Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

It takes sulfur from thermate to cause intergranular melting?? Say what???

People, it's time to stop feeding Chris; he's just making stuff up now. Not only is he ignoring established research, but he's trying to claim the impossible. For starters, Erin Sullivan of WPI most certainly did not use thermate in her replication experiment, yet she still replicated the sulfidation effects (Note: Link is to PDF of the Biederman, Sullivan, Vander Voort, Sisson paper). On top of that, a simple 5 second Googlewhack returned 3 papers and 1 link on steel sulfidation attack issues that have nothing to do with 9/11:
Furthermore, what our resident truther seems to be missing is that thermate would result in more than just some insinuation of iron sulfide and iron oxide in the grain boundaries. It would've melted the grain structure itself. Graining in steel is the formation of crystals of iron and carbon; grain boundaries are where layers of differing phases of steel meet. You don't have graining in liquid steel because you don't have carbon-iron crystalization in liquid steel. You simply have molten iron.

This is why the WPI findings negate the possibility of thermate: They show that the eroded areas on the steel never eroded through melting, but rather through sulfidation attacks forming eutectics. Had thermate been in play, those very microstructures would've been obliterated.

It's really not productive to argue with someone who makes arguments up out of thin air. It's high time to put him on ignore.
 
Christopher7 said:
When you can't deny a fact, ask a question calling for speculation. :D
Click to expand...

No. Calling for evidence. And calling for a theory. You have neither. Yet you speculate a lot.

Christopher7 said:
The melted beam and the iron spheres.
...
Click to expand...

There is no melted beam, as has been explained to you in many many posts now. You apparently still don't understand what eutectics are.
 
"During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the “super-thermite matches” described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX, in the destruction of the WTC buildings."

Nor was "the fuse" rich with sulfur. As claimed in the paper, Sulfur was only present sometimes, in lesser amounts. pg 29

Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Sulfur from coal fuel sources was a problem:

Coal can be an inferior fuel for blacksmithing, because much of the world's coal is contaminated with sulfur. Sulfur contamination of iron and steel make them "red short", so that at red heat they become "crumbly" instead of "plastic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacksmith#Medieval_period
Click to expand...
Excellent. You have apparently found an example of sulfur invading the grain boundary of steel - in a blacksmith's forge where air is forced thru burning coal for a considerable time. However, it did not do the following:

"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel." - FEMA C
 
Christopher7 said:
Correct. The limiting factor in a debris pile fire is oxygen.
Click to expand...

The limiting factor to WHAT? To the heat release.
The limiting factor to heat buil-up? NO!
As heat = chemical energy released by fire minus dissipation
you make a very obvious mistake if you only look at one term of the equation and ignore the other.

Can you fill a leaking barrel with one drop of oil per minute? Yes you can, if the leak leaks at a slower rate! Just takes a little longer. Say, weeks.


Christopher7 said:
Incorrect. Coal is concentrated fuel and cannot be compared to combustibles mixed with a larger amount of non-combustibles.
Click to expand...

You just pointed out that oxygen is the limiting factor to the fire (heat production). If you mean that, then you will agree that fuel supply is NOT the limiting factor, and a coal heap would burn quite similarly to a collapsed office building.
Or do you now wish to retract that oxygene starvation was the key factor? an't have it both ways!

Christopher7 said:
That was in reference to the iron spheres, not the melted beam.
Click to expand...

a) Iron spheres are off-topic to this thread
b) Make that corroded beam.

Christopher7 said:
I said here is NO scientific evidence that sulfur from any source other than thermate can invade steel and cause the intergranular melting.
Click to expand...

Silly. What qualifications do you have to render the authors of this paper incompetent or liars?

Christopher7 said:
The melted beam is the evidence of thermate. There is NO other known explanation.
Click to expand...

Since beam did not plain melt but rather corroded away in eutectic reaction at temperatures around 1000°C, which is not so very unthinkable in a huge trash fire, your repetition of this unsupported nonsense gets very tedious indeed.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
It takes sulfur from thermate to cause intergranular melting?? Say what???

Erin Sullivan of WPI most certainly did not use thermate in her replication experiment, yet she still replicated the sulfidation effects (Note: Link is to PDF of the Biederman, Sullivan, Vander Voort, Sisson paper).
Click to expand...
;) Show the URL for the Erin Sullivan paper if you are going to make that claim.


steel sulfidation attack issues that have nothing to do with 9/11:
Furthermore, what our resident truther seems to be missing is that thermate would result in more than just some insinuation of iron sulfide and iron oxide in the grain boundaries. It would've melted the grain structure itself. Graining in steel is the formation of crystals of iron and carbon; grain boundaries are where layers of differing phases of steel meet. You don't have graining in liquid steel because you don't have carbon-iron crystalization in liquid steel. You simply have molten iron.
Click to expand...
Bombastic bluster. Nothing in the links about intergranular melting. You don't know what the conditions were in the debris pile so don't pretend like you do.
 
Oystein said:
The limiting factor to WHAT? To the heat release.
The limiting factor to heat buil-up? NO!
Click to expand...
Less oxygen = less heat. Do you know what a bellows is for?

