Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's a terrible misunderstanding of chemistry going on here. I barely have a grasp of it myself
Indeed.

eu·tec·tic/yo͞oˈtektik/

Adjective: Relating to or denoting a mixture of substances (in fixed proportions) that melts and solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting points of the separate constituents or of any other mixture of them.

i.e. eutectic = molten metal

The steel beam probably melted when an eutectic mixture of molten metal containing sulfur dripped on it.

NIST did not do as FEMA recommended and determine what caused Sample #1 to melt.
NIST lied when they said that NO steel was recovered from WTC 7.
 
Indeed.

eu·tec·tic/yo͞oˈtektik/

Adjective: Relating to or denoting a mixture of substances (in fixed proportions) that melts and solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting points of the separate constituents or of any other mixture of them.

i.e. eutectic = molten metal

The steel beam probably melted when an eutectic mixture of molten metal containing sulfur dripped on it.

NIST did not do as FEMA recommended and determine what caused Sample #1 to melt.
NIST lied when they said that NO steel was recovered from WTC 7.
OK - I'm going to try and be gentle because the subject of high temperature corrosion is quite specialised. There's maths and chemistry and solid state physics involved, but this is a brief (ha!) explanation in the simplest terms I can think of for this particular example. I'm going to use diffusion to explain it but there are other chemical examples.

All metals when they oxidise increase in weight. This is because atoms from an element (species) in a gas environment (oxygen in air) diffuse into the metal's surface. The metal is still solid, but a reaction is taking place. Once that scale forms the surface of the metal has been changed to an oxide and therefore it's more difficult for oxygen atoms to diffuse into this new surface.

The mechanics that determine how fast this occurs and the depth of oxide layer are temperature, the concentration gradient of the diffusing species across the metal/gas interface, diffusivity of species and time (surface area, D - Diffusion coefficient, pressure, alloy composition, etc are also factors but it gets complicated fast). Imagine it as a flow of atoms from the gas into the solid across the metal/gas interface. Increase heat increases the rate. Increasing the concentration of the gas increases the difference between concentration of the gas at the metals surface and the concentration of the diffusing species in the metal - concentration gradient goes up. Increase the time, more atoms flow across the interface. Diffusivity of species is how mobile or how easy it is for that atom to move in the solid - solid state diffusion.

So for example carbon is "highly mobile" in iron and is an example of interstitial diffusion. Remember BCC, FFC, HCP etc crystal arrangements? Well if you take a BCC iron then you've got 1 Fe atom in the centre and 8 Fe corner atoms. Well the carbon atom being small will fit into the sites on the faces of the cube and midway along the edges. Heat is the driving force that will move these interstitial carbon atoms through a crystal lattice of iron atoms. Arrrgh, getting technical!

We can measure the rates of diffusion because we can weigh samples that have been exposed to air or any other gas at a given temperature. Over time the samples gain weight and then we can plot weight gain verses time.

We can then see if there is a linear relationship or parabolic (curved) one. And from these curves using solutions to f-i-c-k's laws (profanity filter picks this one up) we can determine rates etc.

We can also do other things like cut up a steel that's been carburised and measure how deep the carbon has penetrated for a given time, temperature and partial pressure to make sure the process parameters are giving us what the equations say it should give us!

I hope that is reasonably clear for everyone. So lets move on a bit.

Imagine a piece of low carbon steel say 1/2" thick, inch wide and 5 inches long suspended in a furnace that allows a gas mixture to be pumped in. In this case we'll use SO2 and CO2. The temperature will be held at 1000°C and the concentration (partial pressure) of SO2 and CO2 will be a reducing one. What happens?

I'm going to ignore the austenite phase change, spheroidization of cementite, dissolution of pearlite, recrystallisation, grain growth (especially columnar), etc because it's just too much and isn't required.

First of all there are 2 corrosion effects - oxidation and sulphidation. Both are atoms moving from the gas into the solid, and it's quite usual to find both.

Secondly we are going to get decarburisation - that is carbon atoms diffusing out of the steels surface. This happens in a reducing atmosphere.

Now as oxygen and sulphur are diffusing into the steel's surface and carbon is going out the composition of that steel at the surface is changing.

Metals are made up of crystals (grains) and where these crystals join there is a boundary - grain boundary. These boundaries are "weak" areas mechanically, thermally and chemically. For example if you heat a metal up to it's melting point you will find that melting occurs at the grain boundary first. Cracks often follow grain boundaries and grain boundaries are susceptible to chemical attack.

