Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

A brilliant comment by a truther on this video called SexyMelon who is a major ass-clown, seriously take a look:

"Oh. And if you read - GASP - report on WTC7, it's conclusions states EXACTLY that it was a miracle. In exact words, "the collapse event was extremely unlikely". "
Click to expand...

A miracle = unlikely apparently

:rolleyes: hahahaha
 
Christopher7,

I want you to read JUST THE ABSTRACT, and tell me what you learn about this chemical reaction of A36 steel.

"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7" J.R. Barnett said:
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.
Click to expand...


Now, what did you learn from JUST the abstract?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
Also, the link is from the paper. Feel free to read the rest of it.
 
alienentity said:
1) The amount of gypsum available is not quantified properly, in the context of what was in the towers and might have been present. I see no reason to expect the small amounts Cole uses to be meaningful.
Click to expand...

On top of that, there's an argument to be made that as far as drywall being the source goes, there should be a large excess of it. Drywall is indeed cited as the most probable source of the sulfur, but as some here, including Ryan Mackey, pointed out: Drywall doesn't release its sulfur easily. So on a per-volume or mass basis, you'd need a huge fire and a large amount of drywall relative to the amount of steel you wanted to affect. And recall: Relative to the total amount of steel at Ground Zero, it was a small amount of steel that ended up showing signs of such corrosion. The pieces the Worchester folks studied included a perimeter column, a few pieces of paneling, a wide-flange column's end they think came from building 7... maybe some other odds and ends, but it wasn't much, I think. NIST wrote material on 2 columns (one of which, K-16, was the same one looked at by the WPI group), three panel seats, some number of web plates, and a couple of pieces of "floor truss material". More may have been affected, but that's all that was identified.

Anyway, as Frank Greening pointed out in his sulfur paper:
"In the present context it is not simply the presence, but the mobility, of sulfur in the WTC that is of interest."
Click to expand...

... and earlier in the thread, he was quoted as hypothesizing a source of Cl - such as PVC - as being necessary to help liberate the sulfur. Which is logical, and a compelling argument. At any rate, it's not only true that the amount of gypsum was poorly quantified, but on top of that, there's a misunderstanding of the amount of gypsum that would be needed relative to the amount of steel that's to be corroded. As well as a failure to account for the difficulty in liberating the gypsum (and therefore the sulfur component) from it. That all ties in together as a critique of the experiment.
 
Christopher7 said:
:D You demand what cannot be known in order to avoid what is known.
Click to expand...
The uses of thermite is quite known. Demolition is not one of them. Not one truther has even come close to showing that thermite could cut or even weaken a steel beam like what was used in the WTC.
NIST promised to investigate all the issues raised by FEMA. They did not. There is no mention, much less an explanation, for the melted beam from WTC 7.
Click to expand...
They investigated what was in the scope of the investigation. Since that melted beam was created after the collapse, it was outside the scope of the investigation.
There was molten steel reported by many at the scene.
Click to expand...
That is a blatant lie. There were hearsay reports of molten metal.
JREFers say "It could have been copper or aluminum" but you will NEVER admit that it could have been molten iron or steel.
Click to expand...
It could have been any of that. Provide evidence that it was steel or stop making the claim.
Over a hundred first responders and survivors heard explosions. Some described it as looking like a CD.
JREFers say "Explosions don't necessarily mean explosives" but you will never admit that what they heard, and in some cases felt, could have been explosives.
Click to expand...
Unlike you, we understand that there are these things called video cameras that record sound. We also know that explosive make a huge sound that those pesky video recorders would would record without exception. I know, you will use the denial tactic of complaining about all the videos that NIST has while ignoring the fact that the sound would be on 100% of all recordings made during the day.
Now y'all are doing mental gymnastics trying to ignore the pretty pictures of nano-thermite. This is not rocket surgery :rolleyes: The thermite paper is clear enough to be understood by the lay person. The group of highly qualified scientists photographed and analyzed the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust. They have determined that it is nano-thermite.
Click to expand...
Yes, they wanted to find some sort of thermite so bad, the made up the amazing qualities of nano-thermite and completely ignored the scientific process to come up with their pre-conceived conclusions. You appeal to authority fallacies aren't helping you at all. You deities have not shown that your precious nano-thermite can perform as claimed.
Your relentless search for reasons to deny this information is consistent with your overall denial of anything that disproves the Official Collapse Theory. NIST did NOT explain the collapse, nither did Bazant. You are fanatically defending a half baked theory published in a half baked farce.
Click to expand...
Your relentless search for and absolute belief in anything and everything that vilifies the government you hate, no matter how fantastic or fictional it is, only shows that you have completely lost touch with reality. You have shown that all you can do is create word salads that are bereft of any connection to the real world.
 
Last edited:
Dog Town said:
I'll play your game, The real question is, are you?
Click to expand...

what game?

from the rj lee report:

"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel)."
 
If a thread has over ten pages of FAIL from a poster the thread should be closed IMO.
 
triforcharity said:
Christopher7,

I want you to read JUST THE ABSTRACT, and tell me what you learn about this chemical reaction of A36 steel.

Now, what did you learn from JUST the abstract?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
Also, the link is from the paper. Feel free to read the rest of it.
Click to expand...
I'll read the paper tomorrow but for now I'll just point out that smoldering, oxygen starved fires in the debris pile of WTC 7, could not burn at anywhere near 1000oC. Well ventilated fires burn at ~1000oC.
 
Senenmut said:
what game?

from the rj lee report:

"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel)."
Click to expand...
High temperatures in this case mean 2800oF, about 1000oF hotter than normal office fires can get.
 
Christopher7 said:
I'll read the paper tomorrow but for now I'll just point out that smoldering, oxygen starved fires in the debris pile of WTC 7, could not burn at anywhere near 1000oC. Well ventilated fires burn at ~1000oC.
Click to expand...

Really? Where do you get your information? I suspect your posterior.

Why do you believe that the fires were oxygen-starved?

Why do you belive that Well ventalated fires only burn at 1000 oC?

BTW, paper fires can burn that hot. So can hay bales. How hot do you think a hydrocarbon fire averages at?
 
I would like to see Triforcharity respond to Serenmut instead of Christopher.....
 
ImANiceGuy said:
I would like to see Triforcharity respond to Serenmut instead of Christopher.....
Click to expand...

I would love to see you chime in on anything else, istead of trying to call someone out. But hey, here you go. Just for you.

Serenmut,

I honestly don't know, as I have not found the full text of the study. As you can see from the link, it does not say, as at the time of this letter appearing in JOM, it was ONLY a letter, and not a full study.

If he had read what I had posted, he would have noticed it doesn't specify.
 
triforcharity said:
Really? Where do you get your information?
Click to expand...
NISTIR 7213
Pg 41 [pdf pg 43]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05018.pdf[/FONT]
firetempgraph.jpg


Why do you believe that the fires were oxygen-starved?
Click to expand...
Forty seven stories were compacted in to a debris pile about 4 stories high. air flow was considerably less than in an open floor office fire.
 
It's funny watching truthers attempt to cite technical documents without understanding what they mean.
 
triforcharity said:
Why do you say 2800 deg? I would love to know.
Click to expand...
Iron melts at 2800oF
[FONT=&quot]Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high[/FONT][FONT=&quot] heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Figure 21 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]melting of iron (or steel)[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
 
Christopher7 said:
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.
Click to expand...
.
Please define what you mean by "WTC event?"

Does it include or exclude the clean-up?

And where are the re-solidified lumps of iron?
.
 
Christopher7 said:
Iron melts at 2800oF
[FONT=&quot]Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high[/FONT][FONT=&quot] heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Figure 21 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]melting of iron (or steel)[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
Click to expand...

You can burn steel with a match if the material is fine enough. Try it with steel wool.

There are many processes which can create 'iron-rich' sphericules. their presence is not proof of thermite at all.

You're trying to impose a direct causal relationship but you don't have it. The real Inigo Montoya would not be so foolish...
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 has admitted in this thread that he dosn't know the characteristics of Thermite. He can't give a number for the ammount that would be needed for his scenario, he doesn't know how it would have been utilised.

Until he comes up with some figures or any kind of support for his conjecture he has nothing.

Unfortunately Christopher7 and his Ilk are very patient. They will keep this going for years and years hoping that those opposing them will get sick of it and give up leaving them a clear field to peddle their wares.
He doesn't need any support all he needs is time.

When I came into Jref a couple of weeks ago I was heartened to see that after all these years there are still people determined not to let him and his gang peddle their tripe unopposed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom