Molten Steel

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

This is a possible explanation for the molten metal

As is Superman's heat vision, for which just as much corroborative evidence exists.

 

[Christopher7]

And 900^oC is also totally feasible in an ordinary office fire. 1500^oC is barely possible, but would be unusual.

Have you got a source for those numbers?

Here's what I have :

NISTIR 7213
The gas temperatures measured in the room were similar for both experiments prior to ventilation as each fire grew to an initial peak of approximately 800 °C (1470 °F).

Figure 31 shows that maximum temperatures were attained in about 8 minutes and dropped to 400 °C (735 °F) at 16 minutes.

Figure 32 - Natural Ventilation Room Temperatures pg 41 [43 on pg counter]
The fire reaches 800° C [1472°F] in about 4 minutes and drops off to 75° C [170°F] at 24 minutes.
When the window is opened at about 6 minutes, the fire jumps to between 900°C and 1000°C [1652°F - 1832°F] for about 4 minutes.


http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf

 

[Christopher7]

As is Superman's heat vision, for which just as much corroborative evidence exists.

You been hangin' out with Judy Woods?

All those things are true. It is a possibility your hand wave notwithstanding.

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

You been hangin' out with Judy Woods?

Pffft. As if airy codswallop premised upon the unproven (and hitherto unsuspected) existence of some mysterious, Super-Duper Double Secret Probation-type of traceless thermite is appreciably less intellectually bucktoothed than her own patent delusions, re: space beam weaponry. "Argument" assumes facts not even remotely in evidence; EPIC fail.

It is a possibility your hand wave notwithstanding.

See previous posting.

 

[Christopher7]

Pffft. As if airy codswallop premised upon the unproven (and hitherto unsuspected) existence of some mysterious, Super-Duper Double Secret Probation-type of traceless thermite is appreciably less intellectually bucktoothed than her own patent delusions, re: space beam weaponry. "Argument" assumes facts not even remotely in evidence; EPIC fail.
See previous posting.

That didn't make a lick of sense.

You have no rebuttal so you just drag your feet thru some doublespeak.

Would you address the points one at a time?
Do you disagree with any?

1) Thermite burns at 4500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F

2) Iron is liquid at 2800[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F and solid at about 2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F

3) 30 - 60 feet of debris would provide a great deal of insulation.

4) Molten iron would heat the pile and burn the combustible material in the debris. This would slow the cooling of the molten metal.

5) Sulfur added to thermite lowers the melting point of iron.

 

[bill smith]

keeping steel molten for months

I'm sure I once heard Steven Jones say that the thermite he thinks was used to help demolish the buidings could have continued reacting in the assumed molten steel for weeks or months enabling it to say molten for so long.

I've never come accross that piece of info since then. Has anybody else heard abut that or have any details ?

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

That didn't make a lick of sense.

That's an awfully damning confession to offer up on any public forum, IMHO... but, what the heck: I'll play along, if only out of grudging respect for the courage it doubtless took to do so in the first place. Which word(s) or sentence(s), specifically, were the ones puzzling you? (There were only three of the latter, so the field has already been narrowed for your convenience.) Help me to help you!

You have no rebuttal so you just drag your feet thru some doublespeak.

"The fact that you don't understand something does[n't] make it 'double talk'." Dodge duly noted.

Would you address the points

Asked and answered. Your "point," such as it is, hinges wholly upon the existence of some dippy, Spy-Vs.-Spy-esque sort of "thermite" which -- contrary to how said composition invariably works here, in the real world -- magically leaves no trace of its ever having been, post-ignition; save for those, of course, inexplicably detectable to twoofers and assorted other born rubes, and they alone. Your "point," therefore, is rightly and summarily rejected, on the grounds that it (to repeat myself) assumes facts not even remotely in evidence.

Finito.