You just pointed out that oxygen is the limiting factor to the fire (heat production). If you mean that, then you will agree that fuel supply is NOT the limiting factor
Click to expand...
To heat a steel beam that is constantly dissipating heat, fuel must be replenished. [FONT=&quot]A fire burning at 1000oC would have to burn for a long time in one spot to heat a beam to 1000oC.[/FONT]
a coal heap would burn quite similarly to a collapsed office building.
Click to expand...
:D Coal is concentrated carbon fuel. The combustibles in WTC 7 were crushed between 40 + concrete slabs.
 
C7

Why were there only two pieces with this "melting"?

The steel was forensically examined and only a few pieces found with this issue. There were no large pools of solidified previoulsy molten metal found.

Why were there so few pieces like this?
 
funk de fino said:
C7

Why were there only two pieces with this "melting"?

The steel was forensically examined and only a few pieces found with this issue. There were no large pools of solidified previoulsy molten metal found.

Why were there so few pieces like this?
Click to expand...
99% of the evidence was destroyed. We have no idea what was destroyed.

This is a subject shift. :cool:

[FONT=&quot]The subject at hand is: Thermate is the only known source for the melted beam. People like to play with semantics but the beam melted.
[/FONT]
"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel." - FEMA C pg 5

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot]To get a similar result, the WPI Team conducted this test:
[/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot]Isothermal reaction of compacted FeS powder on ground surface of A36 in air for 12 hours at 1100[/FONT]o[FONT=&quot]C[/FONT]
http://www.abmbrasil.com.br/cim/download/Vander_Voort.pps

A debris pile fire could not attain, much maintain 1100oC for 12 hours. And this is with compacted FeS powder on a ground surface.
 
Christopher7 said:
Wrong.

Thermate produces a molten iron at 4500oF as a byproduct. This liquid slag will melt steel if it drips on a beam.
Click to expand...

And "freeze" as each drop hits steel. Thermite's ability to generate heat is gone when it turns yo slag.
 
Christopher7 said:
Less oxygen = less heat. Do you know what a be
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Combustion temperature is a equilibrium between heat generated and heat lost by conduction, radiation and convection.

A "well ventilated" fire loses lots of heat via convection, if nothing else.

A fire that is oxygen-limited may be very hot if it is well insulated and losing little heat to conduction, radiation and convection.

If you think I'm wrong, ask any fireman.
 
BigAl said:
And "freeze" as each drop hits steel. Thermite's ability to generate heat is gone when it turns yo slag.
Click to expand...
Depends on how hot the thermate slag is. If the drips keep coming they could do what we see. This is a possibility.
 
BigAl said:
You are wrong. Combustion temperature is a equilibrium between heat generated and heat lost by conduction, radiation and convection.
Click to expand...
A bellows is used to provide the extra oxygen necessary to bring the fire up to a temperature that will heat steel to a point where it can be worked.

A "well ventilated" fire loses lots of heat via convection, if nothing else.
Click to expand...
Ventilation is a factor in retaining heat but attaining maximum temperatures of ~1000oC requires a large air flow. This would not be possible in the WTC 7 debris pile IMO.
 
Christopher7 said:
Depends on how hot the thermate slag is. If the drips keep coming they could do what we see. This is a possibility.
Click to expand...

There was no thermite.

There was no molten steel found.

The eutectic-eroded steel was never exposed to steel-melting temperatures,
 
BigAl said:
You are wrong. Combustion temperature is a equilibrium between heat generated and heat lost by conduction, radiation and convection.

A "well ventilated" fire loses lots of heat via convection, if nothing else.

A fire that is oxygen-limited may be very hot if it is well insulated and losing little heat to conduction, radiation and convection.

If you think I'm wrong, ask any fireman.
Click to expand...

Or a Blacksmith or a foundryman, or steam locomotive fireman (In the UK at least there are still many hundreds of them, there are hundreds of coal fired steam locomotives still operating on 'heritage' lines)
 
Christopher7 said:
Depends on how hot the thermate slag is. If the drips keep coming they could do what we see. This is a possibility.
Click to expand...

The words straws,clutching and at come to mind.What is your theory regarding the events of 9/11? What happened? I need details. Tell me,none of the other truthers here will.
 
Christopher7 said:
Depends on how hot the thermate slag is. If the drips keep coming they could do what we see. This is a possibility.
Click to expand...

Only in your mind, unless you have some evidence you'd like to share :)


That is one of the main problems with the experiment. If you're trying to make a claim that thermite/mate can do something you need to demonstrate it doing that something. Just demonstrating that you can't get another suggested method of achieving that effect to work merely demonstrates that it doesn't occur under the conditions you've provided. It doesn't show that it can't ever happen and it certainly doesn't demonstrate a competing hypothesis to be correct by default.
 
Ventilation is a factor in retaining heat but attaining maximum temperatures of ~1000oC requires a large air flow. This would not be possible in the WTC 7 debris pile IMO.
Click to expand...
So it's your humble opinion. Opinios are good, we can all have opinions, they aren't evidence though. My opinion is you are a one track record, you have no support other then 'thermite did it' repeated parrot fashion.
I think it's time to ignore you unless you come up with some support or concede that just maybe you might not be correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom