The Great Thermate Debate

[triforcharity]

Rather, perhaps if you had earned one you might not have completely failed to comprehend my point about the color of the light emitted from the molten material making it easy to approximate it's temperate as being hot enough to contain molten steel or otherwise.

And you do realize that this scale is different for each metal, right?

However, you're obviously no metallurgist by any stretch,

And you are?? Laughable....

as if you were you'd know that the zinc you suggested would boil off before even getting to the point of emitting light, and copper vaporizes just shortly beyond that point, well before it can reach the color of light emission comparable to that of molten steel.

Would you care to back up these statements with a link?

Also, you're wrong in suggesting glass has a lower melting point than steel, as it's actually around the same to much higher depending on the particular constitution of the glass.

Incorrect. Tempered glass is able to glow red hot at about 730 deg. C.

Which, BTW, would be found in damn near every door with a window in it, as it is required by code.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Also, you're wrong in suggesting glass has a lower melting point than steel, as it's actually around the same to much higher depending on the particular constitution of the glass.

Steel may have a melting point as low as 1370ºC. Soda-lime glass, commonly used for windows and making up about 90% of worldwide glass production, has a glass transition temperature (it's a glass, so the concept of 'melting point' doesn't exactly apply) of typically around 570ºC, depending on composition.

(570, in case anyone was wondering, is a lower number than 1370. About 800 lower, in fact.)

Handy tip for future debates, Kyle: when you don't know something, don't just make it up. You're likely to run into somebody who does know, and then you'll just look stupid.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

...Soda-lime glass, commonly used for windows and making up about 90% of worldwide glass production, has a glass transition temperature (it's a glass, so the concept of 'melting point' doesn't exactly apply) of typically around 570ºC, depending on composition.

For more on what Dave is talking about here:

• http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=129401
• http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html

 

[beachnut]

Rather, perhaps if you had earned one you might not have completely failed to comprehend my point about the color of the light emitted from the molten material making it easy to approximate it's temperate as being hot enough to contain molten steel or otherwise. However, you're obviously no metallurgist by any stretch, as if you were you'd know that the zinc you suggested would boil off before even getting to the point of emitting light, and copper vaporizes just shortly beyond that point, well before it can reach the color of light emission comparable to that of molten steel. Also, you're wrong in suggesting glass has a lower melting point than steel, as it's actually around the same to much higher depending on the particular constitution of the glass.

What temperature does steel flow like a river?

 

[kylebisme]

If it was hot enough to melt steel, why would the concrete remain intact?

Not all of it did, an example os such can be seen in this exibit from the New York City Police Museum's 9/11 Remembered exibit:



Note the placard towards the bottom left, which reads:

The U.S. Customs House stored a large arsenal of firearms at its Six World Trade Center office. During recovery efforts, several handguns were found at Ground Zero, including these two cylindrical gun-casing remains and a revolver embedded in concrete. Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path.

So yeah, there was obviously molten concrete too.

I mean, they don't say what you think they say, so I want to know why you posted an analysis of the dust, when we're talking about molten steel..........

Because the dust has iron micro-spheres in it, which are formed by molten steel being splattered and/or vaporised.

Have you even read the subsequent WPI studies of that steel?

Yeah, as I've told you previously a few months back in this very thread.

Handy tip for future debates, Kyle: when you don't know something, don't just make it up.

Dave, I was expressing my familiarity with the properties of sicla-glass, and am fairly sure I'm correct in that regard. Perhaps you aren't familiar with such, but I wasn't just making stuff up. Regardless, I really just dropped by to see if Mike would live up to his word, and should have left it at that.

 

[triforcharity]

Not all of it did, an example os such can be seen in this exibit from the New York City Police Museum's 9/11 Remembered exibit:

[qimg]http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/5862/meltedconcrete.th.jpg[/qimg]

Note the placard towards the bottom left, which reads:


So yeah, there was obviously molten concrete too.

And you do realize that this process can occur at mearly 700 deg. C, right?

Now, this process does take some time, but it can, and will occur.

Because the dust has iron micro-spheres in it, which are formed by molten steel being splattered and/or vaporised.

And you can rule out cereal as a source for this iron?

Or any of the DOZENS of other sources?

And you can PROVE that this can ONLY occur from molten steel being splattered?

What temperature does iron vaporize at?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Dave, I was expressing my familiarity with the properties of sicla-glass, and am fairly sure I'm correct in that regard. Perhaps you aren't familiar with such, but I wasn't just making stuff up. Regardless, I really just dropped by to see if Mike would live up to his word, and should have left it at that.

I am not familiar with sicla-glass [sic], but I'm not yet ready to concede that kylebisme didn't just make that stuff up.

I hope he will humor us further by stating the composition of sicla-glass [sic], and by explaining the differences between sicla-glass [sic] and the more common varieties of glass with which we are familiar.

 

[beachnut]

Vaporized? He never sourced his glass melting point.

Oops, he said the concrete melted. Good one.

 

[TruthersLie]

It does exit, here and here, which I'm sure you've seen both before. But again, I've no interest in going into detail on such with you, so you can save yourself the trouble of waving your hands at it.

those links do not say what you seem to think they say. They are NOT evidence for molten steel.

The fema report you are trying to datamine is talking about the steel undergoing a corrosion attack. That is very different from MELTING.

the wtc dust study says nothing about MOLTEN steel.

Maybe you missed this from your own citation

Metal and Metal-Oxide Phases
The primary metal and metal-oxide phases in WTC dust are Fe-rich and Zn-rich particles (Meeker and others, 2005b). Many other metal and metal oxide phases have been identified including phases rich in Al, Ti, Pb, Bi, Mo, Zr, Sn, Cu, and others. It is often difficult to distinguish between metals and metal oxides with qualitative EDS because of adsorbed surface oxygen or thin coatings of oxide phases such as rust. It is impossible to distinguish metals and metal-oxides with qualitative EDS analysis using a Be window x-ray detector.

In order to distinguish Mo-, Pb-, and Bi- rich phases it is necessary to look for additional M, L, and K series peaks. This may require higher accelerating voltages to excite these x-ray energies. If additional M, L, or K series peaks are not observed, these elements are probably not present and the peak occurring near ~2.3 keV can be attributed primarily to S.

I don't see anythign there about steel. Maybe I missed that....

Page numbers please and exact citations.

Well, when I asked you if you'd continue to reject all the evidence of molten steel even if video of Robertson talking about it turned up, you're replied suggesting you wouldn't engage in such faith-based denial. So, I thought you might live up to your word, though fortunately I never had any intention of holding my breath for as much.

And how many common metals would MELT in the office fires? I can name about 10 of them. Which would be massively common materials.

There was a nice test going around wtih 6 pictures of molten metals... I think Oy was the one who posted it first. Can you name any of those 6 metals? I can't.

The fact that robertson appears to say "molten steel" could be due to a quick and simple mistake (which many people make) of talking on the spot and using STEEL instead of saying metal. Oh wait... IN twooferverse people only say the EXACT THING every time... so Donald R. saying it was a "missle" that hit the pentagon was speaking the EXACT TRUTH and the quotes of people saying it was like a "train" in the wtc means that the nwo used a super duper train gun mounted in orbit...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, I was expressing my familiarity with the properties of sicla-glass, and am fairly sure I'm correct in that regard. Perhaps you aren't familiar with such, but I wasn't just making stuff up.

I'm very familiar with silica glass, thank you (I've never heard of sicla glass, but I'll assume that was a typo). Let me remind you, your statement was:

Also, you're wrong in suggesting glass has a lower melting point than steel, as it's actually around the same to much higher depending on the particular constitution of the glass.

