10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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.

OK, so what is "a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide". If not liquid iron, then what is it? Where did it come from?

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:

Same question, isn't that liquid iron? A rose by any other name . . .

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

Which is far hotter than smoldering debris in an oxygen starved debris pile can attain.

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.

OK, Fe-FeS eutectic melts at 985ºC. This is still 300-400ºC above what smoldering fires can attain.

 

[Dave Rogers]

OK, so what is "a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide". If not liquid iron, then what is it?

In the face of this staggering level of wilful ignorance, I give up. Chris, the oceans are full of liquid hydrogen, the air is full of vapourised carbon, and you can keep on sprinkling frozen chlorine on your chips. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise, because learning things is bad.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

OK, Fe-FeS eutectic melts at 985ºC. This is still 300-400ºC above what smoldering fires can attain.

Why would it have to have happened in a smouldering fire? Given that both debris piles were full of holes and voids a free-burning fire is perfectly possible.

And I'd like to echo what Dave Rogers said. Chris, you don't seem to understand the difference between a mixture and a compound. Try to put a mixture of sodium and chlorine on your boiled egg and you're in a heap of trouble. Put NaCl on it and the only risk is to your blood pressure.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, the oceans are full of liquid hydrogen, the air is full of vapourised carbon
Dave

Please, we are discussing a liquid slag that eroded a steel beam, not water or air.

Liquid slag containing iron, oxygen and sulphur is a byproduct of thermate.

You do not have another explanation for the liquid slag so you talk in circles.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Please, we are discussing a liquid slag that eroded a steel beam, not water or air.

Yet you ignored, as you always have, the crux issue he was making... good job. Do you know the difference between compounds and mixtures?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Please, we are discussing a liquid slag that eroded a steel beam, not water or air.

Liquid slag containing iron, oxygen and sulphur is a byproduct of thermate.

You do not have another explanation for the liquid slag so you talk in circles.

No, Chris. As everyone else on this forum can see, your knowledge of chemistry is so utterly lacking that you are unable to understand anything I am saying. That's why I've decided I simply have to give up talking to you; you simply don't speak the language that you're trying to have this debate in. I have explained the liquid slag in language that would be perfectly clear to a first-year high school chemistry student of average ability, and done so ten times in this thread. You don't understand it because you don't have enough basic knowledge to understand it, not because there's anything unclear about the way I'm stating it. I'm not going to keep on trying. Therefore, when you go back to whatever truther circles you like to mix in and crow about your victory here, please make sure to pass on to your friends that the nature of your victory is that you persuaded yourself that a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide is the same as liquid iron. When they laugh, they won't be laughing at me.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

. . . . you persuaded yourself that a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide is the same as liquid iron.
Dave

I have an explanation for the corroded beam, Do you?

There was molten metal in the debris pile and the liquid slag was this molten metal dripping on the beam and corroding it.

Don't bother with the phony chemistry expert stuff. You are an anonymous poster on a forum and your claims of superior knowledge are of no value.

NIST tried to say the sulphur in drywall was the source of the sulphur in the corroded steel beam.

The Final draft has been released and they do not address the corroded beam we have been discussing.

 

[GlennB]

Chris, your posts are getting wilder and wilder
.

There was molten metal in the debris pile and the liquid slag was this molten metal dripping on the beam and corroding it.

"Molten metal" and "liquid slag" are far from the same thing. This is what you have failed/refused to understand all along. Just put "slag" into Wikipedia, read, and you'll get a clue. If molten metal had been dripping on the beam then it would probably have increased in thickness, not reduced.

Don't bother with the phony chemistry expert stuff. You are an anonymous poster on a forum and your claims of superior knowledge are of no value.

You are also anonymous. He has demonstrated (not claimed) a far greater understanding of chemistry than you.

NIST tried to say the sulphur in drywall was the source of the sulphur in the corroded steel beam. The Final draft has been released and they do not address the corroded beam we have been discussing.

If you're talking about the WTC7 report, then where was an explanation of the corroded beam any part of their objectives?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have an explanation for the corroded beam, Do you?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

First of all, corrosion in a sulfur-rich atmosphere is a known explanation for partial melting and erosion of sample 1.

No, eutectic melting in a sulfur-rich atmosphere at a temperature typical of those caused by an office contents fire is a known explanation for the liquid slag, however many times you choose to pretend it isn't.

Sulphur from the wallboard, heat from the fires, oxygen from the atmosphere. This is the source of the liquid slag. What Sisson is describing here is eutectic melting.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
The above reference states that erosion of the steel appears to have taken place at below 1000ºC (note the significance of the word "approached"), within the range of temperatures of an office contents fire. The "eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide" referred to above is the "liquid slag" mentioned elsewhere in this thread, from which it is clear that the presence of this liquid slag does not imply the presence of molten steel.

From the above reference, "The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel." What was present, therefore, was a eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide, which at temperatures approaching 1000ºC is "a liquid containing iron, sulfur and oxygen". This is basically different from molten steel in that it has a different chemical composition and a different melting point.

There was no need for the steel to be liquefied. Normal corrosion of steel in an oxygen-containing atmosphere produces iron oxide in the form of rust, and this will accelerate at higher temperatures. Sulphuric acid and heat acting on steel will (I assume, my chemistry runs out somewhere around here) produce iron sulphate, which degrades thermally to iron sulphide. Both can be produced without the temperature getting high enough to liquefy the steel.

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.
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.

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 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.

Dave

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.

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.
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.

Conversely, your "explanation" of the corroded beam makes no sense. Thermite burns too hot to do what you want it to.

Don't bother with the phony chemistry expert stuff. You are an anonymous poster on a forum and your claims of superior knowledge are of no value.

I'm not a chemistry expert, I'm a physicist. The chemistry I'm quoting, as I've said several times, is high school stuff.

From Wikipedia:

Chemistry (from Egyptian kēme (chem), meaning "earth"[1]) is the science concerned with the composition, structure, and properties of matter, as well as the changes it undergoes during chemical reactions.[2]

You've shown repeatedly in this thread that you are unable to conceive of the possibility that a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulphide can have different physical properties than pure molten iron. This change in properties is one of the changes that matter undergoes in a chemical reaction. It would not be mere hyperbole, therefore, to say that you literally do not know the first thing about chemistry. To be quite honest and literal, I have yet to meet an adult who can't claim superior knowledge to you.

Anything and everything I've said in this thread can be verified through publicly available sources. Your inability to comprehend due to your shameful level of ignorance doesn't constitute a victory in debate.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

1)First of all, corrosion in a sulfur-rich atmosphere is a known explanation for partial melting and erosion of sample 1.
2) No, eutectic melting in a sulfur-rich atmosphere at a temperature typical of those caused by an office contents fire is a known explanation for the liquid slag, however many times you choose to pretend it isn't.

Atmosphere? The sulphur did not climb into the steel, it was a high temperature atmosphere [approaching 1000ºC] that corroded the beam.
Only fully ventilated fires can attain those temperatures. Smoldering fires in a debris pile cannot.
They had been pouring water on the hot spots for 5 days when the thermal images showed temperatures of 727ºC on top of the pile. This can only be the molten metal that Mark Loizeaux and others spoke of. Any fire would have been doused by 5 days of water being applied.

3) No, eutectic melting in a sulfur-rich atmosphere at a temperature typical of those caused by an office contents fire is a known explanation for the liquid slag, it isn't.

Typical? This was an unprecedented event. You are talking thru your hat.

Enough of this Merry-go-Round.

Why don't you send your data, based on your chemistry expertise, to NIST?
They need some help.

They did not mention the corroded beam in their final draft!

The FEMA report stated that further study was needed.

Why hasn't this study been done?

Why is NIST ignoring the corroded beam and the molten metal?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Because there is nothing to even remotely suggest that the metal corrosion occurred before or during the collapse. They studied the cause of the collapse, not what happened to the material after the collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Atmosphere? The sulphur did not climb into the steel, it was a high temperature atmosphere [approaching 1000ºC] that corroded the beam.

Hot enough, therefore, that any sulphuric acid resulting from thermal decomposition of gypsum wallboard in the presence of water must have been present in the vapour phase. In other words, it boiled, after which it could easily spread upwards, like steam from a kettle. The high temperature atmosphere you're talking about contained sulphuric acid vapour, which is where the sulphur came from. As I explained a hundred or so posts ago. Again, you're embarrassing yourself by not having any idea what you're talking about.

Only fully ventilated fires can attain those temperatures. Smoldering fires in a debris pile cannot.

Give some evidence, or stop repeating a mere assertion. Smouldering vegetation fires don't count; anyone should be able to see that they're not thermally insulated to the same degree.

They had been pouring water on the hot spots for 5 days when the thermal images showed temperatures of 727ºC on top of the pile. This can only be the molten metal that Mark Loizeaux and others spoke of. Any fire would have been doused by 5 days of water being applied.

This is completely absurd. If there were no fire, then hot metal would have been cooled even faster. The only possible source of heat after days of dousing was a continuing fire too large for the water to extinguish. Any thermite reaction would have burned out in minutes, not days. A smouldering contents fire is the only possible heat source.

Oh, and steel is solid at 727ºC, so that rather suggests that any molten metal wasn't steel.

Why don't you send your data, based on your chemistry expertise, to NIST?

Because they already know about all this.

They did not mention the corroded beam in their final draft!

The FEMA report stated that further study was needed.

Why hasn't this study been done?

Why is NIST ignoring the corroded beam and the molten metal?

Let's take this one step at a time.

Metallurgical analysis of the corroded beam shows that the corrosion was due to a high temperature atmosphere containing sulphur, in the form of sulphuric acid vapour.

This requires a large quantity of gypsum to have been heated in the presence of water, in a confined space, fairly close to the steel column.

These conditions are known to have existed in the rubble pile after the collapse.

These conditions are known not to have existed in the building prior to, or during, the collapse.

Therefore, the corrosion of the steel is concluded to have taken place after the collapse.

NIST's investigation was to determine the cause of the collapse.

Things that happened after the collapse can't have caused the collapse.

Therefore, NIST's report into the causes of the collapse doesn't include any investigation of the corrosion of the steel.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Hot enough, therefore, that any sulphuric acid resulting from thermal decomposition of gypsum wallboard in the presence of water must have been present in the vapour phase. In other words, it boiled, after which it could easily spread upwards, like steam from a kettle.
Dave

Fascinating speculation. Unfortunately, there is no science to back it up.

 

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
They had been pouring water on the hot spots for 5 days when the thermal images showed temperatures of 727ºC on top of the pile. This can only be the molten metal that Mark Loizeaux and others spoke of. Any fire would have been doused by 5 days of water being applied.

The only possible source of heat after days of dousing was a continuing fire too large for the water to extinguish.

Fire too large?
47 stories were compacted into a rounded pile about 4 stories at the highest point. There was no room for a large fire. The combustible contents were crushed between concrete floors, steel framework, drywall and other noncombustible materials.

Furthermore
The fire could not burn for 5 days. There just wasn't enough fuel.

Any thermite reaction would have burned out in minutes, not days.

You are a master of missing the obvious.

A thermite reaction burns out in minutes as you say, but it burns at 4500ºF and results in molten iron at 4500ºF. This is over 1300ºF above the melting point of iron. Insulated in the debris pile, the molten metal [described by Mark Loizeaux and many others] was still near or at the melting point weeks later.

 

[funk de fino]

So, the millions of gallons of firefighter water that C7 claims put out the fire quickly could not cool the molten metal?

Em....OK

I did not think this thread could get any worse. I was wrong.

Please tell us why out of all the thousands of tons of steel from WTC1, 2 and 7 that were inspected only two small beams showed any evidence of this phenomena if thermite was used for demolition?

Really, only two samples?

C7 the apparent chemist has also failed to answer as to how sulphuric acid is created and what it does to steel/metal, especially when diluted and heated.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Fascinating speculation. Unfortunately, there is no science to back it up.

Yes, like your controlled demolition theories are just the paramount of science.

"Hey it looks like a CD, so it must be one".

Yeah, like you have any business being judgmental over science.

"47 stories were compacted into a rounded pile about 4 stories at the highest point. There was no room for a large fire. The combustible contents were crushed between concrete floors, steel framework, drywall and other noncombustible materials. "

And then immediately afterwords you completely make things up like in that statement which is complete nonsense and doesn't contain any truth or reality what so ever.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Fascinating speculation. Unfortunately, there is no science to back it up.

Chris, I don't know how to put this strongly enough: if you don't know the difference, as you've repeatedly stated, between an iron oxide / iron sulphide mixture and molten iron, then you know nothing about science beyond how to spell the word. You have no understanding of thermal conductivity if you believe that the rubble pile could have taken a matter of weeks to cool from 4500ºF to 3200ºF. You have no understanding of chemistry when you claim that there is no science to back up the claim that sulphuric acid is a vapour at 1000ºC. And you have no understanding of the mechanics of combustion when you claim that there "was no room for a large fire" in the rubble pile. All you're doing in this thread is shouting your ignorance from the rooftops, then claiming that your ignorance is knowledge.

The combustibles were compressed and heated. Air diffused in through the rubble pile, and when and where air came into contact with the hot combustibles, i.e. round the edges of large combustible regions, combustion took place. When and where hot combustibles were starved of air, i.e. in the centre of such large regions, combustion stopped, but the temperature could not fall because combustion was still generating heat around the regions where air was excluded, so the heat could not escape because the surrounding regions were at a higher temperature; this is basic thermodynamics. The surrounding rubble enhanced this by insulating the combustibles, hence trapping the heat more effectively. As a result, combustion was slow but continuous for many weeks. This is what's meant by a smouldering, oxygen-limited fire. And all this is obvious; who's the master at missing it?

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

So, the millions of gallons of firefighter water that C7 claims put out the fire quickly could not cool the molten metal?

I know it sounds crazy but that appears to be the case.
Many highly qualified people stated that there was molten metal in the debris pile, weeks later.
You may think they are stupid or crazy or liars but then, you say that about anybody who says anything that destroys the official fairy tale.

Really, only two samples?

Alas, only two.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, You have no understanding of thermal conductivity if you believe that the rubble pile could have taken a matter of weeks to cool from 4500ºF to 3200ºF.

Dave, You have no appreciation for reality. There was molten metal in the debris pile weeks later.

The sulphur in drywall is locked in a chemical cage and there is no precedent or scientific proof that it could have been the source for the sulphur in the steel. This is pure speculation.

Your claim that it could is meaningless without a credible scientific source to back it up. You talk about sulpheric acid. Please give the source that states how the sulphur in drywall can freed to form sulphiric acid.

 

[beachnut]

I know it sounds crazy but that appears to be the case.
Many highly qualified people stated that there was molten metal in the debris pile, weeks later.
You may think they are stupid or crazy or liars but then, you say that about anybody who says anything that destroys the official fairy tale.

Alas, only two.

Sources? I heard hearsay, but no first hand or reason. But thermite was not the cause.

So list the highly qualified people. Bet they all agree with NIST. Darn.

The thermite idiot ideas are Jones and people with zero understanding that he made it up! He has no evidence, the same as you for CD! Only idiots would think molten metal was caused by thermite. Or real dumb people.

What do you think the cause of the hearsay molten metal is? 7 years and you are still a no evidence CD failed idea guy.