bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
TWS said he couldn't claim that because he had not examined and tested it. But TWS said Jones didn't have to test it.
Now, what do YOU say?
Molten Steel
- Thread starter thewholesoul
- Start date
- Status
TWS said he couldn't claim that because he had not examined and tested it. But TWS said Jones didn't have to test it.
Now, what do YOU say?
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
How's that support for your claim that "molten metal can solidify around steel rebar without melting the rebar" coming, Chris?
Isn't physical evidence pesky for you Truthers?
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Look, I need to state this outright before someone brings up the EDX analysis again (Sunstealer and others with chemistry &/or physics backgrounds, you can skip this; it's just basic info rehashing for new folks/lurkers, etc.): What does EDX reveal? The elemental composition of a sample, and the rough amounts of each element present. What does it not - indeed, can it not - reveal? Structure and stoichiometry. Why is that important? Because if one wants to cite Jones's EDX spectra (not his whole paper, just the EDX spectra by themselves) as evidence establishing the presence of thermite, one is claiming that his spectra establishes more than just the relative amounts of iron, oxygen, sulfur, etc. is present, it's claiming that the relative amounts are stoichiometrically correct and that they're present as their individual elements, and not contained in other molecules (iron, sulfur and oxygen, for example, can either be present in either their straight elemental forms, or in various combinations - FeO, Fe2O3, FeS, FeS2, and so on - and any possible mix of those molecules with elemental iron, sulfur, and oxygen would return the same peaks on an EDX analysis). So what's the problem? Well, someone needs to point out where in Jones's paper he does indeed establish this from the X-EDS spectra.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
The whole problem here is that when conspiracy peddlers cite Jones's work, they inevitably end up claiming that the EDX work shows the presence of thermite. It does not. It cannot. All it establishes is the presence of various elements and a rough idea of their general amounts relative to each other. Nothing else. If he uses EDX to demonstrate the presence in a sphere of iron, oxygen, sulfur, he doesn't establish what in the towers contributed those elements. And that is why citing EDX analysis does not establish the presence of thermite. All it does is establish the presence of certain elements. And those elements are fully expected to be present.
So, what's the importance of Jones's work then? Well, for the conspiracy believers, it's merely a starting point to establish the presence of certain elements in the microspheres, and to make the argument that because office fires don't get hot enough to melt steel, there's something suspicious here. And to point out that, in other spheres taken in another sample, the presence of another element - aluminum - indicates that those were made in conditions where steel didn't melt, yet the spheres from the WTC, which did not have aluminum, indicates that they were made from molten steel.
Now, stop and parse that last paragraph. He says that the spheres from the WTC dust were made from molten steel, then argues that because the fires weren't hot enough, the official story is missing something. Sounds logical, right? Well, where does he establish that the spheres were indeed made that day, let alone from molten steel?? Answer: He doesn't. And that's the central deceit in his paper. He brandishes EDX work establishing presence of elements, and then long-jumps to this argument without establishing when those spheres were created. He leaves us to assume that because he collected them in an apartment across the street that they must have been formed on 9/11. There's no consideration of the fact that they were more likely created either during construction or deposited over the lifespan of the towers and liberated from the structure on that day. Welding certainly produces the melting necessary, and would of course not lend itself to aluminum contamination. So would the internal friction of metals in diesel engines; such wear would be really highly localized, and sure, would contribute only a trickle overall, but there would be some small amount from diesel exhaust, and the towers did stand for several decades, being exposed to such the entire time. And those are only two potential sources out of God knows how many. Yet Jones wants us to believe they were made on 9/11 from some "mysterious" combustion that was capable of melting not just microscopic amounts of steel, but whole box columns.
Anyway, this is why Jones's work is flawed; he makes unsupportable leaps. And getting back to the original point of this post, it's also why it's erroneous to point at his EDX spectra as evidence of thermite. They are no such things.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
The whole problem here is that when conspiracy peddlers cite Jones's work, they inevitably end up claiming that the EDX work shows the presence of thermite. It does not. It cannot. All it establishes is the presence of various elements and a rough idea of their general amounts relative to each other. Nothing else. If he uses EDX to demonstrate the presence in a sphere of iron, oxygen, sulfur, he doesn't establish what in the towers contributed those elements. And that is why citing EDX analysis does not establish the presence of thermite. All it does is establish the presence of certain elements. And those elements are fully expected to be present.
So, what's the importance of Jones's work then? Well, for the conspiracy believers, it's merely a starting point to establish the presence of certain elements in the microspheres, and to make the argument that because office fires don't get hot enough to melt steel, there's something suspicious here. And to point out that, in other spheres taken in another sample, the presence of another element - aluminum - indicates that those were made in conditions where steel didn't melt, yet the spheres from the WTC, which did not have aluminum, indicates that they were made from molten steel.
Now, stop and parse that last paragraph. He says that the spheres from the WTC dust were made from molten steel, then argues that because the fires weren't hot enough, the official story is missing something. Sounds logical, right? Well, where does he establish that the spheres were indeed made that day, let alone from molten steel?? Answer: He doesn't. And that's the central deceit in his paper. He brandishes EDX work establishing presence of elements, and then long-jumps to this argument without establishing when those spheres were created. He leaves us to assume that because he collected them in an apartment across the street that they must have been formed on 9/11. There's no consideration of the fact that they were more likely created either during construction or deposited over the lifespan of the towers and liberated from the structure on that day. Welding certainly produces the melting necessary, and would of course not lend itself to aluminum contamination. So would the internal friction of metals in diesel engines; such wear would be really highly localized, and sure, would contribute only a trickle overall, but there would be some small amount from diesel exhaust, and the towers did stand for several decades, being exposed to such the entire time. And those are only two potential sources out of God knows how many. Yet Jones wants us to believe they were made on 9/11 from some "mysterious" combustion that was capable of melting not just microscopic amounts of steel, but whole box columns.
Anyway, this is why Jones's work is flawed; he makes unsupportable leaps. And getting back to the original point of this post, it's also why it's erroneous to point at his EDX spectra as evidence of thermite. They are no such things.
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 414
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
And under what conditions does steel vaporize and what evidence is there that those conditions existed at WTC on or after 9/11?
Did Google U. teach you that? I don't think so.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Methinks that Bill doesn't understand the scientific process.
I already did that, about a page back, with links to three different threads covering the spherules and chips.
Went unnoticed I am guessing.
TAM
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
C7 said:
Neither.
Note that Gravy used the phrase "eroded pieces"
C7 said:
This is just semantics. The words eroded, corroded or melted could all be used to describe what happened to the beam.
You flippantly call people a liar over semantics. That's desperation.
No they couldn't.
More than once I've had an old car whose sills and/or floor have corroded to the point of developing holes.
There is no way to describe these metal parts as having melted.
The physical characteristics of corrosion and melting are different.
http://www.neha.org/pdf/messages_in_the_dust.pdf
He had his eye closed. Was the molten metal in his mind when he closed his eyes?
What did he really mean? Was there hot metal and he called it molten steel? Has Dr Thermite Jones asked him, have you asked him what he meant?
I doubt he saw melted steel, but I don’t doubt people used the simile of molten steel to indicate heat. But gee, no sample was taken of the melted steel at over 1300 degrees C. Why? Why is there no sample of a river of molten steel now solid at the bottom of the WTC? But the cool thing is even is there is a river of melted steel in the WTC it does not mean much of anything for those with delusions of bombs, and thermite used by some third party to destroy the WTC which was a gravity collapse due to fires after tremendous impacts. At least you have posted proof planes were used to impact the WTC; hope you meant to prove that cause your proof of rivers of steel flowing in the WTC is drying up.
So you have a lie, hearsay, and closed eyes so far to go with your non-conclusion of what did 911.
Thermite would have cooled that day. So thermite is ruled out and Jones is delusional about that because he made thermite as the method for WTC destruction up when he got insane on the war in Iraq so he wrote a paper with no evidence, made up some lies and fooled you. This is cool seeing insane ideas adopted with cherry picked hearsay and similes as support; good job trying to defend some delusional conclusion you failed to make in the OP
You are afraid to say “Thermite”. Too shy?
You can make a thermite reaction and see a wood fire will stay warmer longer. So we have 220 acres of office space burning in a 5-story ruble pile of the WTC. And you want to say thermite and explosives are responsible for melted steel when there is over 1,000 TONS of TNT energy in the heat released just with jet fuel and office contents, and you want explosives and thermite in your dirt dumb conclusion of explosives and/or thermite did 911 due to the fact Dr Jones made it up? Is he your hero? Jones has a delusion of thermite 4 years after 911 and no evidence. You fail at cherry picking statements with hearsay and LIES to support failed ideas of a fired physicists due to his well-mannered veiled political rant on thermite. As for delusions, at least the thermite one is interesting science with thermite melting through engine blocks and a great physics show pieces as you sell lies, fantasy and hearsay as facts and evidence.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
C7 said:
FEMA C pg 5 "The sulfidation attack of the steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion."
corrosion: destruction by chemical reaction
[FONT="]erosion: gradual breaking down
melted: change from solid to liquid state
All these words describe what happened to the beams in the FEMA C report.
The beams did not go from a solid to a gas, they were partially turned to liquid.
[/FONT]
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
So what parts of those samples look like they were liquefied?
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
I already did that, about a page back, with links to three different threads covering the spherules and chips.
Went unnoticed I am guessing.
TAM
Well, you, I, and others will probably have to say it a few more times, not in the hopes that it'll actually sink in for the truthers, but to keep the link in front of new folks who might be reading.
Gah... I wish there were some way to script that. That task is about as robotic as you can get.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The parts of those steel "I" beams that are no longer there.
Last edited:
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Even though I have him on ignore I can still see C7's ignorance and stupidity in the quotes. The problem that people like him have is that they do not understand that certain terms or words when used in the scientific sense are either different from everyday use, mean slightly different things in different disciplines and have precise meaning.
In corrosion science
Erode is usually to do with erosion, that is areas being worn away by force. Eddy currents in a pipe, or abrasive sand wearing away metal are examples. Some would argue that this is a mechanical process and I'd agree with them but point out that erosion corrosion has a chemical component. However, the terms erosion/eroded can also be applied to mean severe.
Corroded is a general term that basically means the part is not in it's original dimensions due to a corrosion mechanism. Types of corrosion include crevice, pitting, intergranular, Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC), corrosion fatigue, erosion, galvanic, fretting, hydrogen damage (embrittlement) and probably a few more.
Melted also has a specific meaning - that is turned from solid to liquid. You have to be a bit careful when using the word because it's frequently misunderstood. Many alloys, as you heat them enter a region on the phase diagram whereby Liquid and solid are present and it is justified to say melted, but you have to be specific. Another example is liquation or grain boundary melting, this is highly localised - you can see this simply by looking at a metals granular structure and then looking at the scale on the picture to see how small a volume is present. (Same with the Fe-O-S eutectic it's not much). And then ofcourse there is melted as in fully liquid.
In corrosion science
Erode is usually to do with erosion, that is areas being worn away by force. Eddy currents in a pipe, or abrasive sand wearing away metal are examples. Some would argue that this is a mechanical process and I'd agree with them but point out that erosion corrosion has a chemical component. However, the terms erosion/eroded can also be applied to mean severe.
Corroded is a general term that basically means the part is not in it's original dimensions due to a corrosion mechanism. Types of corrosion include crevice, pitting, intergranular, Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC), corrosion fatigue, erosion, galvanic, fretting, hydrogen damage (embrittlement) and probably a few more.
Melted also has a specific meaning - that is turned from solid to liquid. You have to be a bit careful when using the word because it's frequently misunderstood. Many alloys, as you heat them enter a region on the phase diagram whereby Liquid and solid are present and it is justified to say melted, but you have to be specific. Another example is liquation or grain boundary melting, this is highly localised - you can see this simply by looking at a metals granular structure and then looking at the scale on the picture to see how small a volume is present. (Same with the Fe-O-S eutectic it's not much). And then ofcourse there is melted as in fully liquid.
Last edited:
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
I'm fairly sure that if Dr Jones put a couple of powerpoint presentations on the web declaring that he did walk on water and has turned wine in nano-water that the truthers would lap it up. Dr Jones is not the messiah, he's a very naughty, fraudulent boy.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Impossible. You made a claim that is false. They did mention one of the eroded beams. Yes?
C7 said:
I'm not Gravy. I am calling you on your false claim about NIST.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
They did their own testing on the samples and discuss the results at length. They use the terms eroded/corroded.
It strikes me as utterly unproductive to attempt to discuss anything 9/11-related with Christopher7, much less quibbling over semantic details.
Last edited:
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
You might have hit the nail on the head.lol
- Status