Molten Steel

[Senenmut]

ive been looking into aviris-
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/6599/1/03-0421.pdf

from what ive seen in the pdf, the range is from 400nm to 2500nm. now ultraviolet light starts at 400nm:
Ultraviolet (UV) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light, but longer than x-rays, in the range 400 nm to 10 nm, and energies from 3 eV to 124 eV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet

now as for thermite:
The thermite reaction releases dangerous ultra-violet (UV) light requiring that the reaction not be viewed directly, or that special eye protection (for example, a welder's mask) be worn.

so did the aviris even "see" the heat from thermite (if any was there). it wasnt "looking" at the less than 400 nm range of a heat source.

interesting article that talks about pyrocool being sprayed on wtc.
"This is in part due to the use of a special foaming agent called Pyrocool FEF. On 27 September, the officials ordered 2000 gallons of the liquid, which when added to water produces a slippery, low-viscosity foam.
Berger adds that "Pyrocool also contains two powerful ultra-violet absorbers." These chemicals absorb the high-energy emissions from the fire, which are most able to spread the fire to other materials, and re-emit the energy at a longer, lower-energy wavelength."

does anyone know if we can find some data concerning uv rays in the wtc rubble? ill look around.

does this make avaris null and void when talking about possible thermite since thermite would be giving off uv rays and not rays greater than 400 nm?

 

[BigAl]

ive been looking into aviris-
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/6599/1/03-0421.pdf

from what ive seen in the pdf, the range is from 400nm to 2500nm. now ultraviolet light starts at 400nm:
Ultraviolet (UV) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light, but longer than x-rays, in the range 400 nm to 10 nm, and energies from 3 eV to 124 eV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet

now as for thermite:
The thermite reaction releases dangerous ultra-violet (UV) light requiring that the reaction not be viewed directly, or that special eye protection (for example, a welder's mask) be worn.

Nobody saw Thermite burning on the pile at WTC. You can't hide this stuff.

(Google can be dangerous in the hands of the incredulous. )

 

[Senenmut]

The fact that Fe-S-O eutectic was observed in the metallographic samples taken from WTC steel proves that a temperature as high as 940°C must have occurred, because Fe-S-O eutectic does not form below that temperature.

Therefore 900-1100°C temperature range is a sensible range to test at. I'd like to have seen that presentation and/or the paper it's based upon.

so u are calling aviris a liar!! hahaha.
from what mackey posted earlier:
3. AVIRIS saw no temperature higher than 984 K, or 1311oF (710 C). This temperature rules out molten steel in the aftermath.

 

[Senenmut]

Nobody saw Thermite burning on the pile at WTC. You can't hide this stuff.

(Google can be dangerous in the hands of the incredulous. )

that didnt answer the question. people did see molten metal flowing out of the wtc and all the statements previosly about molten metal. i know how the arguement goes so u dont have to reply....

 

[A W Smith]

so u are calling aviris a liar!! hahaha.
from what mackey posted earlier:
3. AVIRIS saw no temperature higher than 984 K, or 1311oF (710 C). This temperature rules out molten steel in the aftermath.

on what day did wtc7 collapse?

1. AVIRIS overflew the WTC site on 16, 18, 22, and 23 September 2001.

Do you see the discrepancy? I've highlighted it for you. Please try to pay attention.

 

[Sunstealer]

so u are calling aviris a liar!! hahaha.
from what mackey posted earlier:
3. AVIRIS saw no temperature higher than 984 K, or 1311oF (710 C). This temperature rules out molten steel in the aftermath.

If you had bothered to read my posts on this subject you would understand that molten means liquid and that steel has a liquidus above 940°C, therefore a eutectic Fe-O-S occurs below the melting point of steel. Secondly this eutectic is localised, that is there is tiny, tiny, tiny amounts of it. Your problem is one of scale. You are thinking that there were buckets of liquid eutectic material but there isn't. Just look at the photomicrographs of the steel samples showing the oxide layer and grain boundary attack and then look at the scale bar (just like you find on a map). It's measured in microns not metres.

 

[Senenmut]

If you had bothered to read my posts on this subject you would understand that molten means liquid and that steel has a liquidus above 940°C, therefore a eutectic Fe-O-S occurs below the melting point of steel. Secondly this eutectic is localised, that is there is tiny, tiny, tiny amounts of it. Your problem is one of scale. You are thinking that there were buckets of liquid eutectic material but there isn't. Just look at the photomicrographs of the steel samples showing the oxide layer and grain boundary attack and then look at the scale bar (just like you find on a map). It's measured in microns not metres.

again, do u think aviris is wrong in regard to the temps?

 

[thewholesoul]

I think you are producing a false dichotomy.

It is only a false dichotomy if you can provide us all with an alternative. Can you do that sunstealer? If not please avoid dodging the question: Is Macky right or is Mackey wrong?

peace

 

[Senenmut]

on what day did wtc7 collapse?


Do you see the discrepancy? I've highlighted it for you. Please try to pay attention.

what are u talking about?? sisson thinks the attack on the steel took days to months. so the temps what sunstealer quoted were in the pile quite some time.

 

[bje]

No jones has requested permission to take samples. So of course he didnt test it.
As to your question how can metal solidify around steel rebar without the rebar melting? Perhaps you should direct your your question to Bart Voorsanger who obviously assumes that it was possible. Personally i couldnt tell you exactly how it can occur but i am quite sure that it’s beyond the realm of possibility.

I am asking YOU to explain WHY Steven Jones has made the claim for 3 years now? Why do you not KNOW what Jones's explantion is?


No, there are two. Read Norsemans post on page 3 of this thread.

peace

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that Jones explicity refers to the one object known universally as "the meteorite" and is used as the object in the photograph in his paper? How long are you going to persist with your intellectual dishonesty and evade the question?

