Molten Steel

[DGM]

Time to get my butt kicked in "guitar hero" (by my 11 year old).

Until later.

 

[T.A.M.]

thewholesoul:

Chain of custody? Proof that the iron came from where Jone's said it did? And when was it recovered? From what section was it recovered (would it correspond to areas that the AVIRIS data stated were of pretty high temps, or elsewhere?

All of these questions must be answered before a serious analysis of any of it can occur. In particular, without a proper chain of custody, and time frame, the samples are COMPLETELY useless. Sorry, I do not take Jone's word on ANYTHING.

TAM

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

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.





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

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?).



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).

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.

A genuine and heartfelt "thank you," Sunstealer, for upholding (and rigorously adhering to) the unvarnished, time-honored precepts of the scientific method, throughout all this twoofer twaddle. You're outnumbered, but demonstrably not outgunned.

 

[alexi_drago]

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15040449

Energy efficient coloured paint coatings utilising flaky aluminium pigment with either single layer (Fe2O3) or double layer (Fe2O3 on SiO2) interference coatings are optically and thermally characterised.

Bi-layer!
Iron oxide!
Aluminum!
Silicon Oxide!

What was it that Jones found?

And what shape are the Iron oxide particles typically supplied to paint manufacturers? (should be easy to guess)

In Jones presentation He states that he initially thought it was paint but then he jumps to thermite with no mention of ruling it out as paint. He also states that when passing an oxy-acetyline torch (burns around 3500C) over a chip that it flamed, wow.

 

[Christopher7]

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?

It's clear you are down with the cover-up.

A real investigation would look at everything.

A real investigation would follow the guidelines in NFPA.

NIST decided what the cause was before starting the investigation and ignored any evidence or testimony that did not fit.

99% of the physical evidence was destroyed making a real investigation of the collapses impossible.

Because there was so little physical evidence, NIST was not able to explain how the towers collapsed to the ground. That is what they were supposed to do.

The government kept the first responders testimony secret and only released it when the NY Times filed a FoIA request.

They ignored all the statements and video clips of first responders and survivors telling of explosions and molten metal.

They collected 7,000 video clips and 7,000 photos and are still withholding them from the public.

The final report on WTC 7 is a farce.
WTC 7 fell at free fall for 105 feet, their computer model does not.
They lied about the fire on floor 12.
They lied about columns 59, 62, 65 and 68 being damaged.
They have NOT explained the collapse of WTC 7!

But all that is OK with you guys.

 

[Sunstealer]

Good point.

Mark Loizeaux said there were pictures and videos of excavator buckets dipping out molten metal. That means there was a lot of molten metal.

Two witnesses said there was molten metal dripping from the ends of steel beams as they were pulled out of the pile.

This is getting very tiresome.

Firstly the word "molten". - Many people will describe something as molten without meaning that the substance was liquid.

eg:

Man 1 - Wow did you hear that? It was an explosion!
Man 2 - Well it sounded more like a shotgun, but yeah I did hear it.

Both of them turn the corner of the street and see their friend working on his car.

Friend - Howdy - that was one hell of a backfire, sounded like the biggest balloon going pop I've ever heard.

Question: What caused the noise?

Was it
A) an explosion
B) a shotgun firing
C) a very large balloon going pop
D) a car backfiring?

Answers on an envelope please.

Secondly, if there was the quantity of molten (liquid) metal that you say there was then why is there not evidence of it? If digger buckets were excavating liquid metal then where is the evidence? We would expect to see splashes of this liquid metal where the diggers dumped it?

Thirdly, how can you prove that this liquid metal that these diggers were picking up was in fact liquid steel? If the metal was liquid steel then this would be a serious hazard and proper protection (like a foundry worker) would be required, but not only that it would take a serious toll on the diggers scoop/bucket. Where was this liquid steel deposited? Why would you even want to tackle liquid steel in the rubble pile rather than let it cool and solidify?

Fourthly, if that person said that then you need to provide a source. Just as you asked me to provide my sources, which I have done, then you need to provide sources to back your claims.

 

[T.A.M.]

metal...molten metal....hmmm, now who would expect molten METAL at GZ...???

EVERYONE!!!!!

TAM

 

[bill smith]

Molten steel cooling.

If I dig a hole and I pour one kilo of molten steel in there and cover it over it wiil cool in..........?

If I dig a hole and I pour 50 kilos of molten steel in there and cover it over it will cool in..........?


If I dig a BIG hole and pour 20,0000 kilos of molten steel in there and cover it over it will cool in.......?

 

[thewholesoul]

Q1. "this solidified molten iron was determined not to be structural steel so
what was the source of this iron?"

A. How am I supposed to know?

honest answer. would you accept a thermite reaction as a plausible candidate since molten iron IS a bi-product of a thermite reaction?

Q2. "what was the source of the extreme temperatures?"

A. How am I supposed to know? I have no clue. Do you have any reason to rule out natural sources (ie, fires)?

honest answer. would you accept a thermite reaction as a plausible candidate since it DOES generate extreme temperatures?

Yes i do have a reason to rule out fires [wtc fires] because they cannot possibly reach temperatures sufficient to liquify iron.

A gravity collapse cannot possibly generate sufficient heat to liquify iron
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

Pressure or friction during collapse cannot possibly generate sufficient heat to liquify iron.

Q3 "when was it molten?"

A. I don't know, You tell me?

honest answer. well if Mackey is right and temperatures in the rubble pile could only reach around 900c then we can rule the rubble pile out as a possible location to liquify iron. moreover there is no credible thermal images of the rubble pile that measured temperatures sufficient to liquify iron. we have already ruled out the wtc fire as a possible location thus we are left with one possible location - DURING THE COLLAPSE.

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

by testing the chemical composition of the samples and comparing the results with molten iron produced from commercial thermite reactions.

furthermore we can simply rule out all other natural causes by the existence of extreme temperatures that were necessary to produce the molten iron.

So far everything found CAN be explained WITHOUT nefarious explanations.

"How am I supposed to know?" "I have no clue" " I don't know, You tell me?"

i may be biased by your responses dont sound like an explanations to me.

perhaps you'll have better luck tomorrow?

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

the presence of once molten iron IS proof of extreme temperatures DURING the collapse. I suggest you work on accepting this fact.

peace

 

[DGM]

It's clear you are down with the cover-up

I have no idea what you mean, unless you think I should accept unsupported evidence.

A real investigation would look at everything.

I seriously doubt they will ever know what I was waring that day or why I was in NH. Has ANY investigation ever answered ever question? So far the only unanswered are moronic disingenuous.

A real investigation would follow the guidelines in NFPA.

Again (for the many times) why? It wasn't relevant to what they were tasked. Please show HOW they were tasked to abide by an agency that had no jurisdiction.

NIST decided what the cause was before starting the investigation and ignored any evidence or testimony that did not fit.

Justify this assertion please.

99% of the physical evidence was destroyed making a real investigation of the collapses impossible.

Opinion, Please justify.

Because there was so little physical evidence, NIST was not able to explain how the towers collapsed to the ground. That is what they were supposed to do.

Opinion. Please justify. (you don't actually think the "lurkers" don't notice you keep repeating things hoping to pass them off as fact)

The government kept the first responders testimony secret and only released it when the NY Times filed a FoIA request.

No they didn't. Unless you think that the NYFD is the government and "in on it".

They ignored all the statements and video clips of first responders and survivors telling of explosions and molten metal.

No. This is just plain wrong. Sorry try again.

They collected 7,000 video clips and 7,000 photos and are still withholding them from the public.

No "they" didn't. The clips and video they collected were not theirs to distribute. Why do you keep trying to push this proven lie? Please stop.

The final report on WTC 7 is a farce.
WTC 7 fell at free fall for 105 feet, their computer model does not.
They lied about the fire on floor 12.
They lied about columns 59, 62, 65 and 68 being damaged.
They have NOT explained the collapse of WTC 7!

Your un-supported opinion. Why don't you start producing evidence instead of hear say and speculation?

But all that is OK with you guys.:mad

What's OK? Does the fact we need proof to support our believes bother you so much that you need to support yours with lies?

 

[alexi_drago]

the presence of once molten iron IS proof of extreme temperatures DURING the collapse. I suggest you work on accepting this fact.

Have you got any links to photos or sources of the once molten iron?

 

[Christopher7]

This is the exchange so far with C7. . . . .
"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."

he posts hearsay, lies and fantasy

From the FEMA and NIST reports?

NIST has not explained the molten metal or the erroded beam.

You haven't either. If you think you have, send your findings to NIST or to a peer reviewed journal.

You are just an ilmanered anomyous poster and your theories are meaningless outside this forum.

On the other hand, the corroded beam is real and the molten steel is verifiable beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul:Chain of custody? Proof that the iron came from where Jone's said it did? And when was it recovered? From what section was it recovered (would it correspond to areas that the AVIRIS data stated were of pretty high temps, or elsewhere?

legitimate questions and i am sure they could be satisfied.

however if satisfied would you accept that in the context of the official hypothesis there is no plausible explanation for the extreme temperatures required to liquify iron?

All of these questions must be answered before a serious analysis of any of it can occur.

by who NIST?

In particular, without a proper chain of custody, and time frame, the samples are COMPLETELY useless. Sorry, I do not take Jone's word on ANYTHING.

it was a logical response. when you can not argue against the science argue against the person. but the chain of custody is a legitimate concern.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Have you got any links to photos or sources of the once molten iron?

nope, i'm just making all this up.

only joking http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf p80

peace

 

[alexi_drago]

nope, i'm just making all this up.

only joking http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf p80

peace

thankyou.

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

Well yes and no. For example, many metallurgists carry out failure investigations. They will get a component that has failed adn be asked, "so what caused this then?", and "how do we make sure it doesn't happen again?".

In this scenario you go back to basics and you gather as much data about the part and it's history before you even start to do a full examination (yeah we have a peek and make an hypothesis and it's surprising how the older, more experienced ones, teach us younger ones a thing or two with the mark one eyeball and a magnifying lens!)

Then you use your own eyes to have a general look. A bigger magnifying glass/window is used to look but this is 10x mag. A camera with a tripod, lots of zoom, widefield and a bit of space allows you to photograph the object in good detail for reference. Smaller objects allow better resolution and detail.

This will give us a good indication of what's occurring and whether we need to look at microstructures and cracks more closely by "sectioning" the component or "cracking open the crack" to look at the surface of the crack to see whether there is any indication on the cracks's surface as to why the crack is there.

sectioning - no not putting it into a white coat, but cutting out the piece you are interested in, orienting the face you want to look at and "mounting" it in resin and then grinding and polishing the section (1 micron is quite common) so that we can look at it under a microscope. Usually we etch the sample to bring out detail in the structure - different etchants for metals/structures, hence why you see 4% Nital with respect to steel on many photographs.

cracking open the crack - sometimes you want to look at a crack's surface. To do this we cut out the section of the component containing the crack. Then we cut carefully toward the back of the crack to reduce the remaining material to a minimum in order to minimise the force required to break the remaining material. Then apply force (hammer or vice of whatever) and this will then split the material further along the crack and you end up with two pieces. Each piece has the face of the crack now on one side. You can then examine this.

In the case of WTC steel these pieces were sectioned and mounted (sectioning) and then etched to bring out the structure. Optical microscopy (looking at the flat surface through a microscope) will then give you 95% of the information you want and this will depend upon the skill and experience of the person looking down the microscope. We can tell huge amounts about a material just by looking at it via a microscope. We don't even need to have huge magnifications either, x100, x200 is often enough.

The SEM is not an automatic part of the analysis because you can get the conclusion without it's use, however, it is useful for allsorts of different things not just for finding the composition of a particular point on the sample. You have to know what you you want from the SEM before you start using it. That doesn't mean it doesn't throw up allsorts of stuff (infact it's the norm because we are not used to looking at that scale - just look at magnified bedbug!) but you are using it as a tool to gain further information on the back of the optical work.

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

I'm flattered. The thing about technical questions is that a simple statement can have an awful lot of technical explanation behind it. When people make those simple statements then it is expected that they should have an understanding of the technicalities behind them within reason. And a layman's understanding is fine. This also goes both ways. Saying that an iron-worker or myself might be "in the know" isn't too bad a way of approaching things but one must be careful because both of us can make mistakes and one person's experience does not match anothers' even if they share a field such as iron working.

I've an acquaintance named Dave http://www.cobalt-blacksmiths.co.uk/ who is a very skilled blacksmith and in the past we have talked about working steel and iron. The difference in our language was quite a shock to me. He spoke of various things that I looked blank about, but when he explained them I sort of went "oh you mean x,y,z, yeah right, well this is because such and such happens", and then it would be his turn to look blank and then I'd explain a bit more and he'd then get it.

Blacksmithing is an art. And since knowing him I came up with this notion:

A blacksmith, a metallurgist does not make. A metallurgist, a blacksmith does not make. But both are possible!

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?

I agree with that. However, there has to be a reason for starting any investigation unfortunately thermite/government complicity etc is not going to be a good enough reason. Examination of the "meteorite" may indicate that there were no high temperatures involved. By looking at the photographs of the object just as I would be expected to look at photographs that I had taken during an investigation, I cannot see that there is any external evidence of previously liquid steel. I may be wrong but I see concrete layers with rusted steel/iron amongst them, notable intact and very identifiable rebar. If such an item had experienced temperatures to melt steel then I would expect to see what is now the rebar drooped, melted or stuck to the outside.

I'm more than happy to say,"yep, let's do a analysis on the meteorite, use a third party company etc", but I doubt that we are going to find anything extraordinary. If we did then how would that point to the use of explosives/thermite/mate etc and a demolition give the rest of the material recovered?

 

[thewholesoul]

A genuine and heartfelt "thank you," Sunstealer, for upholding (and rigorously adhering to) the unvarnished, time-honored precepts of the scientific method, throughout all this twoofer twaddle. You're outnumbered, but demonstrably not outgunned.

the scientific method involves testing one's hypothesis through experimentation. sunstealer has not tested any of his hypothesis.
peace

 

[Sunstealer]

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."

Yes I understand why you are having a hard time and I suspect that other's who agree with NIST are also having a hard time understanding. It's not an easy subject to explain, I'll try in brief but this is eating into my STALKER - Clear Sky time! I will get back to you, because I do think this "liquefied" steel/eutectic is an enormous point of confusion.

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?

I thinks those are quotes from Mackey - this thread is moving fast. No idea I'm having to go back and read about the method and data myself - I think this is Mackey's domain.

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

the scientific method involves testing one's hypothesis through experimentation.

A tellingly incomplete (and inadequate) definition. Here, for your benefit, is the full and correct one:

"Scientific method refers to techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

Adhere more closely to these principles, and your woo factor will be greatly reduced as a result.

 

[MikeW]

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...

This is where Jones says he knows it's not structural steel because it has "very little Chromium yet abundant Manganese", yes? But from what I've seen, and NIST said, plenty of steel standards of the time used more Manganese than Chromium, so what is Jones logic here?