10 story hole in WTC 7

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

This again as pointed out many times is in fact a lie. And one of Chris's own sources points out how this is not mysterious behavior.

And again to point our Chris's outright lies and dishonesty, the cause of the collapse is not being claimed to have been caused by molten steel. Just as the possible molten steel does not have to be caused by the cause of the collapse.

Chris, please stop lying.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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].

Chris, again, please stop lying. This has already been addressed.

BTW Bio, is this response of his not what I predicted would happen? It's because Chris knows he is wrong and he knows he is lying and so all he can do is continue to make the same baseless claims. This is to keep the attention away form some of his other lies such as thermate being the only possible cause. Even though his own sources say otherwise.

Chris, please stop lying.

 

[DGM]

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!

There has never been "office fires" that burned longer. The tower piles burned for weeks (Months even), no building fire has come close. Try being honest for once.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

The underground fires in the rubble pile at ground zero burned for weeks, during which time the intergranular melting occurred. Name a single steel framed building that burned for that long and you'll have a point.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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].

And there, ladies and gentlemen, I give you Christopher7's ultimate departure from reality. "Liquid slag containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is melted steel", is it, Chris? Let me show you how utterly, ridiculously wrong you are.

One of the other residues observed at Ground Zero was a liquid slag containing oxygen and hydrogen. Using the Christopher7 view of chemistry, we can conclude that liquid slag containing oxygen and hydrogen is liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen liquefies at -252.87ºC, therefore, the rubble pile at Ground Zero must have experienced temperatures below -250ºC for this liquid to form. How did it get so cold, Chris?

Or could it be, as Western civilisation has known for centuries, I learned when I was 11, and it seems Christopher7 has yet to find out, that elements chemically combined have different physical properties from their constituents?

Dave

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Unfortunately for these con artists, science doesn't lie.

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

Good explanation. However, be advised that NIST's examination of the special cases actually did reveal traces of calcium in the eutectic slag as well. See NCSTAR1-3C, pg. 228 and 230. Apparently not all of it washed away after all.

As I'm sure you know but bears repeating for the newcomers, even if we could trust Dr. Jones's analysis, his sampling approach is woefully inadequate. There's no telling what his few samples represent, their true origin, or their potential for contamination. Fortunately, we have much better results from reputable scientists and need not try to figure out where Dr. Jones went wrong.

 

[Christopher7]

This again as pointed out many times is in fact a lie. And one of Chris's own sources points out how this is not mysterious behavior.

And again to point our Chris's outright lies and dishonesty, the cause of the collapse is not being claimed to have been caused by molten steel. Just as the possible molten steel does not have to be caused by the cause of the collapse.

Chris, please stop lying.

Would you care to back up your accusation withe a fact?

You might try attacking the argument, rather than the arguer.

I believe Darat has requested that we do so.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Would you care to back up your accusation withe a fact?

You might try attacking the argument, rather than the arguer.

I believe Darat has requested that we do so.

Ah I can see how you would see it that way. But if you actually read my posts you would have the answers to your questions. but this post of yours just further drives home the point I have been making repeatedly about how you somehow conveniently miss all the key posts that address everything you continue to claim doesn't get addressed. So for course you once AGAIN conveniently missed those facts which were posted repeatedly and you again conveniently missed the explanation for the attack.

Chris you are a fraud and a liar. That's what it's about. You have been shown to be lying in this thread and that you have been intentionally trying to mislead people. That is now the argument. You are making false claims and not backing them up and then continually trying to throw up this phoney nonsense to try and get people distracted from the fact that you have been lying.

If you are going to continue to jsut blurt out baseless false claims such as "It's a fact that thermate is the only possible explanation" while not backing up that claim and then when called on it accusing others of not backing up their claims despite them having done so repeatedly, then the argument becomes your dishonest debate methods.


Or perhaps you can change your ways and simply back up what you call facts. Show us just one single example of thermate melting steel and keeping it melted for months.

And Bio can show us a regular office fire that burned for more than several months.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Would you care to back up your accusation with a fact?

Here's a fact. A liquid mixture of iron sulphide and iron oxide is a different material to molten steel, with different physical properties. When you claim, therefore, that "Liquid slag [FONT=&quot]containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is melted steel", after having been informed of this difference, and presented with references that back it up, you are therefore deliberately lying.[/FONT]

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Here's a fact. A liquid mixture of iron sulphide and iron oxide is a different material to molten steel, with different physical properties. When you claim, therefore, that "Liquid slag [FONT=&quot]containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is melted steel", after having been informed of this difference, and presented with references that back it up,[/FONT]

Dave

You have NOT provided information showing that the liquid slag was something other than molten steel.
How is "a liquid slag containing [FONT=&quot]iron, [/FONT]oxygen and hydrogen different from molten steel?
Please provide a source.

 

[beachnut]

You have NOT provided information showing that the liquid slag was something other than molten steel.
How is "a liquid slag containing [FONT=&quot]iron, [/FONT]oxygen and hydrogen different from molten steel?
Please provide a source.

You are not a chem engineer; are you?

 

[Christopher7]

You are not a chem engineer; are you?

Are you?

Let's take i one element at a time.

1) oxygen is a gas not a liquid.

2) sulphur
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]the melting point of sulfur is +119 C
the flash point of sulfur is +207.2 C
the self ignition point of sulfur is +232.2 C
the liquid slag was at least 1000 C[/FONT]

The liquid slag was primarily
3) iron, containing oxygen and sulphur.