 

[thewholesoul]

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that Jones explicity refers to the one object known universally as "the meteorite" and is used as the object in the photograph in his paper?

i did no such thing. if i did you could quote me refusing to acknowledge that Jones refers to the meteorite. i merely wanted to make the point that two items were refered to as the meteorite not just one. thats it.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

on what day did wtc7 collapse? Do you see the discrepancy? I've highlighted it for you. Please try to pay attention.

what exactly are you suggesting? could you be more specific. thanks

 

[stateofgrace]

so u are calling aviris a liar!! hahaha.
from what mackey posted earlier:
3. AVIRIS saw no temperature higher than 984 K, or 1311oF (710 C). This temperature rules out molten steel in the aftermath.

So why do you claim it was there?

 

[BigAl]

that didnt answer the question. people did see molten metal flowing out of the wtc and all the statements previosly about molten metal. i know how the arguement goes so u dont have to reply....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there were any aerial heat measurements made during the few minutes in which the molten metal was seen flowing from a tower.

In any case, that part of that tower looked nothing like a thermite fire
and there are more plausible theories for what the molten metal was and why it was molten.

There is no confirmed first-hand quote of anyone saying "I saw molten
metal on the pile". It's all second-hand or of very questionable Provenance. When these second-hand quotes are considered in the context of everything we know about WTC, they carry no weight.

 

[thewholesoul]

So why do you claim it was there?

you're missing the current issue at hand.

if mackey is right and the rubble pile did not generate temperatures above 710degrees celcius (based on the AVIRIS readings) then the corrosion attack on the wtc 7 steel beam could not have occured in the rubble pile because that would require a minimum temperature of around 930 degrees celcius.

peace

 

[stateofgrace]

you're missing the current issue at hand.

if mackey is right and the rubble pile did not generate temperatures above 710degrees celcius (based on the AVIRIS readings) then the corrosion attack on the wtc 7 steel beam could not have occured in the rubble pile because that would require a minimum temperature of around 930 degrees celcius.

peace

No I am not, the statement was clear and precise.

This temperature rules out molten steel in the aftermath.

Is this statement correct or not?

 

[beachnut]

that didnt answer the question. people did see molten metal flowing out of the wtc and all the statements previosly about molten metal. i know how the arguement goes so u dont have to reply....

Hearsay! Double triple secret hearsay, when posted by you.

I have not found a single first person melted steel witness. Just hearsay. I have also not seen a single pile of thermite products, nor has anyone seen one at the WTC due to the vast dumb-wing conspiracy proposed by 911Truth the failed delusion guys of digging that ever-deeper pit of ignorance on 911.

So who saw the Hg flowing out of the WTC? Or was it the stockpile of secret Cs used by the secret guys in WTC7? Br? Fr? Ga? Rb? Or some Al wheels? Pb from batteries? The best part, I am researching science ideas, spelling words, and running my grandkids to breathlessness while reading post from 911Truth remnants that will remain flowing for the future until universal skepticism, knowledge, sound judgment and rational thought are here! There are some neat metal, not to even get into the alloys and mixes possible. Those cheap computer cases have to be some conspiracy.

Where are the piles of these flowing rivers of metal? How hot were they? Gee, if it was steel and people were walking on it, no wonder they can’t talk about it, they are burnt to death.

The sad part is no matter what you find out it will not support your failed 911Truth like conclusions that are delusions.

Got some photos? Got any first hand witness, which you never source due to your triple secret hearsay policy? You are getting more truthy every post.

You need to work on your bs game like thewholesoul who could sell perpetual motion machines to laypeople because they are buried in bs.

 

[thewholesoul]

Mackey argues that the rubble pile did not generate temperatures greater than 710c. He bases this argument on the thermal data collected by the AVIRIS between the 16th and 23rd of September. It follows therefore that if temperatures in the rubble pile did not exceed 710c then this temperature rules out molten steel. But this conclusion comes at a price.

Sunstealer, who I believe is the authority on metallurgical matters here, argues that

The fact that Fe-S-O eutectic was observed in the metallographic samples taken from WTC steel proves that a temperature as high as 940°C must have occurred, because Fe-S-O eutectic does not form below that temperature.

It has been widely speculated that the Fe-S-O eutectic on wtc 7 steel occured in the rubble pile.

So, if Mackey is right and the rubble pile could not generate temperatures above 710c then the Fe-S-O eutectic on the wtc 7 steel sample must have occured prior to the collapse during the office fire.
If Mackey and the AVIRIS data is wrong then the rubble pile did generate temperatures sufficient to melt steel hence molten steel was present in the rubble pile.

peace

 

[beachnut]

Mackey argues that the rubble pile did not generate temperatures greater than 710c. He bases this argument on the thermal data collected by the AVIRIS between the 16th and 23rd of September. It follows therefore that if temperatures in the rubble pile did not exceed 710c then this temperature rules out molten steel. But this conclusion comes at a price.

Sunstealer, who I believe is the authority on metallurgical matters here, argues that It has been widely speculated that the Fe-S-O eutectic on wtc 7 steel occured in the rubble pile.

So, if Mackey is right and the rubble pile could not generate temperatures above 710c then the Fe-S-O eutectic on the wtc 7 steel sample must have occured prior to the collapse during the office fire.
If Mackey and the AVIRIS data is wrong then the rubble pile did generate temperatures sufficient to melt steel hence molten steel was present in the rubble pile.

peace

What is your point and what conclusion or theory is this in support of?

 

[stateofgrace]

So, is this statement correct? yes or no ?

This temperature rules out molten steel in the aftermath.

YES

or

NO ?