Molten Steel

[thewholesoul]

By your own admission, Jones did not test the meteorite. Obviously, he is in no position to say "apparently."

OMG

i'm really sorry but this is my last post to you on this semantical subject

"aparantly" is a subjective term, meaning it appears to be. it is in the same family of words like "perhaps" probably" "possibily" etc all of these words are not words of certainty period. It is because he did not test the meteorite that he MUST USE the word "apparently". please try to get over this.

peace

 

[bill smith]

NIST firestation burn tests to determine the temperatures and heat release profile the wtc buildings might have experienced due to the buidings combustibles found that peak temperatures reached in 20-30 minutes were below 600c shortly thereafter. [NCSTAR 1-5 p78 fig 4-8] So it is true to say that wtc fires did not reach 2000 F (1,100c).

I agree, “repeating false statements will never make them true” but my point is that if you’re going to accuse the ironworkers’ statement as being false you’re going to have to prove it. How do you prove it, you got it, through a forensic examination for temperature exposure which you oppose for reasons yet to be known.



Its not a bad analogy but it fails on several points of comparison

•It is of little to no significance whether the Empire State Building is 38ft shorter than published; it is of great significance whether extreme temperatures were present during the collapse.
•Your assertion is not relevant to any investigation, official or otherwise; the ironworkers assertion is relevant to an official investigation
•No evidence do you have, other than your statement, that the Empire State Building its 38ft shorter? In contrast, the horseshoe I-beam is on video and you can see with your eyeballs, especially yours , that the beam has no cracking or buckling just like the iron worker and the other gentleman say.



No need, I take your word for it. So they buckled due to fire, but the horseshoe I-beam at issue, did not buckle. This suggests that it was bent through extreme heat.



It is an issue for you too becuase it is a subject of our exchanges.

I am not going to consult with anyone, I am arguing for futher investigation of certain relics in the rubble. An electron microscope will answer the questions that many have.



Ok then, if it wasnt the pressure during collapse that bent the I-beam then was it the WTC fire? Perhaps the WTC fire in combination with pressure from collapse? Could you please specify what you speculate caused the I-beam to form into a horseshoe shape without cracking or buckling so as I can avoid future strawmen?



Why do I have to explain technical questions? Such questions are best directed at those in the know – say the ironworker standing right next to the object claiming that it takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this. Or sunstealer?

But notice how I dont ask you technical questions Mark? Thats because I know you’re not an expert in such matters so such questions would serve little to no purpose other than trying to make you feel ignorant.



This is a forum for rational debate. Present your reason(s) why you oppose further investigation of certain objects and let us all see if they can stand up to scrutiny.

I am not gong to press you for an apology, i know thats not your style. But i would appreciate if you could explain to me why the following statement is nonsense. I changed a few words but its pretty much the same.

Without forensic examination of the “meteorite” it is impossible to say with empirical certainty whether extreme temperatures (2000+ F) were present and involved during its formation. Do you agree with this statement?

Peace.

Strong post.

 

[thewholesoul]

Honestly Chris there is mountains of information showing that iron and steel production is thousands of years old. They didn't have thermite/mate to melt iron they used wood and charcoal to heat the ore and subsequent pig iron/blooms in order to work it and turn it into something useful.

Dr.Jones recovered chunks, fragments, and microsphericules of once molten iron. it was tested and determined to have the same chemicals as observed from a commercial thermite reaction. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf

this iron was determined not to originate from of the structural steel
molten iron is a biproduct of a thermite reaction.

what was the source of this iron?
what was the source of the temperature to produce this molten iron?
when was the iron molten, prior to or during the rubble pile?
what process could have produced this molten iron?

peace

 

[Christopher7]

These "recommendations" are for an arson investigation where the cause is unknown. Millions of people watched what caused these fires .

What does this have to do with what FEMA or NIST was investigating? This line of argument is pointless and irrelevant.

NFPA is very relevant.

NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 921, which is the National Standard for Fire and Explosion Investigations, very clearly indicates in numerous sections that the possibility of explosives should have been thoroughly investigated. Specifically in NFPA 921 18.3.2 High Order Damage - “High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.” World Trade Center’s 1, 2, and 7 all clearly met this definition; therefore they should have been thoroughly investigated and analyzed for explosives. Specifically, the use of “exotic accelerants” should have been investigated. In NFPA 921 19.2.4 -”Exotic Accelerants,” three indicators were clearly met that should have led to a thorough investigation in to the possible use of “exotic accelerants,” specifically as stated in the guideline, “Thermite mixtures.”