Steel normally melts at about 1500 C but the sulphur in thermate lowers the melting point. Thermate also contains an oxidation agent. The byproduct of thermate is liquid iron containing oxygen and sulphur.

Do you know of another explanation for the liquid slag ?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You have NOT provided information showing that the liquid slag was something other than molten steel.
How is "a liquid slag containing [FONT=&quot]iron, [/FONT]oxygen and hydrogen different from molten steel?
Please provide a source.

You have not shown that the slag was from thermate/thermite charges. In fact i the 1000s of posts on this thread, you have still yet to offer a single piece of physical evidence. And now the final report pretty much puts the issue to bed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You have NOT provided information showing that the liquid slag was something other than molten steel.
How is "a liquid slag containing [FONT=&quot]iron, [/FONT]oxygen and hydrogen different from molten steel?
Please provide a source.

Chris, you've gone a long way past sane discussion here. First of all, it was "a liquid slag containing iron, oxygen and sulphur". Secondly, you're the one making the positive claim that a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen is the same as molten iron, rather than me making the claim that it isn't. Thirdly, since oxygen and the oxides of sulphur are gases at room temperature, the only way they can both be present in a liquid containing iron, oxygen and sulphur is if they are chemically bound to the iron as iron oxide, iron sulphide and/or iron sulphate, none of which are chemically the same as pure iron and all of which behave radically differently. Fourthly, the reference you're asking for has been given multiple times in this thread:

The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

This is co-authored by Sisson, the origin of your quote about "a liquid containing iron, sulphur and oxygen". Sisson is talking about the same material. Since it's a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide, it isn't iron.

If you're asking me to provide a source that states that chemical compounds are different to their consitiuents, try Wikipedia.

Compounds have different physical and chemical properties from their constituent elements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound

Iron(II) sulfide is a chemical compound with the formula FeS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_sulphide

I haven't been able to find a reference stating that iron oxide is a chemical compound. I suggest you satisfy yourself as to the veracity of that claim by trying to build a structural member out of rust. Alternatively, first-year high school chemistry lessons would probably be helpful.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

The liquid slag was primarily
3) iron, containing oxygen and sulphur.

Post your source that describes the liquid slag as "primarily" iron.

Do you know of another explanation for the liquid slag ?

Yes, but since you're determined not to read it, would posting it yet again really help?

Dave

 

[Norseman]

I haven't been able to find a reference stating that iron oxide is a chemical compound. I suggest you satisfy yourself as to the veracity of that claim by trying to build a structural member out of rust. Alternatively, first-year high school chemistry lessons would probably be helpful.

In case Christopher7 should be in doubt:

iron(II) oxide
(chemistry) A name for the chemical compound FeO, iron oxide where iron has a valence of +2. This is the IUPAC preferred nomenclature. The old term was ferrous oxide.

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iron(II)_oxide

Or from a chemistry textbook:

The compound FeO is therefore 'iron(II)oxide'....

Source: Advanced Chemistry

 

[Christopher7]

In case Christopher7 should be in doubt:

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iron(II)_oxide

Or from a chemistry textbook:

Source: Advanced Chemistry

I don't know enough chemistry to argue with you further.

If the liquid slag was not molten iron, then what else could it be?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't know enough chemistry to argue with you further.

If the liquid slag was not molten iron, then what else could it be?

Having already said this more times than I can count, once more probably won't hurt.

There are two possibilities. One is that the liquid slag is a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide. This should of course be the first possibility to consider, because that is exactly what Barnett, Biederman and Sisson say it was. Since they are your source for the statement that there was a liquid slag present, why do you persist in cherry-picking by pretending not to see the part where they identify the composition of the slag?

The second possibility, and I'm not entirely certain it's a distinctly different phenomenon, is that the liquid slag was a mixture of iron, iron sulphide, and iron oxide. A quick look at Google produced the following quote, properly sourced below:

The presence of sulfur in steel causes the danger of so-called "red brittleness" and "hot brittleness". Red brittleness may occur during hot forging or hot rolling of steels having a high sulfur content (sometimes a sulfur content of 0.03% is considered high enough). Thus, it may occur in the temperature range of 900-1000ºC. The reason is that the Fe-FeS eutectic melts at 985ºC. Its melting point is decreased in the presence of iron oxide. Iron sulfide and nickel sulfide solidify last from the liquid, as a network along grain boundaries.

"Physical Metallurgy for Engineers", Miklos Tisza, ASM International 2001, ISBN 087170725X, 9780871707253, p294. My bolding.

Therefore it appears that a suitable mixture of iron, iron sulphide and iron oxide can have a melting point below 985ºC.

Now, going back to your original argument: your claim was that the presence of a liquid slag indicated temperatures in excess of 1000ºC in the fires in the rubble pile. I've given you two possible accounts of what the liquid slag could be, neither of which requires temperatures in excess of 1000ºC to form. In particular, the source for the existence of the liquid slag that formed your original claim (Professor R. D. Sisson Jr.) is co-author of the paper that describes the composition of the liquid slag as being a mixture of iron sulphide and iron oxide that formed at a temperature that "approached ~1000ºC"; in other words, below 1000ºC.

If you don't know enough chemistry to follow this line of argument, could you consider the possibility that your understanding of events is not as complete as those who do?

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Deleted