Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[switchpoint]

Heck, they just rolled a couple of truckloads through both my hometowns (where I grew up and where I live now) even posted photos of it here.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

=Christopher7;6147825]Correct. The limiting factor in a debris pile fire is oxygen.

wrong, its insulation. In a perfectly insulated enclosure the temperature would continue to rise

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

Wrong, the coal is in a solid face with only a relatively small surface exposed to air so its rate of combustion is slow and its access to oxygen very low.

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

Wrong, you have not shown that sulfur from Thermate can invade steel either.

The melted beam is the evidence of thermate. There is NO other known explanation.

Wrong, your Thermate explanation is as unproven as any other and considerably less plausible.

 

[Christopher7]

What a bizarre response. I accuse you of twisting semantics, and your response is to twist semantics.

I simply listed the definitions. Liquefy and melted mean the same thing.

Bizarre is your response.

Thermite is not a possibility. Nobody has demonstrated that it's capable of causing intergranular eutectic melting, and all the inferential evidence suggests that it isn't. Until you can propose a viable mechanism, which you've not even seriously attempted to do, thermite is not worthy of serious consideration.

You have it backwards. You can't rule out thermate until it is determined whether or not it can produce the results seen in the samples. Thermate melts steel. The sulfur in thermate lowers the melting point of steel. There is NO other known explanation for the melted beam, therefore thermate should be considered. Someone should do some testing to see if they can get thermate to produce the results in the FEMA report and that somebody should be NIST. They said they would address all the questions raised in the FEMA report but they did not. There is NO mention of Sample #1 in the final report.

You are so deeply immersed in lies that you are not actually capable of representing an opposing position honestly.

Talk to yourself much?

 

[DGM]

Christopher7 :
Serious question, As you know this paper (Jones') has been out for more then a year, and he's been trying to sell his "ther?mite for a few years. Why do you think the scientific community (as a whole) is paying no attention what-so-ever?

 

[Senenmut]

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:

• "Influence of temperature and the role of chromium on the kinetics of sulfidation of 310 stainless steel"
• "The Role of Scale Stresses in the Sulfidation of Steels"
• "High temperature corrosion of coatings and boiler steels in reducing chlorine-containing atmosphere"
• "Sulfidation, down-time corrosion and corrosion-assisted cracking on high alloy materials in synthetic coal gasifier environments"

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.

according to the wpi library and sisson, erin sullivan did not graduate. i tried getting her thesis paper to no avail.

what would happen to steel after it reaches the a3 line and then cools. what would happen to steel if it "melted" and then cooled?

one more thing. i tried finding out how little steel was dissolved in 24 hrs via sissons hypothesis but he would not say. have you tried to email him about this problem?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Christopher7 Why don't any of the scientists , architects or engineers anywhere in the world who are qualified in the appropriate fields think Thermite has anything to do with it? Are they all part of a conspiracy?

Your claims are like those of the Apollohoax crowd. Only lone internet nuts can see through the conspiracy that has blinded all thoe experts and professionals right round the world.

You shout Thermite but you don't seem to have any idea as to its characteristics, the ammount needed or how it would be applied. How do you account for that?

 

[triforcharity]

I simply listed the definitions. Liquefy and melted mean the same thing.

Bizarre is your response. ?

So, if I take a hot dog, put it into a blender, a turn it from a solid state to a liquid state, it's the same as melting it? Not quite there buddy......

Can someone get me one of those laughing dogs?

 

[Christopher7]

But how much oxygen was available? What was the structure of the debris piles?

47 stories were compressed into about 4 stories. Therefore, there was a lot less air space and air flow. Well ventilated fires burn at 1000^oC. Fires with restricted air flow do no burn as hot. This is easy enough to understand.

Coal seam fires are a reasonable analogy

Coal is concentrated fuel and cannot be compared to combustibles mixed with a larger amount of non-combustibles.

Wrong. It demonstrates that you can get very high temps with virtually no oxygen. Missed that critical point, you did.

Virtually no oxygen? Source? The coal seam fire has been burning for years or centuries as I remember. It started at the surface so there is a means for circulation. Comparing a coal seam fire to a debris pile fire is absurd.
Show evidence that a debris pile fire can burn at 1000^oC.

NIST did not even address the melted beam, much less explain how the debris pile fires could have reached 1000^oC. You have offered speculation, not science.

The factors of fuel availability and insulation are questions you cannot answer, since you don't have that data. Ever ponder to think about diesel fuel or other materials which could provide energy? No, you didn't.

NIST listed the fuel loads in their report. The diesel fuel was all at the west end of the building, most of it underground. The hot spot was at the east end of the building where column 79 was.

There's actually no evidence of either thermate or thermite, and you haven't provided any.

There is no other known explanation for the melted beam and your persistent denial of this fact just proves that you will fanatically deny any evidence of thermite. You also deny that the iron spheres establish molten iron and therefore temperatures of 2800^oF.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7 :
Serious question, As you know this paper (Jones') has been out for more then a year, and he's been trying to sell his "ther?mite for a few years. Why do you think the scientific community (as a whole) is paying no attention what-so-ever?

The scientific community does not know about the thermite paper because the media is ignoring it. We differ in our belief that the MSM is owned and controlled so there is no need to get into that.

 

[Dog Town]

The scientific community does not know about the thermite paper because the media is ignoring it.

Stundie!

 

[Senenmut]

Christopher7 Why don't any of the scientists , architects or engineers anywhere in the world who are qualified in the appropriate fields think Thermite has anything to do with it? Are they all part of a conspiracy?

Your claims are like those of the Apollohoax crowd. Only lone internet nuts can see through the conspiracy that has blinded all thoe experts and professionals right round the world.

You shout Thermite but you don't seem to have any idea as to its characteristics, the ammount needed or how it would be applied. How do you account for that?

read this article very carefully and tell me what ya think of it.

Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''




remember, sisson can only get "little" metal to dissolve in 24hrs. and he will NOT tell us how "little" that little is. from the article, how many days went by after sept 11 before he saw this piece of steel.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The scientific community does not know about the thermite paper because the media is ignoring it.

Sorry, but the media tends not to cover insane fairy stories from insane people.

 

[Dog Town]

Sorry, but the media tends not to cover insane fairy stories from insane people.

Oddly enough, that seems to be exactly what they cover. Which is why scientists have other avenues of discovery!

Just one more thing C7 doesn't get!

 

[T.A.M.]

The media is ignoring the thermite "paper" the same way the sane try to ignore the blabbering village idiot.

TAM

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Oddly enough, that seems to be exactly what they cover. Which is why scientists have other avenues of discovery!

Just one more thing C7 doesn't get!

Right! Chris lacks the mental skills to appreciate the meaning of life for others, especially the 9/11 Families.

 

[Christopher7]

Sorry, but the media tends not to cover insane fairy stories from insane people.

That is a matter of opinion, yours and mine being a bit biased.

You find reasons to deny it. I accept it a face value. Why do you doubt Dr. Harrit and Dr. Farrer?

 

[Christopher7]

read this article very carefully and tell me what ya think of it.

Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''


remember, sisson can only get "little" metal to dissolve in 24hrs. and he will NOT tell us how "little" that little is. from the article, how many days went by after sept 11 before he saw this piece of steel.

Jon Cole's experiment was enough to show that the sulfur did not come from the drywall.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Jon Cole's experiment was enough to show that the sulfur did not come from the drywall.

And what does jet fuel contain since you claim that it didn't come from the drywall? If you tell us that it was "thermate" or "thermite" and your only answer is that, then where is your evidence?

 

[BigAl]

47 stories were compressed into about 4 stories. Therefore, there was a lot less air space and air flow. Well ventilated fires burn at 1000^oC. Fires with restricted air flow do no burn as hot. This is easy enough to understand.
\

Wrong. Ask any fireman.

Virtually no oxygen? Source? The coal seam fire has been burning for years or centuries as I remember. It started at the surface so there is a means for circulation. Comparing a coal seam fire to a debris pile fire is absurd.
Show evidence that a debris pile fire can burn at 1000^oC.

Here we go.

1989 FIRE CLOSES HIGHWAY I-78, FORCES DETOURS
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-78_NJ/

FIRE CLOSES I-78, FORCES DETOURS: In the early morning hours of August 7, 1989, a multiple-alarm fire at an illegal garbage dump underneath I-78 near Newark Airport caused heavy damage to the freeway overpass. The source of the fire was a mound of trash 25 feet tall and hundreds of yards long consisting of scrap wood, plastics and paper. The heat of the fire buckled the ten-inch concrete surface and melted steel support beams, and the resulting weight shifts from the highway (which had sagged nearly a foot)

 

[Senenmut]

Jon Cole's experiment was enough to show that the sulfur did not come from the drywall.

i thought it was a great experiment! i just wish i had the money and resourses to do what he did. thumbs up to jon cole. i always wondered why sisson and gang didnt do exactly what he did....try to simulate an office debris fire instead of using powders to get the eutectic. its not like the towers and 7 were full of powder like that. it was an office fire/debris fire.