plane hit WTC 7 & The meridian plaza burnt for 19 hours on 8 flours.

 

[Christopher7]

Apparently the rule you have established does not apply to the Australian fire... Oxygen is sparse leading to an extremely slow rate of combustion, though according to the article the temperatures are nevertheless quite high.

You don't know what the conditions are including air flow.

 

[Christopher7]

Slag isn't a liquid.

Excuse me.
Prof. Sisson said:
[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]

 

[Christopher7]

Why are the instances of regular fires causing steel to melt NOT a valid point to you guys?

There are no instances of regular fires causing steel to melt.

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires.
Normal building fires cannot melt steel.

 

[Christopher7]

Possibly, if calcium oxide forms any kind of eutectic with iron oxide or iron sulphide, but only in the extremely small fraction of the total volume where calcium oxide is in intimate contact with the steel being corroded. Any steel that is not in contact with a chunk of wallboard - which could well be the vast majority of it - will still be corroded by the acid vapour, which will diffuse outwards into a volume many orders of magnitude larger than that occupied by the calcium. The expectation would therefore be that no significant amount of calcium would be found in the slag.

Dave

All this esoteric chemistry talk ignores the point:

Normal building fires cannot melt steel.

Liquid slag [FONT=&quot]containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is melted steel[/FONT].

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No plane hit WTC 7 & The meridian plaza burnt for 19 hours on 8 flours.

Bio, you to a wonderful job of constantly proving my point. You claim no plane hi WTC7. You also forgot to mention that it was damaged much worse than if by a plane. 100s o ton of falling building came down upon it and scooped out an entire side of the building. While I am sure some people might not notice a section of the building being completely removed, so you not think it's something to note? Can yous see how you are being dishonest here and that this dishonesty of yours is the same as lying? That's correct, it makes you a liar because we both know that you are well aware of this damage and you INTENTIONALLY left it out.

Just like you also left out the fact that the Meridian plaza also had firefighting efforts going on and WTC 7 not only had no firefighting efforts, it didn't even have any water for its own fire protection systems. Tell us Bio, why do you leave these crucial details out?

And why do you leave out the details such as the plaza was a concrete core and that the steel portions DID collapse, just like the steel portion of WTC7?

I stand corrected bio, YOU are also an absolute LIAR. You, like Chris are clearly here with the intent to mislead people. You know the facts and you choose to intentionally leave them out so as to create a false image of the scenario that might sway people towards your pre-determined conclusion.

Let me state once again, your leaving out the most important fact intentionally is a lie. The intent to mislead people is a lie. Some people leave out important information simply because the are not aware of it. That's not a lie. But here, you have been shown this information many times and you continue to leave it out intentionally. Just like you sat here and pretended that many issues were not addressed and no examples were given when clearly they had indeed been given multiple times. THAT is dishonesty at its finest.