 

[Sunstealer]

Thewholesoul has it wrong because he misunderstands what an Fe-O-S eutectic is and the fact that it forms BELOW the temperature at which a plain carbon steel such as A36 melts which is approximately 1370°C. For the mathematically challenged truther

1370-940= 430. Therefore there is another 430 degrees to go (above the eutectic temp) until that steel becomes a liquid.

So Thewholesoul's claim of

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.

is incorrect because the eutectic is formed below the melting point of the material.

To spell it out once more - you can form the eutectic without reaching the melting point of the steel.

To answer his question: We know that building fires can reach temperatures of around 1000°C therefore a eutectic could form under those conditions. We know that fires continued under the rubble for a considerable time so I don't see why temperatures as hot as 1000°C could not have occurred. So you can form the eutectic in both situations without liquid steel being present.

As for Mackey's data I don't know how that gizmo works (I'll have to go back and read those posts) so I don't know what it's measuring exactly and the time frames. I've no doubt that the rubble pile was very well insulated.

You don't have to sustain temperatures over weeks or months to produce this eutectic you just have to have the right conditions and these can be heavily localised (that means not over a widespread area, but on a tiny, tiny area).

Sulphidation and oxidation of plain carbon steels will occur at much lower temperatures than 940°C and will still lead to high corrosion rates due to the fact that steel will burn and the oxide scales will spall (it falls of) due to their (lattice) incoherency with the parent metal and the high build up of stress (tensile or compressive) in the scale itself. This process is accelerated because ingress of sulphur (primarily down grain boundaries) below the surface. The formation of the eutectic is NOT the mechanism by which the steel erodes. The eutectic is highly localised, just look at the metallographic samples we are talking microns here. At no point did sulphur enter steel, lower it's melting point and therefore produce liquid steel or liquid of any significant quantity - we are talking grams not kilograms or tons of liquid.

 

[Christopher7]

Your "point," such as it is, hinges wholly upon the existence of some dippy, Spy-Vs.-Spy-esque sort of "thermite" which -- contrary to how said composition invariably works here, in the real world -- magically leaves no trace of its ever having been, post-ignition;

No, I'm talking about plain old, run of the mill thermite.

inexplicably detectable to twoofers and assorted other born rubes, and they alone.

Detectable to anyone who actually looks for it.

Your "point," therefore, is rightly and summarily rejected, on the grounds that it (to repeat myself) assumes facts not even remotely in evidence.

Denial based on the assumption that there is no trace.

You did not deny the 5 points because you cannot.

 

[Christopher7]

Thewholesoul has it wrong because he misunderstands what an Fe-O-S eutectic is and the fact that it forms BELOW the temperature at which a plain carbon steel such as

A36 melts which is approximately 1370°C.

Source?

is incorrect because the eutectic is formed below the melting point of the material.

Source?

To spell it out once more - you can form the eutectic without reaching the melting point of the steel.

Source?

To answer his question: We know that building fires can reach temperatures of around 1000°C therefore a eutectic could form under those conditions.

Source?

We know that fires continued under the rubble for a considerable time so I don't see why temperatures as hot as 1000°C could not have occurred.

Ventilated room fores burn at 1000°C and only for a short time.[see post above for NIST data] Fires deep in a debris pile would burn much lower.

So you can form the eutectic in both situations without liquid steel being present.

Baseless assumption. Please provide sources for your claims.

Sulphidation and oxidation of plain carbon steels will occur at much lower temperatures than 940°C and will still lead to high corrosion rates

Sulphidation? Source?

 

[Sunstealer]

1) Thermite burns at 4500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F

Yes.

2) Iron is liquid at 2800

[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F and solid at about 2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F

Yes.

3) 30 - 60 feet of debris would provide a great deal of insulation.

Yes. I don't see why not.

4) Molten iron would heat the pile and burn the combustible material in the debris. This would slow the cooling of the molten metal.

Yes. However, you are assuming that molten metal is present in the first place. There is no physical evidence for this.

5) Sulfur added to thermite lowers the melting point of iron.

No. Sulphur is added to thermite along with Barium Nitrate and fine Aluminium powder (and a binder) in order to produce a "first fire mix". Thermite is very hard to ignite, because it's ignition temperature is so high, therefore you need a secondary source of heat capable of doing this such as an pyrotechnic initiator or magnesium ribbon. The addition of a "first fire mix" is to help start the thermite reaction via a material that has a lower ignition point, but a high enough thermal reaction in order to ignite the thermite.

I would be extremely interested to learn how sulphur can lower the melting point of steel in such a short space of time, bearing in mind that the 4500°F temperature you are so fond of quoting would be more than sufficient to melt pure Iron (at 1538°C) which has a higher melting point than plain carbon steel. The presence of sulphur is neither here nor there.

 

[bill smith]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. I don't see why not.

Yes. However, you are assuming that molten metal is present in the first place. There is no physical evidence for this.

No. Sulphur is added to thermite along with Barium Nitrate and fine Aluminium powder (and a binder) in order to produce a "first fire mix". Thermite is very hard to ignite, because it's ignition temperature is so high, therefore you need a secondary source of heat capable of doing this such as an pyrotechnic initiator or magnesium ribbon. The addition of a "first fire mix" is to help start the thermite reaction via a material that has a lower ignition point, but a high enough thermal reaction in order to ignite the thermite.

I would be extremely interested to learn how sulphur can lower the melting point of steel in such a short space of time, bearing in mind that the 4500°F temperature you are so fond of quoting would be more than sufficient to melt pure Iron (at 1538°C) which has a higher melting point than plain carbon steel. The presence of sulphur is neither here nor there.

Good point.

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

No, I'm talking about plain old, run of the mill thermite.

Thermite melts steel.

It is the only thing known to melt steel outside a foundary. [sic]

As has already been amply (and damningly) established over the past few months, on this very site: your knowledge of even the baseline rudiments, re: thermite reactions, is... well... somewhat less than optimal, let's say.

Here's a straightforward, bare bones explanation (I certainly don't want to risk running faster than you can keep up a second time tonight!) as to how many tons -- yes, you read that right; T-O-N-S tons!!! -- of thermite would be required, at barest minimum, in order to: a.) burn core columns, and: b.) keep iron or steel in a molten state for an additional six weeks, post-ignition. Possibly it will serve as much-needed intellectual epiphany, insofar as this particular idee fixe of yours is concerned. Here's hoping, at any rate.

Denial based on the assumption that there is no trace.

You're the one mulishly advancing the extraordinary claim, sans any appreciable logic or rationale, that thermite -- in the gargantuan amounts previously established, re: the aforementioned link -- could perform as you've repeatedly insisted. Tragically, however: that much thermite would leave incontrovertible post-ignition evidence of its having been so utilized. Therefore, it is for you to convince ME (or anyone/everyone else hereabouts) of the soundness of said extraordinary claim; not for me (or anyone/everyone else hereabouts) to continually re-re-re-explain, in ever shorter and simpler terms, why it is an extraordinary claim in the first place. You're welcome, incidentally.

You did not deny the 5 points because you cannot.

Asked and answered. Your "point," such as it is, hinges wholly upon the existence of some dippy, Spy-Vs.-Spy-esque sort of "thermite" which -- contrary to how said composition invariably works here, in the real world -- magically leaves no trace of its ever having been, post-ignition. Your "point," therefore, is rightly and summarily rejected, on the grounds that it (third and final time) assumes facts not even remotely in evidence.

If the only blunted arrow remaining in your rhetorical quiver, at this late date, is simply the rote, monotonous argument by assertion with which you've repeatedly (and ineffectually) volleyed, by way of response... then: you'll certainly enjoy a nice, relaxing sabbatical at the world-renowned Casa Ignore List, unless/until you eventually manage to rearm with something appreciably more penetrating. Enjoy your stay; kindly don't steal the towels.

 

[thewholesoul]

So does it not follow that any molten steel that may or may not have been produced during the collapse of the towers, irrespective of how it was produced, could not have possibly been the same molten steel that was reported days/weeks later?

before i answer that, you will answer my question. a dialogue is a two way street you know. so tell me what are you arguing? (a) there were sufficient temp in the rubble pile to create molten steel or (b) there was not?

the point i am making is, if you are aguing the former then you are forced to accept the presence of molten steel in the rubble pile. if the latter then you are forced to argue that an office fire can make holes in a steel beam. either way there is a concession.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Stop lying. Show us where YOU have stated that Jones is WRONG to refer to the meteorite as "apparently now solidified metal."

what is wrong about that statement. he said "apparently"? that is not a definite statement.

Now is the time to state how Jones can claim that, how molten metal can solidy around steel rebar without melting the rebar,

not just jones, Bart Voorsanger claims a meteorite was a fused element of molten steel and concrete.

or admit that Jones cannot make any such claim and should have removed that claim 3 years ago when he was repeatedly asked to support his claim.

claiming that "apparently" molten steel solidified around the meteorite is perfectly fine.

You and we know you are repeatedly evading answering this question.

please its a petty argument we are having to say the least. i only wish you could more specific so i can end it.

It is time for you to stop your iintellectual dishonesty and answer the question directly. Be a man instead of a coward.

please refrain from insults, they are unnecessary and i have not insulted you. thanks.

peace

 

[bill smith]

Shyam Sunder of NIST on molten steel.

Shyam Sunder of NIST had an interview with No-LLies radio sveral months ago in which he appeared not to be ruling out the presence of molten steel in the rubble piles. He DID rule out te preence of molten teel in the buildings themselves at any point prior to collapse.
When questioned more closely on the steel in the piles he said it was possible for the steel to have melted but that the interviewer would have to contact the experts in the field for further details.

Can anybody explain or speculate what substance could have burned in the rubble pile to reach temperatures that could have melted steel ?.

 

[Christopher7]

Yes. However, you are assuming that molten metal is present in the first place. There is no physical evidence for this.

The solidified molten metal physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed along with 99% of the other physical evidence.
I think NIST has a small piece of solidified molten metal but I'm not sure.

I would be extremely interested to learn how sulphur can lower the melting point of steel in such a short space of time, bearing in mind that the 4500°F temperature you are so fond of quoting would be more than sufficient to melt pure Iron (at 1538°C) which has a higher melting point than plain carbon steel. The presence of sulphur is neither here nor there.

FEMA noted that a beam from WTC 7 eroded at temperatures of around 1000°C due to oxidation and sulfidation.

1) The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

2) Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

3) The sulfidation attack of the steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

 

[GlennB]

before i answer that, you will answer my question. a dialogue is a two way street you know. so tell me what are you arguing? (a) there were sufficient temp in the rubble pile to create molten steel or (b) there was not?

the point i am making is, if you are aguing the former then you are forced to accept the presence of molten steel in the rubble pile. if the latter then you are forced to argue that an office fire can make holes in a steel beam. either way there is a concession.

peace

My bolding.

No there isn't. The steel "swiss cheese" phenomenon was an example of high-temperature corrosion caused by a eutectic mix operating in the 900-1000°C range, not a state-change melting requiring approx. 1500°C temperatures. This was pointed out some hours ago further up the page (and quite possibly many times before that).

The high-temperature office fire merely facilitates the corrosion. It doesn't physically melt the steel.

 

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Quote:
Thewholesoul has it wrong because he misunderstands what an Fe-O-S eutectic is and the fact that it forms BELOW the temperature at which a plain carbon steel such as
A36 melts which is approximately 1370°C.
Source?

The biggest problem you have is you do not understand the iron-carbon phase diagram. An alloy begins to melt at a lower temperature than when that same composition is fully liquid. You need to learn the iron-carbon phase diagram and if you learnt to read this then you would see that at 0.16% Carbon the temperature at which Liquid L and the delta phase (delta-ferrite or delta-iron) occurs is 1400°C (see orange arrow). A36 steel has a carbon content of 0.26% and is therefore to the right of this point. The point at which Liquid is present with austenite (the gamma phase) can be seen by following the green line down from the right of the orange arrow until it reaches the 0.26% carbon point (see x-axis) - which is about 1370°C - note at this point solidus in the form of austenite is present i.e. it's not fully liquid at a maximum temperature of 1493°C before a phase change to delta ferrite (and it's still not fully liquid).

In the case of A36 there are notables for when this occurs, eg: manganese sulphide stringers dissolving into the austenite at grain boundaries which is evidenced by liquation, i.e. grain boundary melting. This occurs at 1370°C (2500°F) as shown in this link

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA71,M1

Quote:
is incorrect because the eutectic is formed below the melting point of the material.
Source?

Lets have some fun shall we. It's like a cat playing with a dead mouse.

Go here http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint archive/Files/35_4_WASHINGTON DC_08-90_1433.pdf Look at Fig 4. - please show where the eutectic point is on this diagram and the subsequent temperature

I've blown it up for ease
or you can magnify the PDF - the actual figure is quoted in the text. What is the actual figure C7? I'm asking this because I want to make sure you have read it, it's quite plain and you can whack me round the head with the answer too because there is a slight surprise, just imagine that eh?

http://www.rolledalloys.com/trcdocs/heatresist/SULPHIDATION.pdf

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...PDiDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=16&ct=result

So that has shown what I said.

Quote:
To spell it out once more - you can form the eutectic without reaching the melting point of the steel.
Source?

See above - I have shown that the eutectic Fe-O-S forms at 940°C and even provided a ternary diagram for the system. We all know that steel melts above this temperature and the commonly held figure is 2500°F (1370°C) as evidenced by the iron-carbon phase diagram presented.

Quote:
Sulphidation and oxidation of plain carbon steels will occur at much lower temperatures than 940°C and will still lead to high corrosion rates
Sulphidation? Source?

Erm, not sure what you are complaining about. Sulphidation (Sulfidation for the yanks) is a well known corrosion mechanism which occurs in steels (as well as other metals/alloys) generally above temperatures of 250°C. There is massive amounts of info eg: http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/1899/1/tps-712.pdf and this shows even mild spikes from 320°C to 480°C cause increased corrosion rates.

Chapter 7

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11542599/911-Sulfur-and-World-Trade-Center

Page 145 - high temperature corrosion

Oxidation or rust is obvious. The fact that iron oxidises is well known and it's well known that increasing the temperature increases the rate at which the oxide layer forms, infact for nearly all metals a parabolic rate constant is observed for oxidation rates between 250°C and 1000°C - and no I'm not going to source this just read Page 145 above - it gives you all the info.

That will take you a good while to read so I'll answer you other points when you have acknowledged that you have read and understood what I have provided. I shan't engage you with your silly game of shouting "source" because I'll only embarrass you and show you up. I've shown you that i know what I'm talking about don't let me make the same requirement of you.

 

[Sunstealer]

The solidified molten metal physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed along with 99% of the other physical evidence.
I think NIST has a small piece of solidified molten metal but I'm not sure.

FEMA noted that a beam from WTC 7 eroded at temperatures of around 1000°C due to oxidation and sulfidation.

1) The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

2) Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

3) The sulfidation attack of the steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

ROFLMAO - haha you do realise that you are talking to a metallurgist who has been telling you this all along (although when you say liquified steel you are still wrong - see previous discussion on Fe-O-S eutectic - you are effectively saying that when you have an orgasm instead of producing a teaspoon full or two you produce gallons - understand that the liquid eutectic occurs in grams not gallons) However, YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

How does the Sulphur get into the steel C7? Remember that the steel is SOLID at this point . What mechanism is used? Describe this mechanism mathematically - hint: it's a famous equation. What are the limiting factors for this process?