NFPA 9.3.6 covers Spoliation of Evidence. Specifically, 9.3.6.7 reads as follows: “Once evidence has been removed from the scene, it should be maintained and not be destroyed or altered until others who have a reasonable interest in the matter have been notified. Any destructive testing or destructive examination of the evidence that may be necessary should occur only after all reasonably known parties have been notified in advance and given the opportunity to participate in or observe the testing.”

 

[DGM]

Dr.Jones recovered chunks, fragments, and microsphericules of once molten iron. it was tested and determined to have the same chemicals as observed from a commercial thermite reaction. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf

this iron was determined not to originate from of the structural steel
molten iron is a biproduct of a thermite reaction.

what was the source of this iron?
what was the source of the temperature to produce this molten iron?
when was the iron molten, prior to or during the rubble pile?
what process could have produced this molten iron?

peace

Why has Dr. Jones never made any attempt to eliminate "natural" or "background" sources of this "samples" ? This would be proper "scientific principles" wouldn't it?

By the way, What ever happened to the "independent verification" that he promised a year (+) ago? (answer: it never happened)

 

[DGM]

NFPA is very relevant.

NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 921, which is the National Standard for Fire and Explosion Investigations, very clearly indicates in numerous sections that the possibility of explosives should have been thoroughly investigated. Specifically in NFPA 921 18.3.2 High Order Damage - “High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.” World Trade Center’s 1, 2, and 7 all clearly met this definition; therefore they should have been thoroughly investigated and analyzed for explosives. Specifically, the use of “exotic accelerants” should have been investigated. In NFPA 921 19.2.4 -”Exotic Accelerants,” three indicators were clearly met that should have led to a thorough investigation in to the possible use of “exotic accelerants,” specifically as stated in the guideline, “Thermite mixtures.”

NFPA 9.3.6 covers Spoliation of Evidence. Specifically, 9.3.6.7 reads as follows: “Once evidence has been removed from the scene, it should be maintained and not be destroyed or altered until others who have a reasonable interest in the matter have been notified. Any destructive testing or destructive examination of the evidence that may be necessary should occur only after all reasonably known parties have been notified in advance and given the opportunity to participate in or observe the testing.”

Would you mind showing how this applies to what NIST or FEMA was tasked to do?(source you quotes*) (remember we all know how the fires started).

I never said they weren't important (why would I support them if they weren't).

*After rereading the post they were not "quotes" they were original thoughts. Please explain your insight?

 

[thewholesoul]

Why has Dr. Jones never made any attempt to eliminate "natural" or "background" sources of this "samples" ? This would be proper "scientific principles" wouldn't it?

the chunk of solidified iron was recovered from ground zero, the fragments of solidified iron from a 911 monument, your talking abot the microspheres and i agree more could be done to eliminate alternative sources.

that said, you have done nothing more than skip over the questions. these were all molten at one point in time and produced during the wtc event.

what was the source of the iron?
what was the source of this extreme temperature?
and when was the iron melted: prior to the rubble ple or not?

By the way, What ever happened to the "independent verification" that he promised a year ago? (answer: it never happened)

[/QUOTE]

good point. although i will need to confirm that for myself.

peace

 

[alexi_drago]

that said, you have done nothing more than skip over the questions. these were all molten at one point in time and produced during the wtc event.

Are you including the spheres in that?

 

[Senenmut]

Pretty funny to return to this thread and watch people fail to understand plain English.

First, the AVIRIS data is the only reliable temperature measurement done of the Pile. It does not rule out temperatures of 900+^oC prior to when it flew, obviously, but it does put paid to the idiotic argument, made earlier, that some measurements proved there were temperatures high enough to melt steel. It certainly rules out those temperatures at any time after it flew.

Second, as the paper clearly indicates, you do not do a temperature measurement by looking in the ultraviolet. The idea that it might have somehow missed Thermite blazing away at 7500 K or whatever, simply because it isn't that sensitive there, is so intensely stupid that I'll be shortly adding to my Ignore list.

That's all you guys have left: An inability to understand simple logic, and simple English.

im still having trouble with what u are saying about aviris. thermite produces uv waves.
wiens law-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

"Wien's displacement law states that the hotter an object is, the shorter the wavelength at which it will emit most of its radiation"

now how could aviris measure the temp of thermite (if it were there) or any temp originating in the uv spectrum if it didnt "look" into the less than 400 nm range? im asking u b/c u seem very intelligent in these matters.