Now, either (a) you were talking about silica, although you actually said "glass", of which silica is only one, and a comparatively rare, type, or (b) you were talking about multicomponent glasses in general. If (a), you're wrong because the softening point of silica is always greater than that of steel (if it were dependent on composition, it wouldn't be silica). If (b), you're wrong because many glasses, including the types that would have been present in the WTC rubble pile, have softening points very much lower than steel. And, in any case, if you were talking about silica, what you were saying was irrelevant, because building windows are not made from silica.

What it boils down to is, you tried to BS, and you've been busted. Now, either you're honest enough to admit that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about, or you'll start another level of blustering to try and cover your ignorance. Anybody want to bet on honesty?

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Not all of it did, an example os such can be seen in this exibit from the New York City Police Museum's 9/11 Remembered exibit:

[qimg]http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/5862/meltedconcrete.th.jpg[/qimg]

Note the placard towards the bottom left, which reads:


So yeah, there was obviously molten concrete too.

But the picture of the guns "encased" in concrete is here

If it was hot enough to make concrete molten, wouldn't it have caused the guns to melt and lose their shape and form? Why do they still look like guns?

And I was right... it is one of the meteorites.
A better picture (in better light too) is here

oh oh oh meteorites!!!! woo hoo.

Why is there unignited paper in the meteorites? Wouldn't paper combust at ... what is that famous temperature... oh 452 F... well below the melting point of steel....

ETA: I didn't get a good look at the picture and made an assumption... I assumed it was the picture of the "meteorites." I was wrong. It doesn't appear to be a picture of the meteorites. I'm not sure what that lump is. It could be a recovered piece of formerly molten metal. What I notice about the picture is that the placards are inaccurate for describing the things below them. Take a look at the placard on the left side. It says

Thermal imaging was used for mapping the hot spots caused by thosands of fuel buried beneath the rubble. It also helped workers to keep away from those dangerous hot spots as fires continued to burn. THe data collected in Albany, Ny., was delivered to the recovery agencies twice a day at ground zero.

I can't see what is supposed to be beneath that placard... It doesn't seem like anything was there. So you cannot claim what is on the placard talk about anything below it.

In the placard on the right we see

'
logo, is an identifying piece of every ESU officer's uniform. Because of the multi faceted work ofn an ESU officer, it is more functional to wear a baeball cap than the traditional eight pointed style hat worn by police officers on patrol.

Yet below that we seem to see some melted/ random shapes...

Yet you are trying to pass off a placard which has a lump of 'something' below it.

And I love it when uneducated people make up placards for things in museums. But I forgot... in twooferverse every thing posted everywhere is fully accurate and never inaccurate.

Woo hoo!!!

Because the dust has iron micro-spheres in it, which are formed by molten steel being splattered and/or vaporised.

do you know what else creates iron microspheres? A regular wood campfire... (it does... look it up). So a regular wood campfire melts steel in twooferverse.

Dave, I was expressing my familiarity with the properties of sicla-glass, and am fairly sure I'm correct in that regard. Perhaps you aren't familiar with such, but I wasn't just making stuff up. Regardless, I really just dropped by to see if Mike would live up to his word, and should have left it at that.

to paraphrase monty python.... "Run Away!!!!"

 

[twinstead]

Of course the name of this thread aside, there really is no "Great Thermate Debate". The halls of acadamia, law enforcement, and respected engineering and scientific organizations are not exactly brimming with "Thermate Debates" concerning 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

smoking gun

!!!smoking rusty gun...


The rusted gun, not melted gun, is a component of thermite (the rust part). This is getting good. We found the rusty gun smashed into concrete, which in 911 truth fantasy-land is melted gun (looks like rusty gun) in melted concrete (which looks like concrete smoked up some).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

And, in any case, if you were talking about silica, what you were saying was irrelevant, because building windows are not made from silica.

Aren't they mostly silica?

Although the melting point of pure fused silica is much higher than the melting point of the glass used in building windows, I think kylebisme may be right about the melting points of steel and building glass being comparable.

What it boils down to is, you tried to BS, and you've been busted. Now, either you're honest enough to admit that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about, or you'll start another level of blustering to try and cover your ignorance. Anybody want to bet on honesty?

I think he was being dishonest when he pretended to be familiar with sicla-glass [sic], but that could have been a typo. If it was a typo, then I think he was being dishonest to suggest you might not be familiar with it.

As for your proposed bet, I don't see how we could find an honest arbiter to settle the bet. kylebisme is the only person who actually knows whether sicla-glass was a typo or dishonest bluster.

 

[beachnut]

... most glasses get soft at 600 and begin to flow at 900 C.

Albeit steel is not too good in fire...

And jet fuel does melt Aluminum alloys, so the lie about cool burning jet fuel was made up by 911 truth and not backed with studies, research, or facts.

You have to be crazy to bring thermite to an office fire, since contents in the office have more heat energy. If you want to be covert, you would add more computers, wood furniture, paper, and plastics. Using thermite is like bringing a knife to gun fight.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Aren't they mostly silica?

Yes, typically about 75%, but the other 25% makes a very big difference. Among other things, it drastically lowers the glass transition temperature.

Although the melting point of pure fused silica is much higher than the melting point of the glass used in building windows, I think kylebisme may be right about the melting points of steel and building glass being comparable.

No, he isn't. Window glasses are usually multicomponent silicate glasses with very much lower softening points, and any glass made in large areas is going to be based on sodalime or similar multicomponent glass made by a float glass process. In fact, it would be very difficult and expensive to make float glass out of silica, if it was even possible, because the glass needs to be lifted off the molten tin it floats on using rollers, and this would require the rollers to be made entirely of materials that don't melt at the temperatures required. Working silica generally requires temperatures of 2,000ºC or higher; steel is a non-starter.

Harder glasses can be worked by other means, including glassblowing, but there's always a temperature gradient between the glass being worked and the glass being handled. To some extent that's true of float glass, but the process requires the glass to be manipulated while it's still soft.

I think he was being dishonest when he pretended to be familiar with sicla-glass [sic], but that could have been a typo. If it was a typo, then I think he was being dishonest to suggest you might not be familiar with it.

It's quite obvious that he Googled the melting point of silica, assumed it was the same as window glass, and then tried to bluster his way out of it when he got caught. It's also clear that he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. The sad thing is that he's got a chance to learn something useful here, and I suspect he's too angry and idealogically blinded to take advantage of it.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

It does exit, here and here, which I'm sure you've seen both before.

The first does not refer to phase-change melting in the sense that anything might be seen 'flowing'

The second does not even contain the word 'steel', nor 'molten'.

 

[beachnut]

The first does not refer to phase-change melting in the sense that anything might be seen 'flowing'

The second does not even contain the word 'steel', nor 'molten'.

You are right, the first study calls that corrosion, not melted steel. He did not read the study.

The second one is a a real study of the WTC dust, no thermite found. He did not read the study.

He has solved the big question and presented corrosion, and no thermite studies. He debunked melted steel, and thermite, and thinks otherwise. That is 911 truth, on the move, self debunking, shooting for 10 years of not understanding 911.

 

[ergo]

Well the video finally made it to the net:


For the record, tarting about 35 seconds into the video, Les Robertson (one of the chief structural engineers of the WTC complex) says:

Assuming Mike is a man of his word, it seems he'll stop denying the molten steel now. Anyone else here willing to do the same?

You mean a standard bedunkerism that was repeated ad nauseum for years was debunked?? Again? Gee, you'd begin to wonder if 9/11 bedunkery is mainly concerned with burying facts, discrediting witnesses and researchers and spreading false information and other bits of 9/11 fakery.

 

[dc1971]

You mean a standard bedunkerism trutherism that was repeated ad nauseum for years was debunked?? Again? Gee, you'd begin to wonder if 9/11 bedunkery twoofers are mainly concerned with burying facts, discrediting witnesses and researchers and spreading false information and other bits of 9/11 fakery.

There. Corrected that for you! How many more times are you going to need correcting?