Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gravy said:
I think you're mistaking Christopher7 (Chris Sarns) for Christophera (Chris Brown). Easy mistake to make. Unfortunately, arguing with Sarns and trying to get him to admit his errors is like trying to get Chris Brown to admit that the BBC didn't make a documentary showing the WTC being constructed with 3-inch C-4-coated rebar on 4-foot centers.
Click to expand...
I admit when I am wrong and change my position accordingly. You refuse to even acknowledge that you LIED about the samples in the FEMA report being tested, much less admit you were wrong.
 
Christopher7 said:
Organics mixing with aluminum is a baseless theory. There is no scientific proof it can happen. The tests that have been done show that it does not happen.
Click to expand...

Like "molten", "mix" is one of those words that has a range of meanings and the kooks insist in reading it is a way that fits their conclusions, not what makes sense in context and reality.

A better word is "entrain" Mr. Chastain, in fact uses it correctly.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of
aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si =
2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similay and likey to be
entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir
the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tensionis so high is is
almost impossible to separate them.
Click to expand...
 
Sunstealer said:
You have been shown papers sourced by WhiteLion
Click to expand...
WhiteLion has not posted anything that demonstrates organic materials mixing with aluminum.

I saw no analysis in that video of the control sample and the sample mixed with things we didn't see.
Click to expand...
Good point.

Now I ask the same of you. Show me the scientific evidence that organic material can mix with molten aluminum or stop claiming that it can.
 
Christopher7 said:
WhiteLion has not posted anything that demonstrates organic materials mixing with aluminum.

Good point.

Now I ask the same of you. Show me the scientific evidence that organic material can mix with molten aluminum or stop claiming that it can.
Click to expand...

The correct word is "entrain". A google for "entrain foundry" shows that lots of crap can exist in close proximity with molten metal.
 
R.Mackey said:
No.TM
He has clarified himself in discussion with Ron Wieck and other people. His comments do not support actual melting of steel at any time. He does not believe that any steel melted. And as explained to you, personally, before, all the steel he was talking about was recovered and studied in the NIST Report. The "mysterious" bending is described in NCSTAR1-3. Its temperature was quite plausible in a normal fire.

Stop repeating this crap.

And by the way, it isn't "Dr. Asl." It's "Dr. Astaneh." For your information, -asl is an honorific suffix found, in particular, in Iranian culture. What you typed is like me saying "Doctor Mister." See his brief bio here.

I continue to be amazed at how spectactularly wrong you all can be, about everything. And the slenderness of straws you're willing to grasp at to maintain your ridiculous delusion.
Click to expand...

give me a date when dr astaneh clarified his position with ron weick and a source so i can read what he said.

from nist-
it states that the bpat people acquired the sample #2 from the wtc. so is this the same sample dr astaneh saw? Plus, the fema analysed a steel member and not what dr astaneh said was "connections" that were smoothly warped." so if you are saying this is what the nist analyzed, then dr astaneh thinks it happed precollapse and contributed to the collapse. and nist concludes that this might be the case.
page 283
7. two possible explanations for the corrosion events: the result of long term heating in the groud following the collapse of the builfding or start of corrosion phenomenon prior to collapse of the building that accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.
the fema bpat report pretty much says the same thing.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-3C Damage and Failure Modes.pdf

dr astaneh thinks that what he saw contributed to the collapse.

"To support his theory, he cites the way the steel has been bent at several connection points that once joined the floors to the vertical columns. If the internal supporting columns had collapsed upon impact, he says, the connection points would show cracks, because the damage would have been done while the steel was cold. Instead, he describes the connections as being smoothly warped: "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."
 
Senenmut said:
someone asked about this FLIR pic carol took. the jet fuel burned off in 10 mins and this pic was taken about 15 mins after the jet hit the south tower. the wtc is just spewing out black smoke at this point in time. there werent large fires coming out of the windows, just black smoke.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/2854449b668ad65a45.gif
Click to expand...
Taking something out of context and making a false claim about it? A truther would never do such a thing! I am shocked, shocked by this accusation!

Had you bothered to read the NIST report, you would know that,

"Recall from the discussion in Section 8.1 that the temperature scales for the infrared images are not quantitative and that they provide only a relative indication of the amount of heating at a given location. Much of the heated area is saturated in the infrared images." (NCSTAR1-5A, p. 319)

You would also know that,
3345088844_bce48fe3c7_o.jpg



3345088856_57dbab1936_o.jpg



3345088858_9d8b1fbe23_o.jpg


3345088852_8d720c671a_o.jpg


3345125420_83ddf40c06_o.jpg


The question, Senenmut, is why can't you be bothered? Why do you make others do your work? Please answer.
 
Last edited:
i think i read mackey knows someone in touch with dr Astaneh. try and get him to bring all his pictures of the wtc steel. this piece he shot kinda looks like that steel that got attacked by the slag that consisted of iron, oxygen, and sulfur. it would be interesting to see all the images he has!!

 
BigAl said:
A better word is "entrain" Mr. Chastain, in fact uses it correctly.
Click to expand...
Aluminum oxide is not molten aluminum.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Aluminum Oxide, Al2O3[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Alumina is the most cost effective and widely used material in the family of engineering ceramics.
http://www.accuratus.com/alumox.html

[/FONT]Its most significant use is in the production of aluminium metal,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide

Has Mr. Chastain performed experiments and documented the mixing of glass and molten aluminum or glass becoming entrained in molten aluminum?

If not, then it's just more double talk.

Furthermore, once the windows busted out, there was no more glass to be entrained so the whole idea if glass entrained in the molten metal causing it to glow orange yellow is absurd.
 
yes because you know every bit of glass within 50 yards of the aluminum was blown out the window and away. There is NO WAY there was any glass, of any kind, anywhere near that area....lol

You make me laugh. Absurd, yes, but you, not the aluminum and glass mixture.

TAM:)
 
Christopher7 said:
Aluminum oxide is not molten aluminum.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Aluminum Oxide, Al2O3[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Alumina is the most cost effective and widely used material in the family of engineering ceramics.
http://www.accuratus.com/alumox.html

[/FONT]Its most significant use is in the production of aluminium metal,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide

Has Mr. Chastain performed experiments and documented the mixing of glass and molten aluminum or glass becoming entrained in molten aluminum?

If not, then it's just more double talk.

Furthermore, once the windows busted out, there was no more glass to be entrained so the whole idea if glass entrained in the molten metal causing it to glow orange yellow is absurd.
Click to expand...


Your degree from Google U. has failed you. Aluminum oxidizes at the drop of a hat. It's factoids like this that show why Truthers sound silly to people that actually know stuff.
 
Gravy said:
Taking something out of context and making a false claim about it? A truther would never do such a thing! I am shocked, shocked by this accusation!

Had you bothered to read the NIST report, you would know that,

"Recall from the discussion in Section 8.1 that the temperature scales for the infrared images are not quantitative and that they provide only a relative indication of the amount of heating at a given location. Much of the heated area is saturated in the infrared images." (NCSTAR1-5A, p. 319)

You would also know that,
[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3628/3345088844_bce48fe3c7_o.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3346/3345088856_57dbab1936_o.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3571/3345088858_9d8b1fbe23_o.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3345088852_8d720c671a_o.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3587/3345125420_83ddf40c06_o.jpg[/qimg]

The question, Senenmut, is why can't you be bothered? Why do you make others do your work? Please answer.
Click to expand...

i was just talking about the east face of the south tower where the image was taken. out of all those pics, i one is of the east face around the timefrom she took the temp. my bad, i see what looks like 2 fires. maybe she snapped it before or after that pic.
 
Senenmut said:
i was just talking about the east face of the south tower where the image was taken. out of all those pics, i one is of the east face around the timefrom she took the temp. my bad, i see what looks like 2 fires. maybe she snapped it before or after that pic.
Click to expand...
Wrong. You said,
someone asked about this FLIR pic carol took. the jet fuel burned off in 10 mins and this pic was taken about 15 mins after the jet hit the south tower. the wtc is just spewing out black smoke at this point in time. there werent large fires coming out of the windows, just black smoke.
Click to expand...
First, the infrared image you posted clearly shows a huge area of heat on the east face. Second, what part of this don't you understand?

"Recall from the discussion in Section 8.1 that the temperature scales for the infrared images are not quantitative and that they provide only a relative indication of the amount of heating at a given location. Much of the heated area is saturated in the infrared images."

Third, three of the photos I posted show flames coming from the east face within a few minutes of the FLIR photo. You're not even trying.
 
Last edited:
Senenmut said:
two possible explanations for the corrosion events: the result of long term heating in the groud following the collapse of the builfding or start of corrosion phenomenon prior to collapse of the building that accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.
Click to expand...
I am telling you now as I have told you before.

Corrosion cannot act that fast in order to weaken the steel structure. There is no "Alien super-doopa stength blood" that can corrode through tens of floors.

Corrosion could have started before the collapse and I bet it did, however, there is absolutely no way that it could be so severe as to weaken the structure of the building in 50 minutes or 1 hour 40. If that were the case there would be huge rumbles in the corrosion industry, we would have to re-evaluate our corrosion mechanisms and rates.

Please learn about diffusion and f-i-c-k-s law before you spout this nonsense. The physics just will not allow it under the conditions of a building fire.

If you claim otherwise then it is upto you to show us. Warning: That will require mathematics and an understanding of chemistry and metallurgy.

Heat is the overriding factor with regard to the failure of steel in fires. At 600°C steel loses between 1/2 and 2/3rds of it's strength. I've shown you this aswell - why do you not click on and read the links provided? It would stop you repeating the drivel and you might learn something.

Lastly you are wrong to say either or, that's a false dichotomy. The corrosion most likely initiated during the building fire and continued post collapse. Why do you insist on a before or after conclusion when both are possible. Learn about corrosion rates f-i-c-k's first and second laws. http://people.virginia.edu/~lz2n/mse209/Chapter5.pdf
 
Sunstealer said:
Heat is the overriding factor with regard to the failure of steel in fires. At 600°C steel loses between 1/2 and 2/3rds of it's strength.
Click to expand...
NIST admits that the core column samples they have show steel temperatures were in the 250[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range.

ETA: There was little to burn in the core area because it was elevator shafts and hallways.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
NIST admits that the core column samples they have show steel temperatures were in the 250[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range.

ETA: There was little to burn in the core area because it was elevator shafts and hallways.
Click to expand...

Are you going to retract your false statement regarding WhiteLions photos?

Or just keep cherrypicking and being dishonest?
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
NIST admits that the core column samples they have show steel temperatures were in the 250[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range.

ETA: There was little to burn in the core area because it was elevator shafts and hallways.
Click to expand...

What does the "core area" have to do with the blaze and molten metal coming out a corner window?
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
The "core area" was a small fraction of the floor. The rest of the floor was filled with flammable material.

Clearly, the floors on fire were hotter than 250C.
Click to expand...

Chris is just repeating the same strawman that the recovered samples who's location relative to the impact region was known based on intact labeling of the columns. And NIST clearly states that the samples that were analyzed based on their known locations are not representative of all the columns inside the towers. Of course when you point out this idiotic distortion of context the conspiracy theorists cry out "BUT NONE OF THE STEEL WAS EXAMINED THEN" -- another sweeping strawman

Moving in circles we are... this intellectual dishonesty lost entertainment value long ago...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom