I did not think it necessary to reiterate what were talking about. I did not allow for the fact that I am dealing with sophists who will misinterpret in order to make stupid assertions.
"The hydrogen peroxide etch revealed good grain boundary"
lol - You completely misunderstand. You've only picked out that phrase because it has grain boundary in it but you fail to realise what that means or give the full quote. The whole point of an etchant is to reveal the structure. The etchant does this by chemically attacking the grain boundary in preference to the grain. (boundary has a different composition). Hydrogen peroxide is used for copper, Hydrogen Fluoride (HF - nasty) for Titanium, 2% Nital solution for steels amongst others,
http://www.metallographic.com/Etchants/Etchants.htm (Murakami's agent - I've got a good story about that one
)
"A sudden large current flow on the surface for a very short duration could explain the surface heating without causing more uniform thermal conditions through the wire cross-section.
The wire shorted out and you are engaging in sophistry.
We are talking about steel beams and girders, not copper wire that melted due to arcing.
ETA: There is no mention of intergranular melting as in the steel samples.
You obviously don't read anything that is linked or understand that grain boundary melting, liquation and inter-granular melting are all the same thing.
Grain boundary liquation and a eutectic
liquid penetrating the tip of the
wire appear to be very straightforward
evidence for incipient melting.
Secondly the only thing that you require to produce the effect is heat. That was the answer to the question - simple wasn't it?
You see when a metal solidifies it does so at lots and lots of places at once, these grow to form crystals which we call grains. When they meet each other a boundary is formed and this boundary solidifies last. The composition of the boundary is different to that of the grain (see Lever Rule). What solidifies last will melt first. So when you raise the temperature to the melting point of the composition of the boundaries then the boundaries will become liquid. In our case diffusion of oxygen and sulphur into the material further reduces this melting point.
In the case of steel in the WTC 1 + 2 the fires got the steel hot enough to lose half and more of their yield strength (and reduce modulus). The fire would not have been hot enough to produce grain boundary melting (liquation) - see Iron Carbon Phase Diagram.
Now lets talk about Sulphur. If the fires were 1000°C and Sulphur was present as SO
2 you might expect highly localised Fe-O-S eutectic, but the fact remains that the mechanism by which Sulphur and Oxygen enter the steel to form the composition is diffusion. Diffusion takes time. So evidence of a eutectic shows that temperatures reached 940°C, but not very likely to have done so in the building fires. Also note that construction steel at 1000°C is going to have about 10% or less of it's yield strength at that temperature compared with room temperature. See Fig 6 -
http://mmp.iphy.ac.cn/biz3.bioweb.ne.jp/jim/journal/e/pdf1/42/09/1913.pdf So the over-riding failure factor would be loss of strength and not high temperature corrosion due to oxidation and sulphidation.
That means the only way that the eutectic could form is in the rubble pile so the rubble pile must have gotten to 940°C whether you like it or not.
Thermite would not produce the eutectic so claiming the eutectic as evidence for thermite is wrong because the sulphur in the thermite is used to lower ignition point and would therefore already react with the iron in the thermite before it had a chance to get into the steel - remember diffusion takes a long time Thermite cannot keep liquid steel liquid for 6 weeks unless there is tons and tons of it and the burning of that would be noticeable by everyone beacuse it burns with a very bright flame and lots of white smoke. The activity of getting all that thermite into the building in order to keep so much steel liquid 6 weeks after would be noticed.
Claiming that liquid steel was present 6 weeks later debunks thermite.
This is why the truth movement fails. You keep looking for evidence of a cover up and jump on anything that you think will prove a wacky theory, but because you haven't thought things through and are blinded by your ignorance and prejudice you fail to critically examine your theory. When others do the work for you all you do is claim stupid things like "denial tactic" or shill or some other nonsense.
Thermite is dead in the water.
You should let NIST know. They did not explain how the elevator cars were ejected into the hallway.