Diffusion of a species such as sulphur, in high temperature corrosion, will be preferential, that is easier, at these grain boundaries where these boundaries meet the steel's surface.

So if the steel has been attacked at the grain boundary by S and O and the composition of the steel changes to the Fe-O-S eutectic composition then this material will melt above the eutectic melting point.

In our furnace example at 1000°C we would expect this to occur (if we've got the SO2/CO2 gas concentration correct).

Right so now we have a liquid that is sitting on the steel surface and along grain boundaries as the result of inter-granular melting (liquation). Remember these boundaries are weak and are very, very small. The liquid is around 20µm (microns) thick - average human hair thickness is 100µm. This liquid is now going to be allowing a couple of things to happen. Firstly because it is below the surface level the interior is now closer to sulphur and oxygen. This means the sulphur and oxygen can now penetrate deeper than if they were just at the solid metal/gas interface so the corrosion rate increases. Secondly this liquid is causing liquid metal embrittlement akin to hot shortness. Sulphides at grain boundaries are not good news since they cause embrittlement so the steel is more susceptible to cracking.

As the corrosion penetrates deeper along grain boundaries the material is being weakened as grains are effectively being circumvented by the liquid, differences in thermal expansion between the oxide layer and the steel will cause the oxide layer to spall (become detached) exposing fresh steel below that is then subject to diffusion of S and O. The mechanism continues.

There are other complications, eg: silicon in the steel and other "impurities" lowering the eutectic further, the possibility that the liquid eutectic is acidic, etc but that's by the by.

I hope that helps Chrismohr with his debate with Gage and ofcourse anyone else who had the stamina to read it!
 
FYI - Explosions do not equal explosives


Never ever according to the denier choir

You claim that there is no evidence of explosives but when presented with evidence of explosions you invariably use the above. Nothing can penetrate the denial shield of those who refuse to accept anything that disputes the OCT.

Can you bring yourself to acknowledge that those explosions could have been explosives?

Your answer will be "No" because . . . . . .

Pearls before swine.

If you insist on calling Richard Gage "box boy" then be consistent and call Dave Thomas "bag man" for his sack of flower drop. :D

Or better yet, grow up and stop the childish insults.They say more about you than the person you are insulting.
 


Never ever according to the denier choir

You claim that there is no evidence of explosives but when presented with evidence of explosions you invariably use the above. Nothing can penetrate the denial shield of those who refuse to accept anything that disputes the OCT.

Fella - do you have any idea how many things can explode OR sound like an explosion at the site of the worst terrorist attack mankind has ever seen? How many cars, busses, propane tanks, taxicabs, ambulances, fire trucks, etc...did you see burned out to a shell in the streets?

Dozens? Hundreds? I suppose they all burned with a wimper.

Can you bring yourself to acknowledge that those explosions could have been explosives?

Nope. Millions of people around the world saw why those towers fell. MILLIONS.
Your answer will be "No" because . . . . . .

Pearls before swine.

Actually, it'll be "No" because there were no explosives.

If you insist on calling Richard Gage "box boy" then be consistent and call Dave Thomas "bag man" for his sack of flower drop. :D

okee doke

Or better yet, grow up and stop the childish insults.They say more about you than the person you are insulting.

What's worse? Childish insults, or accusing the government and by association, the first responders on site of mass murder of innocent civilians AND 300+/- of their own brothers and sisters?
 
OK - I'm going to try and be gentle because the subject of high temperature corrosion is quite specialised.
That's a bunch of bombastic BS.

Mr.[FONT=&quot] Abolhassan Astaneh[/FONT] said: I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

Give up the word games. The beam melted.
 
That's a bunch of bombastic BS.

Mr.[FONT=&quot] Abolhassan Astaneh[/FONT] said: I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

Give up the word games. The beam melted.

Personal communication, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl to Ron Wieck:

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance

Originally Posted by Dr. A. Astaneh-Asl
Dear Ronald: All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy
theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth,
the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that
specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have
seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a
researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase
"molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further
your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find
another subject for your discussion . You are hurting the victims'
families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so
and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " .
But will they listen?

Best wishes and hoping that these conspiracy theorists will stop using
my name in any context.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
University of California , Berkeley
And:

Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:22 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance

Originally Posted by Dr. A. Astaneh-Asl
Dear Ronald: Please also feel free to bring to their attention that they
find results of our findings by simply searching Google for "Astaneh
WTC". There is a Design Magazine article that is freely accessible on
the internet and provides good coverage of my work. It is at:
http://www.designnews.com/article/64...ing_Do_It_.php.
Again, please plead with these conspiracy theorists to stop using my
name in any context what so ever regarding conspiracy theories. It
causes quite a lot of pain for me to have my work abused in this way
Thank you.
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
University of California , Berkeley
From this post. Give up the word games.
 
Fella - do you have any idea how many things can explode OR sound like an explosion at the site of the worst terrorist attack mankind has ever seen? How many cars, busses, propane tanks, taxicabs, ambulances, fire trucks, etc...did you see burned out to a shell in the streets?
Did it occur to you that building codes would not permit things in a high rise the could cause the explosions the firefighters described?

I have heard a lot of wild claims about what the explosions "could have been" but absolutely NO EVIDENCE of anything that could cause an explosion that could destroy the lobby was actually in either Trade Tower.

Put up or stop making a ridiculous, baseless claim.

What's worse? Childish insults, or accusing the government and by association, the first responders on site of mass murder of innocent civilians AND 300+/- of their own brothers and sisters?
Typical trite strawman. I do not blame the firefighters [or Jane Stanley]. I have never heard anyone in the TM make that claim. It's just a BS strawman written by the PTB and repeated by the fanatically faithful. It only demonstrates how low you will stoop in your mindless insults.
 
Last edited:
That's a bunch of bombastic BS.

Mr.[FONT=&quot] Abolhassan Astaneh[/FONT] said: I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

Give up the word games. The beam melted.

He also said the buildings were so light there would be no need to use explosives.

...The witnesses to molten metal also included University of California, Berkeley engineering
professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who was the first scientist given access to the steel at ground zero.
Dr. Astaneh-Asl referred to the WTC steel he found as "kind of melted." Years later, when asked again
about his experience he clarified, "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."...

Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of
the conspiracy stuff," he says. "Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for
explosives to bring them down."
As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. "This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced," he says.

"Unfortunately and tragically, when [this design] was subjected to this terrorist attack, there's no way this building could stand it."

Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says.

"Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."
 
Did it occur to you that building codes would not permit things in a high rise the could cause the explosions the firefighters described?

I have heard a lot of wild claims about what the explosions "could have been" but absolutely NO EVIDENCE of anything that could cause an explosion that could destroy the lobby was actually in either Trade Tower.

Put up or stop making a ridiculous, baseless claim.

That big ol' building next to the firefighters you linked to beg to differ. You may have seen it collapse.

Burned out shells of vehicles littering the WTC site are now "wild claims"

Uh huh.



Typical trite strawman. I do not blame the firefighters [or Jane Stanley]. I have never heard anyone in the TM make that claim. It's just a BS strawman written by the PTB and repeated by the fanatically faithful. It only demonstrates how low you will stoop in your mindless insults.

WHAT???
What the hell do you think the whole "foreknowledge" narrative is based on? You gotta start paying more attention to your truther bretheren.
 
You claim that there is no evidence of explosives but when presented with evidence of explosions you invariably use the above. Nothing can penetrate the denial shield of those who refuse to accept anything that disputes the OCT.

How many times must you be told that:

1) none of deny that there were explosions that day and that there would, of neccessity, have been explosions

2) That not all explosions are caused by high explosive devices

3) That not all sounds described as "explosions" are explosions.

The explosions in the basement of the WTC were of jet fuel. There is no other explanation for people burned, but not frappe'd by the blast. What Louie Cacchioli described as sounding like "bombs going off" was actually rthe collapse of the other tower. He was inside another building at the time. Nobody in the street recorded aything like bombs. Idiot boy MacQueen uses Karen Deshore's account of cars cooking off as a "report of bombs," showing that the little twit has a reading comprehension problem

That seems to be a wide pread pandemic among twoofers..

Can you bring yourself to acknowledge that those explosions could have been explosives?

Your answer will be "No" because . . . . . .

We each know munitions and weapons and construction and demolitions better than any five twoofers combined.

If you insist on calling Richard Gage "box boy" then be consistent and call Dave Thomas "bag man" for his sack of flower drop.

The flour drop shows an actual phenomenon that occurred that day. All little Dickie shows is that verinage is impossible.:dl:
 
Last edited:
Did it occur to you that building codes would not permit things in a high rise the could cause the explosions the firefighters described?

Really? So CRT type monitors, cleaning supplies, HVAC equipment including compressors, condensors, and motors, large motors filled with oil which would include elevator lift motors, toner cartidges from copiers, UPS supplies, high voltage transformers, low voltage tansformers, and a dozen other things, are all outlawed in offices?

BULL **** and you know it Chris. We've done this before.

Can you rule out any of those items, plus another dozn or so others that I did not list, as the sources of the explosions?

Please list any assumptions, and show your work.

I have heard a lot of wild claims about what the explosions "could have been" but absolutely NO EVIDENCE of anything that could cause an explosion that could destroy the lobby was actually in either Trade Tower.

Jet fuel from the planes. It's called a FAE, or fuel-air explosion.

Go read up on them.




Put up or stop making a ridiculous, baseless claim.

Same to you truther.....
 
From this post. Give up the word games.
Like most Americans, he uses "conspiracy theorist" as a pejorative because he has been brainwashed into equating "conspiracy theorist" with "nut-job" while at the same time believing a nutty conspiracy theory about Ali Baba and 19 thieves getting by the most sophisticated military in the world and flying a plane onto their headquarters. You can believe that if you like.

The denial is so profound that someone who believes the Official Conspiracy Theory cannot admit that what they believe is a conspiracy theory. Can you?

In any case he said he saw melted girders because he saw melted girders. He did not retract that statement.
 
he has been brainwashed into equating "conspiracy theorist" with "nut-job"

There are 9/11 conspiracy theorists who believe explosives sent aircraft parts from INSIDE the Pentagon, to the OUTSIDE. To account for debris on the lawn.

There are CTs who think a "ball" hit the south tower, while an aircraft hit the north tower, pentagon, and crashed in shanksville.

....And you wonder why you people are viewed as nuts??
 
Really? So CRT type monitors, cleaning supplies, toner cartidges from copiers, UPS supplies,
CRT monitors and toner cartridges - blow up the lobby??? Get serious please.

HVAC equipment including compressors, condensors, and motors, large motors filled with oil which would include elevator lift motors, high voltage transformers, low voltage tansformers,
Show proof that any of these were present and in a position to blow up the lobby or stop making that claim.

Building codes would not permit such a hazardous situation.

BTW: the transformers were in the sub station in building 7.

Jet fuel from the planes. It's called a FAE, or fuel-air explosion.
The firefighters arrived after the planes hit. It was not a jet fuel explosion. Had you actually watched the video you would know that but you just open your deniers handbook and copy what's there.
 
Sadly, many of the noises that firefighters heard and mistook for explosives explosions were bodies falling. A sick reminder of the graves Chris7 pisses on with every fantastic post.
 
Last edited:
There are 9/11 conspiracy theorists who believe explosives sent aircraft parts from INSIDE the Pentagon, to the OUTSIDE. To account for debris on the lawn.
There are CTs who think a "ball" hit the south tower, while an aircraft hit the north tower, pentagon, and crashed in shanksville.
....And you wonder why you people are viewed as nuts??
There are conspiracy theorists who believe the OCT but don't know that they are conspiracy theorists, nor do they know that the nutjobs are the 25% minority who still believe Oswald acted alone and the government has our best interests at heart. :rolleyes:
 
OK - I'm going to try and be gentle because the subject of high temperature corrosion is quite specialised.

Excellent all around explanation. Just don't get too frustrated with 1 line truther responses. Their egos won't let them write "I don't understand this argument," so instead, they write:

That's a bunch of bombastic BS.

No, Christopher7, that's the problem. The only one who doesn't see this response for what it is, is you. If you don't understand, that's OK, but you need to admit it.
 
Sadly, many of the noises that firefighters heard and mistook for explosives explosions were bodies falling. A sick reminder of the graves Chris7 pisses on with every fantastic post.
You are the one doing what you are accusing me of doing. We know about the bodies but there are numerous videos of survivors saying there was an explosion coming down the stairs or there was an explosion when we got to the lobby or there was an explosion in the subway or the basement. Building codes would not permit things that could cause large explosions in or near the lobbies or stairways. You cannot explain away all these first hand accounts made shortly after these people experienced EXPLOSIONS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aec8c5b17d
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4781be908b
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozTnINH6Yls&feature=player_embedded

There are many more.
 
Their egos won't let them write "I don't understand this argument,"
If you don't understand, that's OK, but you need to admit it.
Talk to yourself much?

I understand perfectly. The beam melted. i.e. it was heated until it turned to liquid.
FEMA C Pg 1-2
Evidence of severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting was readily visible in the near surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot sulfur attack on the steel. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down the grain boundaries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000°C (1,800°F) which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

melted past participle, past tense of melt (Verb)
1. Become liquefied by heat.
2. Change (something) to a liquid condition by heating it.


Might I suggest "Rosy's Remedial Reader" for your bedtime story tonight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom