Gage's next debate

[chrismohr]

Not-so-simple question #5

This is actually a constellation of questions for Tri, not so much debate issues as you will see. At both debates I met first responders who believe Richard Gage's theories. In my mind, the fact that someone WAS a first responder or a family member who has lost a loved one on 911 is infinitely more important to me than their opinions on 911. And to Richard Gage's credit, he has never insinuated that my disagreement with him somehow automatically shows disrespect for the heroism and suffering of those close to the tragedy.

I want to know how you, as a 911 firefighter, see this debate playing out among your fellow 911 heroes. I would never want either me or Richard to exploit anyone, regardless of their belief. I fear the debate creates a wedge between people who risked their lives together in the horrible aftermath of that day.

For my side, I want to be really really careful how I treat eyewitness accounts from survivors, for example, because I have never gone through anything remotely like what they have. Comments?

 

[triforcharity]

This is actually a constellation of questions for Tri, not so much debate issues as you will see. At both debates I met first responders who believe Richard Gage's theories.

First responders from FDNY/NYPD? Or first responders like Erik Lawyer from Firefighters for 911 Truth?

In my mind, the fact that someone WAS a first responder or a family member who has lost a loved one on 911 is infinitely more important to me than their opinions on 911.

I agree to a point. There are people who are fooled by Gage's nonsense. Just because someone is a family member, doesn't make them exempt from beeing fooled by a snake oil salesman.

And to Richard Gage's credit, he has never insinuated that my disagreement with him somehow automatically shows disrespect for the heroism and suffering of those close to the tragedy.

Gage walks a VERY fine line. he stays JUST on the other side of offensive, and does it well. It's best that he does.

I want to know how you, as a 911 firefighter, see this debate playing out among your fellow 911 heroes.

Most firefighters ignore the 9/11 conspiracy liars.

See here.
http://www.firehouse.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107457

This is a form for firefighters to talk shop. When Erik Lawyer and his friend, whatever his name is, come in and spew this nonsense, they are met with the response that they deserve. Distain, and verbal lashings.

Here is another response from a member of FDNY which is actually AT Ground Zero.

Warning****

NSFW!!!!

LOTS of foul language. If you're offended by the "F" word, don't watch it.



In general, firefighters who aren't conspiracy theorists, don't give truthers the time of day.

I would never want either me or Richard to exploit anyone, regardless of their belief. I fear the debate creates a wedge between people who risked their lives together in the horrible aftermath of that day.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?

For my side, I want to be really really careful how I treat eyewitness accounts from survivors, for example, because I have never gone through anything remotely like what they have. Comments?

Witness accounts are tricky. My advice? Unless it's Willie Rodriguez, don't accuse anyone of lying. We know that Slick Willie is pretty much a liar. Do a search for his name here, and you will understand.

Witness account can be tough. For an example, you must look at the ENTIRE quote. Gage et al. like to look for the word "explosion" and use that remark as proof of bombs. Never taking into consideration that A) explosions
=/= bombs, and B) (Especially with the firefighter oral histories) most references to explosions refer to the collapse. But, when all you see is "I heard an explosion" it's misleading. What they left out was " I thought I head an explosion, but it was just the tower coming down.".


The oral histories of the FDNY can be found here.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Hope that helps.

 

[BasqueArch]

Perhaps the rare corrosion was the result of equally rare confluence of events.
High temperatures, oxygen and hydrogen from water and air, sulfur from gypsum wallboard, and fluorine gas from Halon type fire extinguishers or Freon from A/C refrigerant.

Fluorosulfuric acid (HFSO₃) is a superacid, much stronger and faster reacting than SO₂ and about a thousand times stronger than sulfuric acid . (wiki)
This might explain the rarity and severity of the corrosion.

There was no fluorine found in the chemical analysis by FEMA. Could this reaction have occurred, the oxidation-sulfidation without the F being found?

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

 

[chrismohr]

Hi Tri,

I imagined the "wedge" among FDNY firefighters is because more of them believed Richard. Maybe not... wow, both Chrisses have admitted being wrong today! I don't specifically remember if they were FDNY, but I do meet first responders in general at these debates. I just assumed they had more traction than they actually do, I guess.

 

[triforcharity]

Gage et al. have very little traction when it comes to the FDNY, or firefighters in general. Most ignore them. And, in the case of Erik Lawyer, he is told to kick rocks by the vast majority of firefighters, as you saw in the thread I linked to.

So no, there is no wedge in the FDNY when it comes to 911 truthers.

Ancedotial, but firefighters tend to stick together. When one of us looks bad, we all look bad. They don't call it a Brotherhood for nothing. We are willing to stand up next to each other and support each other time and time again. The bond that FDNY has is like no other. We put our lives in each others' hands every time we leave the station. If I didn't trust the judgement of another firefighter, then I would not be his nozzleman. Period. No if's and's or but's about it. I wouldn't work with him. Damn near everyone else feels the same. We HAVE to be able to trust our Brothers. Plain and simple.

 

[Senenmut]

Also, is there an estimate out there of what percentage of the steel beams were corroded away in this process? I asserted in the March 6 debate that it was a very small amount, certainly not enough to explain a global collapse of a skyscraper in any event.

that is an excellent question!!

from just 2 newspaper articles, there seems to me multiple beams that were suspicious that caught the eye of an engineer and a fire wise professor. keep in mind, this first quote is only 8-18 days after the event! thats one inch of steel gone in just 8-18 days!! and he says steel flanges...that plural! more than one.
"For example, valuable information could come from analysis of the blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said. He and others suspect that the buildings collapsed because the intense heat of the jet-fuel-fed fire softened the steel to the point that the columns no longer could support the weight of the floors above. As the top 10 or so stories fell, they collapsed the floors below in a cascade of pancaking concrete floor slabs."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html


more steel that caught the eye of a fire wise professor:
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/n...apse-7-world-trade.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

and another one! notice Professor Astaneh - Asl saw this piece only 8 days after the event. 15.9mm of A36 steel gone in just 8 days!! remember professor sisson could only get "little metal" to dissolve in 24 hrs with placing powders on his steel!! that is bypassing the whole office/debris fire forming eutectic to attack the steel in the first place!!! notice also that he thinks it burned/vaporized then buckled as it was attached to the column not as it fell or lay in the pile for that matter.

"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.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/s...clues-and-remedies.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

[beachnut]

...
''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.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/s...clues-and-remedies.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Dr. Astaneh-Asl calls your theory on 911 nuts, he calls the CD people nuts. Good job trying to back in CD, but you failed over 9 years ago, on 911.

 

[chrismohr]

Christopher7 wrote,

"The aluminum cladding was blown up to 600 feet in all directions."

Seems like "all directions" would include within the buildings' footprints, yes? And let's not forget the 900+ cars and trucks in the garages and all the aluminum there, plus the planes, plus tens of thousands of filing cabinets and furniture, etc etc etc. If you had a hot steel girder, say 1400 degrees, crushed against aluminum nfrom any of these sources, wouldn't the hot steel beam melt the aluminum it came in contact with, so when it was pulled out, there would be some kind of molten aluminum soup dripping from it? I'm no scientist but this seems like an obvious explanation.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7 wrote,

"The aluminum cladding was blown up to 600 feet in all directions."

Seems like "all directions" would include within the buildings' footprints, yes?

The aluminum cladding was blow outward. As I just said in my post to TFC, some of the cladding from the North Tower landed within the footprint of the South Tower. In any case, it was widely dispersed.

And let's not forget the 900+ cars and trucks in the garages and all the aluminum there

There is very little aluminum in most cars. A few cars have aluminum engine blocks and a few have aluminum wheels but there would be no concentrations of aluminum.

plus the planes,

The planes were shredded and then pulverized and mixed in with a million tons of other debris.

plus tens of thousands of filing cabinets and furniture, etc etc etc.

Fileing cabinets are steel as is furniture framework. Aluminum furniture is very expensive and rare.

If you had a hot steel girder, say 1400 degrees, crushed against aluminum nfrom any of these sources, wouldn't the hot steel beam melt the aluminum it came in contact with, so when it was pulled out, there would be some kind of molten aluminum soup dripping from it? I'm no scientist but this seems like an obvious explanation.

No, it's more like wishful thinking. There were no concentrations of aluminum but there were hundreds of tons of steel. There are just too many reports of molten steel to say they were all wrong and what they saw was actually molten aluminum. Why do you doubt them? There is no reason to doubt them. Why not accept the reality that there was molten steel in the debris pile? Why not accept that the RJ Lee Group said that iron was melted during the WTC event?

Folks here think up alternatives but will never even admit that what all those people saw could have been, much less actually was, molten steel. This is very telling.

 

[Justin39640]

There is very little aluminum in most cars. A few cars have aluminum engine blocks and a few have aluminum wheels but there would be no concentrations of aluminum.

Wrong

 

[Sunstealer]

Sunstealer
Is there a way of determining if sulfur dioxide or sulfuric acid did the damage to the steel? Which is more likely.

I've been out enjoying the rare sunshine so sorry for not getting back to you.

Firstly the type of corrosion observed in the steel samples doesn't show what we would expect from an attack by sulphuric acid. We would see pitting of the surface. Acid attack is considered a different mechanism of attack.

As for any acid being the source of sulphur, well it's possible, however, the temperatures were very high and sulphuric acid attack requires water to be present. Plain carbon steels are often used to hold high concentrations of sulphuric acid without problem. If any water is present then the are issues.

H2SO4 also boils at 337°C so I'd imagine that it's going to react with all sorts of materials in the fire/pile. It will leave a film of sulphur on any steel exposed to it. So it's a possible source of sulphur but not the medium that attacked the steel.

I was helping a mate in his garden yesterday and we had to burn some garden waste; fir trees, chip board, pieces of wood, small bit of kitchen worktop, old kitchen cupboards etc. Woke up the next morning, went down to see the ash and there were several patches of yellow sulphur in the ash.

As has already been said, there are lots of materials other than drywall that will produce sulphur in fires.

 

[Sunstealer]

No, it's YOU who cannot deal with the fact the people not trained as metalurgists, could be wrong about identifying some molten metal of some sort.

Even metallurgists won't be able to identify liquid materials by eye. I can't. I suppose if you had worked in a foundry for some time and had experience with different metals and alloys then you'd have a better chance but you don't need to be a metallurgist for that.

The whole molten steel thing is a red herring anyway. The best response to someone claiming it, is "So what?" When they scream, "thermite!!!!!!!!" all you have to do is ask them to provide evidence of thermite reacting for 30 minutes let alone hours, days or weeks.

They can't because it's impossible. You'd need so much of the stuff you'd be bringing it in by the truck load.

Just quote their beloved Jon Cole vid back at them and ask how long the thermite reacted for.

Once that thermite reaction has finished, i.e. the products have reacted that's it. Everything starts to cool down, not remain hot. To keep the heat output you need ever increasing amounts of thermite.

Dripping steel beams seen days or weeks after the collapse is proof that thermite didn't cause that melting because thermite can't sustain the heat output over that period of time. It's that simple.

 

[Sunstealer]

Does John Cole's experiment show inter-granular melting? How about the corrosion attack? Yes? No?

The Jon Cole "experiment" is nonsense. There was no science behind what he did. He didn't even measure how hot the steel got. At 6.50 he says the fire was hot enough to make the steel beam glow red. Was he seeing that in daylight or at night? So the likelihood is he was he never achieved the temperature as evidenced in the corroded beam. Certainly not above 940°C.

After 2 seconds of his video you can tell he has no clue because he refers to the "mysterious eutectic steel". The iron- carbon phase diagram doesn't have a eutectic point (it has a eutectoid one at 0.8 wt% C). There's no such thing as "eutectic steel".

I love the way at 7.26 he declares that no inter-granular melting occurred. When I next go into work on Tuesday I'm going to take all our mounting, grinding and polishing kit, all the etchants and reagents, all our metallurgical microscopes and chuck them in the bin. Why would we need all that expensive kit when we can just use the Jon Cole mark one eyeball to see things on the micron scale? In future I'll just turn my eye magnification upto x400.

 

[triforcharity]

There is very little aluminum in most cars. A few cars have aluminum engine blocks and a few have aluminum wheels but there would be no concentrations of aluminum.

Incorrect. There are plenty of aluminum parts on cars. Not to mention the many ambulances and fire trucks that were buried in the collapses. Guess what? LOTS and LOTS of aluminum in them.

The planes were shredded and then pulverized and mixed in with a million tons of other debris.

And what happens when all those other debris burn off? What's left?

Fileing cabinets are steel as is furniture framework. Aluminum furniture is very expensive and rare.

No, not at all.

Here, let me google that for you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aluminum+office+furniture

No, it's more like wishful thinking. There were no concentrations of aluminum

OOPS!! Wrong again!

but there were hundreds of tons of steel. There are just too many reports of molten steel to say they were all wrong and what they saw was actually molten aluminum. Why do you doubt them?

Because office fires do not generate that type of heat. Period.

There is no reason to doubt them. Why not accept the reality that there was molten steel in the debris pile? Why not accept that the RJ Lee Group said that iron was melted during the WTC event?

Because to date, you have yet to be able to identify the pictures I posted. Hence, a layman could not have identified the steel by sight alone.

Did you read the RJ Lee report? It doesn't say what you want it to say.

Folks here think up alternatives but will never even admit that what all those people saw could have been, much less actually was, molten steel. This is very telling.

It's very telling that you cannot identify the pictures I posted. But yet, you expect a reporter to be able to do that.

It's also very telling that to date, you also cannot show me a picture of a single steel piece that was MELTED in a fire. Nor can you show me the remnants of said melting.

Got those?

 

[Animal]

Christopher7 wrote,

"The aluminum cladding was blown up to 600 feet in all directions."

Seems like "all directions" would include within the buildings' footprints, yes? And let's not forget the 900+ cars and trucks in the garages and all the aluminum there, plus the planes, plus tens of thousands of filing cabinets and furniture, etc etc etc. If you had a hot steel girder, say 1400 degrees, crushed against aluminum nfrom any of these sources, wouldn't the hot steel beam melt the aluminum it came in contact with, so when it was pulled out, there would be some kind of molten aluminum soup dripping from it? I'm no scientist but this seems like an obvious explanation.

Window mullions are aluminum as well......

 

[NoahFence]

There is very little aluminum in most cars. A few cars have aluminum engine blocks and a few have aluminum wheels but there would be no concentrations of aluminum.

The planes were shredded and then pulverized and mixed in with a million tons of other debris.

Errr....
Again, I hate to be the master of the obvious, but there is ALOT of aluminum in cars. Also, if there are alot of cars, there's bound to be a lot of aluminum, isn't there?

And a healthy portion of your "million tons of other debris" would be filing cabinets and such. I work at a company now, 1 floor - there's a huge amount of aluminum present. How much would be present in 2 buildings 110 stories, with each story an ACRE in size?

Fileing cabinets are steel as is furniture framework. Aluminum furniture is very expensive and rare.

whaaa whaaaa whaaa

WHAT???

 

[NoahFence]

Tri -
Could the debris pile act as a sort of furnace?

I would think that these fires would move past the 'normal office fire' type stuff and get real hot, being in a confined space and burning over 3 months. That could account for melted steel, no?

I defer to the expert

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Tri -
Could the debris pile act as a sort of furnace?

I would think that these fires would move past the 'normal office fire' type stuff and get real hot, being in a confined space and burning over 3 months. That could account for melted steel, no?

I defer to the expert

I don't mean to speak for Tri here, but from what I know, this is possible theoretically but appears not to have happened. Why do I say that? Because there were no reports of cooled, hardened pools of iron recovered. All the evidence points towards the steel having been damaged, severely distorted due to collapse forces, and for a small handful of pieces (two to four, if I remember correctly), corroded in a sulfidation attack, but none reported as melted. Molten metals were spied, yes, but the steel was recovered, and not reported as having been molten.

And yes, this would have been found. There was something on the order of thousands of workers both at Ground Zero as well as the two recycling sites. Link: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/groundzerocleanup,freshkillssortingopera

On top of that: Whenever a truther brings up molten steel and cites reports of it, those reports tend to be pre-collapse. Or they're distortions of post-collapse observations (such as that picture of that supposedly molten piece of steel... being held in air by some piece of construction machinery. It was glowing red hot, but that's far from being "molten").

 

[Senenmut]

I don't mean to speak for Tri here, but from what I know, this is possible theoretically but appears not to have happened. Why do I say that? Because there were no reports of cooled, hardened pools of iron recovered. All the evidence points towards the steel having been damaged, severely distorted due to collapse forces, and for a small handful of pieces (two to four, if I remember correctly), corroded in a sulfidation attack, but none reported as melted. Molten metals were spied, yes, but the steel was recovered, and not reported as having been molten.

what about previously molten?

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

 

[Sunstealer]

what about previously molten?

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

So what? Dripping steel beams seen days or weeks after the collapse is proof that thermite didn't cause that melting because thermite can't sustain the heat output over that period of time. It's that simple.