 

[DGM]

the chunk of solidified iron was recovered from ground zero, the fragments of solidified iron from a 911 monument, your talking abot the microspheres and i agree more could be done to eliminate alternative sources.


peace

Do you have a source for this? How large are we talking? An "abundance"? I have no doubt odd samples were collected at an extraordinary event. What I take exception to is the leap of logic it takes to connect them to some sort of "conspiracy".

 

[thewholesoul]

since the wtc particle atlas went into what was in the sand, im sure if the portland cement contained fly ash, they would have told us. but if u noticed, it looks as though fly ash is made in the 1200C range, not hot enough to melt iron. rj lee and jones found iron spheres that were once melted.

senenmut,

Jones looked for iron spheres in the WTC concrete
"we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3279843&postcount=115

peace

 

[bill smith]

the chunk of solidified iron was recovered from ground zero, the fragments of solidified iron from a 911 monument, your talking abot the microspheres and i agree more could be done to eliminate alternative sources.

that said, you have done nothing more than skip over the questions. these were all molten at one point in time and produced during the wtc event.

what was the source of the iron?
what was the source of this extreme temperature?
and when was the iron melted: prior to the rubble ple or not?

good point. although i will need to confirm that for myself.

peace[/QUOTE]

Jones did say something a few months ago about getting the samples independently tested soon.

 

[thewholesoul]

Do you have a source for this? How large are we talking? An "abundance"? I have no doubt odd samples were collected at an extraordinary event. What I take exception to is the leap of logic it takes to connect them to some sort of "conspiracy".

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf p80 to 84

it was taken from a 40 pound piece of molten iron recovered from the south tower. can you address the questions now please?

this solidified molten iron was determined not to be structural steel so
what was the source of this iron?
what was the source of the extreme temperatures?
when was it molten?

peace

 

[DGM]

Jones did say something a few months ago about getting the samples independently tested soon.

I had to look

That was December 2007. Times a trip man .

 

[alexi_drago]

Jones looked for iron spheres in the WTC concrete
"we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found."

There would be different types of concrete used in the construction, did he look at various samples?

tbh though I doubt there'd be iron particles in the concrete, possibly aluminum in some types.

 

[bill smith]

senenmut,

Jones looked for iron spheres in the WTC concrete
"we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3279843&postcount=115

peace

Remember the handguns they found at the WTC sites ? The ones that were encased in what appeared to have been formerly-molten concrete ? It would be very interesting to perform the same tests on those samples. They are on display in some New York Museum I believe.

http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgu...mages?q=guns+in+concrete+WTC&gbv=2&hl=en&sa=G

 

[funk de fino]

Source?

Source?

Source?

Source?

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.

Baseless assumption. Please provide sources for your claims.

Sulphidation? Source?

You dont know what eutectic means C7

Thats schoolboy stuff, look up solder used for electronics.

PS Room fires burn hotter than 1000 deg C.

 

[Sunstealer]

This is the exchange so far with C7. It shows that he doesn't read any of the posts arguing against his posts and certainly doesn't accept facts that are proven through scientific literature.

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.

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.

So now he is quoting FEMA to back up his claims yet he disagrees with their conclusions

The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000°C (1,800°F, which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting of this steel.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

and dodges the question of how Sulphur gets into steel via thermite. When I ask how does Sulphur get into the surface of the steel in order to lower it's melting temperature (in order for the thermite reaction to do what?).

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?

He hand waves because he does not know. I don't mind people not knowing and what's more I would never expect C7 aswell as a lot of well qualified people in various fields on JREF (just as I know little about a great many subjects but could learn if JREF members helped me) to ever get this. However, rather than concede and say I don't know, which is what I'd expect of any self-respecting person, because I can try and explain it, he hand waves, but what's worse he says this (my bolding).

The eroded beam was a unique event that the NY Times described as the greatest mystery of 9/11. FEMA did not know what the caused the erosion of the beam and said more study was necessary. No further study has not been done.

But lo and behold, you have the answer.

There are no actual cases of what you propose happened. All your doublespeak comes to nothing. It's just a theory that has not been demonstrated.

In the BBC program on WTC 7, some idiot tried to say the sulfur in the corroded beam came from drywall [gypsum].

The is an unprecedented and unproven theory. The chemical bonds in gypsum are very strong and it is not known how to break them because no one has tried an experiment to find out.

I'd love to break his post down and just say "source?" like he did mine a few posts back but I know it would amount to nothing because he posts hearsay, lies and fantasy. So lets go through it.


1 - he's incorrect about sulphur in thermite lowing the temperature at which iron melts because sulphur in thermite is used as a constituent of a "first fire mix" and secondly he cannot propose a mechanism by which that sulphur gets into the solid steel in order to lower the melting point before the thermite reaction occurs.

2. He tries to quote FEMA (which he disagrees with by the way) to try to answer my questions. It's plainly obvious that he hasn't the first clue where to start but that's no surprise.

Answers: The mechanism by which sulphur (and for that matter oxygen) enters the solid steel is called Diffusion.

Diffusion is governed by ****'s Laws (F-i-c-k-s swear filter) of diffusion. We know this because solutions to these laws provide us with ways to measure what is happening. The most common way is to weigh samples exposed to a gas over a period of time. The gas will diffuse into the surface and therefore the samples will gain weight. This weight gain can then be plotted verses time in order to determine the rate constant. Sometimes we see a linear relationship, but others we see a parabolic relationship that is where K; the rate constant is proportional to time^-2 http://epsc.wustl.edu/~visscher/research/paraboliclaw.pdf

The main limiting factors are temperature (D - the diffusion coefficient or diffusivity is determined by an Arrhenius equation), Time, concentration of (gaseous) species, area, partial pressure.

3. He says sulphidation and oxidation is a theory that doesn't happen yet I have shown him how and why. He does not understand and therefore calls it "doublespeak". Companies throughout the world have spent vast amounts in researching High Temperature Corrosion, it's effects on alloys and how to produce alloys along with coatings to prevent oxidation and sulphidation. The jet engine manufacturers in particular (jet fuel contains sulphur) continue to do so, (I currently work for Rolls Royce), but other people in the power generation and petrochemical industries are just as interested and have sponsored or produced thousands of papers that have been peer reviewed.

4. He has read the following report but failed to understand it. How on earth do you explain the presence of Sulphur in the following report if thermite is the source of sulphur? I want you to show peer reviewed sources that show how thermite can produce such eutectics.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

5. Liquefied steel - I must address this. In the above report there are a number of photographs (photographs of microsections ).

Christopher7- Please measure the thickness of the oxide in figures C4 and C5. Please measure the depth where oxide rounding is present as best you can from C6 (the photo can't give an accurate figure, but I'd like to see how you do it. It's very simple because there is a scale; just like on a map to help you. In figures C7 and C8 we see the eutectic, please can you give an estimation of the area on the photographs that this eutectic takes up?

The last question is not fair - can C7 find out why?

If not give your reason why but give an indication of scale of the eutectic - are we seeing vast swathes compared to the oxide scale, the layer of oxide rounding or any other observable.

The reason this is important is because if you claim that Fe-O-S eutectic liquefied steel then a direct comparison to the oxide scale (hint: darkest bit) would give you an approximation of how much eutectic was present and therefore the volume of steel that had melted causing "rivers of molten steel" and the erosion of the beams.

 

[DGM]

this solidified molten iron was determined not to be structural steel so
what was the source of this iron?

How am I supposed to know?

what was the source of the extreme temperatures?

I have no clue. Do you have any reason to rule out natural sources (ie, fires)?
when was it molten?

I don't know, You tell me?

You see the problem here? Without speculation how do you claim this is from "therm?te"?

So far everything found CAN be explained WITHOUT nefarious explanations.

You need proof for your (his) speculation. I suggest you work on that.



peace[/QUOTE]

 

[Senenmut]

sunstealer-
ill ask u as well since mackey hasnt responded yet...

im having a hard time understanding your position. from the bpat report (i quote this b/c nist refers us there) states:

"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."

now from what you have said, do these temps have to occur up to the point of day 5 when aviris flew over?
or is the temp below the surface hotter and no one knows how hot it is.

then u go on to say "900oC is also totally feasible in an ordinary office fire. 1500oC is barely possible, but would be unusual."

are u saying that these temps were possible before aviris fly over and not after?

now remember what dr asl say only 8 days after the towers fell.....steel where "Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."
so from aviris data, this would of had to occur only before aviris fly over on 9-16. that only gives us 5 days to produce steel that resembles this that was on top of the pile.
do you agree?