Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

alienentity said:
You can burn steel with a match if the material is fine enough. Try it with steel wool.
Click to expand...
You can't melt steel with a match.
Please kids, don't try this at home. :rolleyes:

There are many processes which can create 'iron-rich' sphericules.
Click to expand...
We just went thru that. There are NO processes that could account for the abundance [nearly 6%] of spheres in the dust other than the dust clouds from the collapses of the Trade towers

their presence is not proof of thermite at all.
Click to expand...
There is no other explanation for the temperatures high enough to melt iron.
 
TSR said:
.
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?
.
Click to expand...
.
Is there a reason other than the obvious that you skipped this post, C7?
.
 
TSR said:
Is there a reason other than the obvious that you skipped this post, C7?.
Click to expand...
Yes, those questions were answers a few posts ago. This is a quote from the R.J. Lee Group report. pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf[/FONT]

[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]
 
Last edited:
.
Which does *not* answer the question of what you mean by "WTC event."

Nor does it answer whether that definition includes or excludes the clean-up?

Nor does it answer where the re-solidified lumps of iron are?

Try again.
.
 
triforcharity said:
Christopher7,
I want you to read JUST THE ABSTRACT
Click to expand...
I have read this.

melt: change from a solid to a liquid state

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.

Now, what did you learn from JUST the abstract?
Click to expand...
The beam melted at around 1000oC - 1800oF.


Sulfur is added to thermite to lower the melting point of steel. This combination is called thermate. It is the only known explanation for the melted beam, unless you know of another?
 
TSR said:
.
Which does *not* answer the question of what you mean by "WTC event."

Nor does it answer whether that definition includes or excludes the clean-up?

Nor does it answer where the re-solidified lumps of iron are?

.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "what do I mean"?
The R.J. Lee group said that, I didn't. :D

It's perfectly clear to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size what they are saying. You seem to be having trouble grasping the obvious.

ETA: Try reading the report before asking any more questions please.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
What do you mean "what do I mean"?
The R.J. Lee group said that, I didn't. :D

It's perfectly clear to anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size what they are saying. You seem to be having trouble grasping the obvious.

ETA: Try reading the report before asking any more questions please.
Click to expand...
.
I have -- I want to know how *you* understand the term, and whether *you* think it includes the cleanup.

And you're still ducking where the lumps are...

Know where this comes from:

In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of
heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic,
bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting
and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens,
and paint
Click to expand...
.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
I got too bored to follow the thread. Has any truther demonstrated that thermite can cause intergranular eutectic melting yet?

Dave
Click to expand...
Has any denier come up with an explanation for the temperatures far in excess of what office or debris pile fires can attain?
 
Christopher7 said:
[FONT=&quot]I have answered these questions on this thread. Please go back and read.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6143746&postcount=336
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6143761&postcount=337
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6143810&postcount=338
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
.
Nothing in any of those three posts addresses how you understand the term "WTC event," whether you think it includes the cleanup, nor where the solidified lumps are.

Feel free to quote yourself on these topics.

Does this sound familiar:

In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of
heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic,
bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting
and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens,
and paint
Click to expand...

.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Has any denier come up with an explanation for the temperatures far in excess of what office or debris pile fires can attain?
Click to expand...
.
Where in that report does it mention that anything other than normal office fire temperatures must have been involved?
.
 
TSR said:
.
Nothing in any of those three posts addresses how you understand the term "WTC event,"
Click to expand...
The collapse of the Trade Towers. What do you think it means? That is a truly silly question. :D

whether you think it includes the cleanup
Click to expand...
What part of;

"The spheres were carried in the collapse dust clouds the blanketed lower Manhattan and were deposited everywhere the dust went. This includes the interior and the roof of the Bankers Trust building. There is no mechanism for any appreciable amount of spheres to be deposited there later. "

don't you understand?
 
Christopher7 said:
The collapse of the Trade Towers. What do you think it means? That is a truly silly question.

What part of;

"The spheres were carried in the collapse dust clouds the blanketed lower Manhattan and were deposited everywhere the dust went. This includes the interior and the roof of the Bankers Trust building. There is no mechanism for any appreciable amount of spheres to be deposited there later."

don't you understand?
Click to expand...
.
The teeny tiny fact that this quote does not come from the Lee Group report.

So, try again.

Now, you keeping ducking questions about the re-solidified lumps. Perhaps it's just an oversight on your part.

And perhaps monkeys will fly out of ... NVM

Now, can you cite the Lee Group report on the extraordinary temperatures needed for the signature to form?

Did you recognize that quote?
.
 
Christopher7 said:
What part of;

"The spheres were carried in the collapse dust clouds the blanketed lower Manhattan and were deposited everywhere the dust went. This includes the interior and the roof of the Bankers Trust building. There is no mechanism for any appreciable amount of spheres to be deposited there later. "

don't you understand?
Click to expand...

There doesn't need to be such a mechanism. Conditions inside the towers before and during the collapses adequately explain the amount of metallic microspheres found.
 
Christopher7 said:
Has any denier come up with an explanation for the temperatures far in excess of what office or debris pile fires can attain?
Click to expand...

What temperatures?

There's no record or indication that the towers or debris piles ever acheived anything above 2000oF.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I got too bored to follow the thread. Has any truther demonstrated that thermite can cause intergranular eutectic melting yet?

Dave
Click to expand...

I bet not, given the responses of the people I don't have on ignore here. It seems like no conspiracy addict understands what a eutectic even is, let alone the fact that it would've been destroyed by thermite. Truthers don't seem to realize that the Fe/FeS/FeO boundaries would've been obliterated by the use of such, which is why the WPI research refutes the notion.

I've also seen microspheres resurrected for the upteenth time. For some odd reason, truthers presume that the presence of iron spherules proves that thermite was used. They forget that there's not only zero evidence that those were produced by the fires, but that there's ample evidence - again, the WPI studies, as well as NIST's modeling of the fires - that the temperatures seen on 9/11 never got hot enough to produce them. For some odd reason, the fact that there was ample concrete available, as well as organic material (paper, wooden furniture, etc.) and other sources, seems to escape them. It's as if the spheres couldn't have been there prior to 9/11 and just have been liberated by the collapse. Typical blinkered truther thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom