Invitation to Derek Johnson to discuss his ideas

[Toke]

I think the batteries caused the Swiss cheese steel.

Drywall/plaster have a large sulphur content, and might well be the main source.

 

[Oystein]

And how did the sulfur attack, exactly? Where did this "attacking sulfur" come from?

The bodies of the people who perished in the towers alone contain hald a ton of sulfur. All the wood and paper in the offices contain sulfur. Rain contains sulfur. Sea water contains sulfur. Diesel fuel contains a lot of sulfur.
Gypsum contains relatively inert sulfur compounds, but these might well be activated by chlorine (from burning plastics such as PVC).

These eutectic attacks were rare events, the exception and no rule. You really don't nee much sulfur for these, but sulfur is ubiquous in an office building.

 

[leftysergeant]

Is molten steel red-hot?

Molten steel is white or yellow. By the time it reaches red it is becoming a bit viscous.

Brass is red. The Garlock quote mentions building #6. It was full of brass cartridges, a couple million live rounds and, probably thousands of expended cases. Ask anybody who has ever taken an SKS to the range, smokeless powder will generate a staggering amount of heat when it burns. If I get off 20 rounds in less than two minutes, my handguards start to smoke.

It would surprise me NOT to find melted brass under WTC 6.

 

[leftysergeant]

Drywall/plaster have a large sulphur content, and might well be the main source.

Kind of reaching there, but it is far more plausible than thermite.

The batteries alone would supply more sulphuric acid than all the drywall would and at a far lower temperature. Heat that would liberate the sulphur from drywall would probably also release it from the pyrite inclusions that were found in the steel.

 

[Sabretooth]

Has any of these idiots truthers attempted any experiments using thermite and steel and worked out the details? You know, instead of spouting nonsense and ignorance?

The ignition of thermite alone requires more than just a fuse...and would create a pretty easily identifiable signature...

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Ignition of a thermite reaction normally requires only a simple child's sparkler or easily obtainable magnesium ribbon, but may require persistent efforts, as ignition can be unreliable and unpredictable. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, pyrotechnic initiators, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch if done correctly. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature.

Funny, but I don't recall any blinding flashes or kids sparklers going off prior or during the collapse of WTC7....

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not so much, ASTM A36 and A572 both melt at 2750 deg F. They were a large part of the rubble, right or wrong?

As for the eutectic 1800 deg F "liquid steel" mentioned in FEMA Appendix C, where did that attacking sulphur come from, exactly?

Melting temperature has nothing to do with corrosion resistance. And as far as steel grades go, A36 and A572 are on the low end of corrosion resistance.

 

[pgimeno]

Fire needs oxygen, from air.

Smoldering fire doesn't need much oxygen. Several examples have been posted in this thread, from landfill fires lasting months, to an underground coal fire in Australia which burns at 1700°C at 1m / year and is estimated to be burning for 5,500 years. How do they get oxygen? Good question, perhaps by convection, similar to a thermal . But they do somehow.

You have yet to explain how thermite can explain the fires in the rubble lasting months, thermite being very quick compared to smoldering fires, and having its own source of oxygen for the reaction to go on until exhausted.

But don't feel bad if you're not able to explain how thermite explains the underground fires, noone has ever given an explanation so far despite the repeated assertions that it does.

Which type of energy? Be specific.

I think that Oystein was talking about energy density here.

Eqn. 1: Fe2O3+ 2Al → 2Fe + Al2O3+ 181.5 kcal
Eqn. 2: 3Fe3O4+ 8Al → 9Fe + 4Al2O3+ 719.3 kcal

Which means an energy density release for hematite thermite of 0.85 kcal/g, and of 0.79 kcal/g for magnetite thermite. For comparison, wood has an energy density of 4.3 kcal/g.

Thermite is powerful, but not very energetic.

ETA: You may find these links useful:
http://www.chem4free.info/calculators/molarmass.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

 

[bill smith]

Melting temperture has nothing to do with corrosion resistance. And as far as steel grades go, A36 and A572 are on the low end of corrosion resistance.

Newton you might make an excellent leader of ae911facts.org. This is a proposed new organisation of engineers and architects to be set up to counter the well-known ae911truth.org. What do you say ?

Can you think of a better way to prove the OCT than in direct confrontation with your alter egos. You could then write letters to all the professionals who supported the OCT in peer-reviewed articles right after 911. Your membership
should soon outstrip Richard Gage and his 1300 degreed/licenced building professionals who seem to be saying that 9/11 was an inside job..

 

[Toke]

Kind of reaching there, but it is far more plausible than thermite.

The batteries alone would supply more sulphuric acid than all the drywall would and at a far lower temperature. Heat that would liberate the sulphur from drywall would probably also release it from the pyrite inclusions that were found in the steel.

I see.
I have no idea that is was relatively stable, it just appears to be the biggest amount.

Bill,
Do you believe in Ohm's Law?

 

[triforcharity]

Not so much, ASTM A36 and A572 both melt at 2750 deg F. They were a large part of the rubble, right or wrong?

As for the eutectic 1800 deg F "liquid steel" mentioned in FEMA Appendix C, where did that attacking sulphur come from, exactly?

Specualtion, but here are a few sources

Drywall
Plastics
foam seat cushions

Any one of those would give off a good amount of sulfur.

Are you done with the abstract yet Derek?

 

[tfk]

Derek,

Finally, you actually said something. And, to no surprise, you've got your head firmly stuck in a dark, dank place.

And now we come to find that this is not your own crappola. You are merely the parrot of another Twoofer idjit. Who sends the 3rd string out to take the lumps.

That's a lot of bravado Tom, bravo! But you still fail to answer the simple questions. Please do so, if you're able.

I have answered all your simple questions, except one. (The ∂D/∂v one.)

You don't appear to understand the answers.

It seems that you don't even understand your own ∂D/∂v question either...

There are plenty of calculators on line that use the Structural Stability Research Council’s numerical methods, just plug in the geometry, materials and click the mouse button! Don't let your budding twoof-slaying fans down, they are cheering you on as I type.

I asked you before to provide a sketch of the system to which you are blindly plugging in numbers.

When you're asking about the critical buckling load, and the real system looks like this:

or, more precisely, this:

... don't give me this:

... unless you wish to be laughed at, of course.

2a. How did no energy dissipate from the WTC 7 columns?

Who, other than you, says that "no energy dissipated in the WTC7 columns"?

Explain this in terms of the Lagrangian energy theory. Tell me all about the dissipation term; please don't forget that ol' serpent in the garden.

There is no "serpent in the garden", Derek. There is one confused, arrogant little punk running around making an utter fool of himself in public.

That'd be you, in case you still haven't caught on.

Let's start with the sketch of the columns.

I'll show you the absolute vacuousness of your "serpent in the garden" gotcha after you've provided a sketch of the system "as you see it".

The rest of your post is a monumental joke. We'll get to it piecemeal.


tom

 

[Sunstealer]

Some catches for you -

2. Eutectic 'melting' is a different phenomenon from the gross phase-change that we normally refer to as 'melting'. The event here occurred along grain boundaries within the steel and would be more usefully described as corrosion or slow disintegration grain by grain. Had it been conventional melting there would be iron slag present and gross deformation of the entire section.

That you haven't yet grasped these simple facts speaks volumes for your belief-driven agenda.

He's absolutely correct. Sulphidation is driven by the process of surface diffusion, that is to say the diffusion of a species (in this case Sulphur) from the immediate atmosphere (most likely produced by the burning of material such as dry wall that contains Sulphur) into a solid's surface (in this case steel).

Ingress, i.e penetration of sulphur into the steel is dictated by a rate constant that depends upon time and temperature as well as the concentration gradient (of the diffusing species) between the surface and the atmosphere and the diffusivity of that species, i.e sulphur within the material (in this case steel)

Basically the higher the concentration of the species in the immediate atmosphere, the higher the temperature of the substrate the deeper the species will penetrate over a given time. However, once saturation of the species within the substrate occurs then diffusivity of that species within the substrate takes over.

For example, when we wish to harden a steel's surface by carburisation we can calculate the depth of hardness (or case hardness) we wish to achieve using some relatively simple calculations. However, an infinite depth of hardening is not possible depending upon the thickness of the substrate. Even Carbon which has a high diffusivity in Iron (that is it is able to move within the solid Iron lattice relatively quickly) does not move fast enough to be able to penetrate a certain section thickness of steel - we call this an infinite sink. That is a thickness that will never be fully hardened even though the time allowed is infinite.

Sorry I'm having to write this without diagrams or equations atm.

In the case of sulphidation (carburisation, oxidation is the same and often occurs where sulphidation is present ) the preferential path of Sulphur into the surface of the steel is via grain boundaries (metals are usually poly-crystalline materials composed of tiny crystals called grains). The boundaries of these grains are exposed at the surface of a metal. This is clearly seen here

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/fig3.gif

from

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.htm

NOTE THE SCALE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THAT DIAGRAM.

Once the diffusion of of Sulphur and Oxygen reaches a certain concentration at those boundaries then a "eutectic composition" is reached. This eutectic will not melt unless the temperature of the substrate's surface is high enough. (so you can form a eutectic composition, but not melt it due to insufficient temperature). In this case IIRC it's @ 970°C from the Fe-O- S phase diagram, which is how it was established that the analysed samples had seen this temperature.

Melting of grain boundaries is on the micro scale hence the bold above and is usually called liquation (of grain boundaries). It in no way implies macro liquification, that is the full melting of any material.

Corrosion takes place via this mechanism (aswell as oxidation/chemical attack etc) whereby, the grains are weakened via the composition inbetween becoming liquid. Subsequently spalling (bits flake off) occurs and a fresh surface is exposed for the process to continue (just like rusting does).

I'll leave it there because I decided to drop the madness of writing technical refutations in the "Jones thermite paper thread" due to personal circumstances (I had a big career opportunity that required alot of work), boredom with the nonsense and the dishonesty/lack of rigour from a lot of truthers in that thread.

Back to the madness!

 

[Sunstealer]

An aside to the above - there was only sufficient length of time for sulphidation (causing the severe corrosion seen in the samples) to occur in the rubble pile. We are taking days and weeks here. Thermite simply cannot provide the temperature nor the source of sulphur over that time period. Thermite burns out inside minutes not hours let alone weeks.

 

[Java Man]

Specualtion, but here are a few sources

Drywall
Plastics
foam seat cushions

Any one of those would give off a good amount of sulfur.

Are you done with the abstract yet Derek?

What process would take the sulfur from them and make it available for the reaction?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Nice to see you again, Sunstealer! Wish you did write up further techinical posts, but I understand why you didn't. You're right; the basic dishonesty in that thread on the truthers part was galling. Anyway, great to read stuff from you, even if it's basic.

 

[tfk]

USGS aerial photos on 9-16-01 indicating 1340 deg F (712 deg C) is mighty, mighty strange.

Says who? You..??!!

Find someone whose opinion matters, please.

Amazing that now NASA & the USGS appear to be in on the conspiracy. Experts who gathered & examined & calibrated & wrote papers on the data…

… and it takes some wet-behind-the-ears, arrogant baby engineer from Texas to notice what was staring all those experienced guys in the face: "sumthin' fishy goin' on…"

You have an inordinately inflated opinion of your powers of observation, Derek. Time to rein in the ego.

You haven't even come up with a plausible explanation as to how the temperatures that USGS are possible. How is this possible? This isn't a wacky theory, it's just a simple question.

Burn office contents. It is WELL documented that you get those temps.

These peak around 1200°C (2200°F),

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...trucfire/CaseStudy/steelComposite/default.htm



You were saying that 712°C is "mighty, mighty strange"?

Nah, after the fires have cooled down a bunch, I can easily see 700°C…
___

More from the same site (University of Manchester Fire Engineering group)...


"Traditionally the fire resistance of structural members has been determined in Standard Fire Tests. The time-temperature environment in the Standard Fire Test represents a more severe heating condition compared to that in many typical natural fire compartments. In a well-ventilated compartment the duration and/or the severity of the time-temperature environment is generally less than in a Standard Fire Test. The effect of ventilation and fire load on fire severity is illustrated in Figure 2. Fire tests were conducted in compartments where the fire load and the natural ventilation were varied. The well ventilated compartments experienced lower temperatures and fires of shorter duration. In Figure 2 the numbers identified with each curve indicate the fire load density in kg/m2 (ie 60, 30 or 15) and the ventilation area as a proportion of the façade area (ie ½ or ¼).

The compartments used in the tests were small by modern standards but the results are indicative of the influence of fire load and ventilation on the time-temperature environment generated within fire compartments."

Did you catch that, Derek? "The well ventilated compartments experienced lower temperatures and fires of shorter duration."

Did you notice that the peak temps are driven by the flammable mass per square foot? What do YOU imagine happens to the mass of flammable matter per square foot when you crush 118 stories down to about 15?

Your finding this - or anything - "mighty strange" is typical twoofer meaningless nonsense.

Come back when you have some real engineering. Not this lame-ass crap.


tom

 

[Oystein]

What process would take the sulfur from them and make it available for the reaction?

We are sure that you, being in possesion of the most solid theory, and a full theory, could asssist us in answering that question with the aide of your complete and most solid theory, would you but only write down that full theory.
We are waiting for you t do it over there:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=186203&page=6

 

[leftysergeant]

What process would take the sulfur from them and make it available for the reaction?

A very hot fire in an enclosed, damp place, e.g., a burning rubble pile.

(Especially if that rubble pile includes the remains of a lot of lead-acid batteries.)

 

[aggle-rithm]

Let's call the central issue here "A".

"A" implies "B", which implies "C", which implies "D", and so on.

Derek's got us all arguing about "X".

Which is fine with him, as long as we stay as far away from "A" as possible.

(The actual meaning of "A", "B", "C", etc., is unimportant. It's the truther mode of thinking that keeps the discussion bogged down, regardless of the subject.)

 

[twinstead]

Let's call the central issue here "A".

"A" implies "B", which implies "C", which implies "D", and so on.

Derek's got us all arguing about "X".

Which is fine with him, as long as we stay as far away from "A" as possible.

(The actual meaning of "A", "B", "C", etc., is unimportant. It's the truther mode of thinking that keeps the discussion bogged down, regardless of the subject.)

Some truthers are absolutely brilliant at this game. It's all about keeping 'em bogged down arguing X when the debate is about A. Some do it by arguing semantics, some do it by changing the subject, but they pretty much all do it.