Gage's next debate

[Drs_Res]

So let me see if I've got it straight:

1. Melt some aluminum
2. ???
3. The tower collapses
4. ???
5. PROFIT!

Care to fill in the gaps?

I'll take a shot at it... Ahem


1. Melt some aluminum
2. "Pull it!"
3. The tower collapses
4. Larry Silverstein
5. PROFIT!

/RedIbis Mode

 

[aggle-rithm]

That's not the way it works. NIST cannot make proclamations for which there is no precedent or scientific evidence and say "you have to prove us wrong". They have the burden of proof.

They're not saying, "you have to prove us wrong". They're saying, "if you don't like this hypothesis, then you need to provide one that fits the evidence better".

Got one?

No?

Didn't think so.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Commissioners discredit the 9/11 Commission Report themselves

The whole question of the impartiality of the 9/11 Commission is a classic example of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy...Truthers try to discredit the Commission itself

The Commissioners themselves and their Staff discredit the Commission report, and those who testified before it. They know more about the Commission than anyone else.

Senator Max Cleland quit, calling it a farce. and a cover up.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover

Thomas H. Kean, Chairman, 9/11 Commission Without Precedent, a book about the 9/11 Commission authored by Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton 8/4/06: "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue." http://www.washingtonpost.com

"The 9/11 Commission was in many ways set up to fail...not enough money, not enough time."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LBARGBupM&NR=1

Why did the American people and the world have to wait 441 days for a commission [to begin its work] that was originally budgeted for 3 million dollars and given barely a year [to complete the investigation]?
Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission : I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign - 'Mr. Bush, this was your fault' ..." http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, 9/11 Commissioner "None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath; nor do we have any paper on this," said Timothy Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former congressman from Indiana. "I'm deeply disturbed by this. I'm furious." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01

Jamie S. Gorelick, 9/11 Commissioner Washington Post Article 9/30/06: Regarding recent revelations of a July 10, 2001 meeting between Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Cofer Black - "Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with commission staff members who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting. "We didn't know about the meeting itself," she said. "I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it." White House and State Department officials yesterday confirmed that the July 10 meeting took place..." http://www.washingtonpost.com

John F. Lehman, Jr., PhD – 9/11 Commissioner Article Washington Post 8/2/06: "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public."

Daniel Marcus, General Counsel of the 9-11 Commission/ If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06

John J. Farmer, Jr., Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described,"

Peter Rundlet, Counsel for the 9/11 Commission Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. ... At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot." http://think

See more, and links to original sources at http://patriotsquestion911.com 9/11 Commissioners and Staff Members

It is not too much to ask, for an investigation commission like we had for the Challenger disaster, where no one quit, no one called it a farce, we had a Nobel Prize Physicist, and NASA answered all the major questions. There are hardly any JREF posts about it, compared with thousands about 9/11. We need a new 9/11 investigation of the quality of the Challenger commission.

 

[Senenmut]

Do you see any thermite fused to the steel in question? No, because thermite was not there. Go ahead link to some steel that was corroded by thermite. The steel in question was not heated to the temperature associated with thermite, unless you 911 truth guys are pushing low temperature thermite with your no noise explosives. Go ahead prove your thermite, show us steel with thermite fused all over it, at temperature far over the steel which corroded, not thermite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR6K90cR8Lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpOJE-mkWmw

Notice how the thermite sticks to the steel? Where is your thermite products on 911? This is much too easy. The corroded steel could have happened before 911, and is a rare event, only two samples out of hundreds of thousands pieces of steel. Or are there more? Good luck. The reason to study the corrosion is what? It was not thermite, what was it?

The steel was studied, proves no themite.
Temperature, too low for thermite; your claim has failed.

You are using corroded steel to explain what? Your lack of knowledge in chemical engineering, or your propensity for paranoid conspiracy theories?

so no example in history where 15.9mm of a36 steel "corrode" in just 8 days or an inch to razor thin in just 8-18 days. just on 911 right?

prof jones quote:
"I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel."

 

[Sunstealer]

There is no president or scientific data to support the claim that organic materials can mix with molten aluminum.

Yeah cos liquid Al at 660°C plus isn't going to have other elements readily dissolve in it. Sheesh. Liquid aluminium readily absorbs atmospheric gases especially hydrogen which can cause problems in casting.

Al4C3 forms during the Hall–Héroult process due to liquid aluminium reacting with graphite electrodes. Just the high temperature will be enough to melt plastics. Liquid Al would be reacting with the concrete and steel in the building too.

If you really want to prove that organic materials can't mix with liquid aluminium I suggest you jump into a vat of the stuff and report back when you don't "mix" with it. I can't believe you even think it's a problem.

Oh and here's a nice little demonstration of why pouring liquid steel into dumper trucks full of soil is a very bad idea.

Watch him state that's Al and not Fe.

 

[Sunstealer]

so no example in history where 15.9mm of a36 steel "corrode" in just 8 days or an inch to razor thin in just 8-18 days. just on 911 right?

Edited, breach of rule 12; content removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

Do you know about the Comet aircraft failure due to metal fatigue? Never happened because it was the first time in history and engineers had never seen it before.

I suggest you drop the first time in history crap.

This corrosion was a highly localised event. None of the people who have examined this steel have any problems with it. None. The scientific explanation has been made, you just refuse to accept it. If you wish to argue then I suggest you contact the authors of the relevant paper. Hell even George Vander Voort has a public email address on his site. Why not ask him?

He will even help you, he has a nice contact form - http://www.metallography.com/gfv/help.html Will you drop him a line and find out? Nope, thought not.

You keep repeating the same old crap and you go round and round in circles.

One thing I'd like you to show me in the following paper. http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf

Please point out to me where any of this steel has melted and then re-solidified to form ferrite and cementite? Where are the larger grains of ferrite and cementite formed due to slow cooling rate and lack of hot rolling? Show me that and you will have proven that this steel was once hot enough to have been a liquid.

Why do we see decarburisation of the surface layer when we wouldn't see it if thermite was involved? The thermite reaction produces liquid iron. That iron will solidify on cooling. Where is this iron? It's not in the photomicrographs. Where is it Senenmut?

Please go to page 46 here http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/WTC_Talk.pdf

Do you know what that shows? Do you know what copper and nickel are doing on the steel's surface and how it got there? Why is the copper and nickel still there if this steel had been exposed to thermite and melted? Why do we see oxidation below the nickel and copper?

Once you know these easy answers then you will know that therm*te couldn't possibly have been used.

prof jones quote:
"I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel."

And you have been asked several times, infact it took 3, before you supplied a source for that, which turned out to be a comment from Jones in a blog's comment section.

Jones wouldn't know what high temperature corrosion looked like if it bit him on the behind.

Yet you continue to spout this as if it's gospel. Once again please provide evidence that this was performed. Why hasn't Jones released this data if it shows what he claims? Show us the data or shut up about it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

so no example in history where 15.9mm of a36 steel "corrode" in just 8 days or an inch to razor thin in just 8-18 days. just on 911 right?

The building took 8-18 days to collapse?

Funny, I don't remember it that way.

 

[aggle-rithm]

We need a new 9/11 investigation of the quality of the Challenger commission.

Sorry. Richard Feynman is dead.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The Commissioners themselves and their Staff discredit the Commission report, and those who testified before it. They know more about the Commission than anyone else.

Senator Max Cleland quit, calling it a farce. and a cover up.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover

Thomas H. Kean, Chairman, 9/11 Commission Without Precedent, a book about the 9/11 Commission authored by Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton 8/4/06: "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue." http://www.washingtonpost.com

"The 9/11 Commission was in many ways set up to fail...not enough money, not enough time."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LBARGBupM&NR=1

Why did the American people and the world have to wait 441 days for a commission [to begin its work] that was originally budgeted for 3 million dollars and given barely a year [to complete the investigation]?
Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission : I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign - 'Mr. Bush, this was your fault' ..." http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, 9/11 Commissioner "None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath; nor do we have any paper on this," said Timothy Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former congressman from Indiana. "I'm deeply disturbed by this. I'm furious." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01

Jamie S. Gorelick, 9/11 Commissioner Washington Post Article 9/30/06: Regarding recent revelations of a July 10, 2001 meeting between Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Cofer Black - "Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with commission staff members who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting. "We didn't know about the meeting itself," she said. "I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it." White House and State Department officials yesterday confirmed that the July 10 meeting took place..." http://www.washingtonpost.com

John F. Lehman, Jr., PhD – 9/11 Commissioner Article Washington Post 8/2/06: "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public."

Daniel Marcus, General Counsel of the 9-11 Commission/ If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06

John J. Farmer, Jr., Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described,"

Peter Rundlet, Counsel for the 9/11 Commission Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. ... At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot." http://think

So how many of these people believe 9/11 was an inside job?

 

[ergo]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

The "There's a First Time for Everything!" argument is a companion argument to Coincidence Theory, which itself gets mushed into One Big Blur Theory. Bedunkers can never quite explain why there were so many "firsts" on a single day (beyond the well-worn refrain first heard by Tattoo on Fantasy Island), how many extraordinary coincidences are required for their absurd explanations to fit any kind of rationality, and why the physics of falling structures should circumvent their normal rules for this one day only. But no matter, because it all gets handwaved away in the One Big Blur.

Moronic.

 

[TruthersLie]

The Commissioners themselves and their Staff discredit the Commission report, and those who testified before it. They know more about the Commission than anyone else.

Senator Max Cleland quit, calling it a farce. and a cover up.
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover

Thomas H. Kean, Chairman, 9/11 Commission Without Precedent, a book about the 9/11 Commission authored by Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton 8/4/06: "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue." http://www.washingtonpost.com

"The 9/11 Commission was in many ways set up to fail...not enough money, not enough time."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LBARGBupM&NR=1

Why did the American people and the world have to wait 441 days for a commission [to begin its work] that was originally budgeted for 3 million dollars and given barely a year [to complete the investigation]?
Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission : I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign - 'Mr. Bush, this was your fault' ..." http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, 9/11 Commissioner "None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath; nor do we have any paper on this," said Timothy Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former congressman from Indiana. "I'm deeply disturbed by this. I'm furious." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01

Jamie S. Gorelick, 9/11 Commissioner Washington Post Article 9/30/06: Regarding recent revelations of a July 10, 2001 meeting between Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Cofer Black - "Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with commission staff members who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting. "We didn't know about the meeting itself," she said. "I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it." White House and State Department officials yesterday confirmed that the July 10 meeting took place..." http://www.washingtonpost.com

John F. Lehman, Jr., PhD – 9/11 Commissioner Article Washington Post 8/2/06: "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public."

Daniel Marcus, General Counsel of the 9-11 Commission/ If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06

John J. Farmer, Jr., Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described,"

Peter Rundlet, Counsel for the 9/11 Commission Was it covered up? It is hard to come to a different conclusion. ... At a minimum, the withholding of information about this meeting is an outrage. Very possibly, someone committed a crime. And worst of all, they failed to stop the plot." http://think

See more, and links to original sources at http://patriotsquestion911.com 9/11 Commissioners and Staff Members

It is not too much to ask, for an investigation commission like we had for the Challenger disaster, where no one quit, no one called it a farce, we had a Nobel Prize Physicist, and NASA answered all the major questions. There are hardly any JREF posts about it, compared with thousands about 9/11. We need a new 9/11 investigation of the quality of the Challenger commission.

so does this mean you have finally researched your slander of the SEC and are willing to retract those words?

how about the "missing 85 tapes?"

Or the rest of your lies, distortions or fabrications?

Of the commissioners you just listed, how many believe that the US government did it? How many believe that it was Mossad?

You need to actually READ what you are trying to quotemine.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Excellent example of why no one comes here anymore.

*Sigh* If only that were true...

 

[TruthersLie]

Yeah cos liquid Al at 660°C plus isn't going to have other elements readily dissolve in it. Sheesh. Liquid aluminium readily absorbs atmospheric gases especially hydrogen which can cause problems in casting.

Al4C3 forms during the Hall–Héroult process due to liquid aluminium reacting with graphite electrodes. Just the high temperature will be enough to melt plastics. Liquid Al would be reacting with the concrete and steel in the building too.

If you really want to prove that organic materials can't mix with liquid aluminium I suggest you jump into a vat of the stuff and report back when you don't "mix" with it. I can't believe you even think it's a problem.

Oh and here's a nice little demonstration of why pouring liquid steel into dumper trucks full of soil is a very bad idea.

Watch him state that's Al and not Fe.

Ummm.... Mythbusters did a show on this using lead (and I think aluminum IIRC). I couldn't find the mythbusters, but did find this.



ah.. here is mythbusters


so if he gets in reallllly fast and then gets out fast... it might just work.

 

[Oystein]

so no example in history where 15.9mm of a36 steel "corrode" in just 8 days or an inch to razor thin in just 8-18 days. just on 911 right?

There never has been such a huge burning building debris pile, and never before has such a huge burning pile been sifted through so thoroughly. Potentially, you might find dozends of such corroded steel samples in any old landfill fire, just no-one ever cared.

Sometime you find something new because you do something vastly different in a new situation.

prof jones quote:
"I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel."

Jones e.al. are incapable of identifying the contents of small probes.

 

[Oystein]

So how many of these people believe 9/11 was an inside job?

...
Of the commissioners you just listed, how many believe that the US government did it? How many believe that it was Mossad?
...

I'd like to know that too!

I know that at least John Farmer is very outspoken about the sure fact that Al Quaeda terrorists hijacked 4 planes and attacked America.

 

[Senenmut]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content and response to same

I point out that this is the first time an office fire/debris fire caused 15.9mm of a36 steel to "corrode" in just 8 days and steel turned an inch to razor thin in just 8-18 days. I understand, you have NO clue how it happened that fast do you. all you can do is try and make fun of someone that actually questions the corrosion rate. remember what the bpat report stated:
"The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. "

we know that 15.9mm of a36 steel was gone in 8 days.

Do you know about the Comet aircraft failure due to metal fatigue? Never happened because it was the first time in history and engineers had never seen it before.

I suggest you drop the first time in history crap.[/quote'
so show me a "corrosion" sample that lost 15.9mm of a36 steel in 8 days or steel that lost one inch in just 8-18 days from an office/debris fire then i just might drop the first time in history.

This corrosion was a highly localised event. None of the people who have examined this steel have any problems with it. None. The scientific explanation has been made, you just refuse to accept it. If you wish to argue then I suggest you contact the authors of the relevant paper. Hell even George Vander Voort has a public email address on his site. Why not ask him?

i dropped him a line. ive been trying to acquire something lately. maybe he will help for free but if he need a "consultation" fee, that fine by me.

One thing I'd like you to show me in the following paper. http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf

Please point out to me where any of this steel has melted and then re-solidified to form ferrite and cementite? Where are the larger grains of ferrite and cementite formed due to slow cooling rate and lack of hot rolling? Show me that and you will have proven that this steel was once hot enough to have been a liquid.

how hot was the liquid slag? they suggest that the austentite only reached 950C. the austentite grains closest to the "liquid slag" could have been much higher considering it had crossed the a3 line. only thing higher up is for the steel to "melt." fig 8 showed that it was "fully austenitic and had undergone substantial grain growth."
page 5 of paper:
"The severe erosion observed is a result of sulfidation caused by liquid penetration into the austenite grain boundaries resulting in large grain pullout of material due to a
liquid intergranular attack. This liquid transforms isothermally to a two-phase eutectic product on cool-down."

Why do we see decarburisation of the surface layer when we wouldn't see it if thermite was involved? The thermite reaction produces liquid iron. That iron will solidify on cooling. Where is this iron? It's not in the photomicrographs. Where is it Senenmut?

considering thermite has its own oxygen supply, maybe that is what caused the decarburisation.

Please go to page 46 here http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/WTC_Talk.pdf

Do you know what that shows? Do you know what copper and nickel are doing on the steel's surface and how it got there? Why is the copper and nickel still there if this steel had been exposed to thermite and melted? Why do we see oxidation below the nickel and copper?

they dont know either.

"The inward concentration gradient of particles beneath the steel surface indicates a diffusion controlled internal reaction is occurring in this steel. Again, this is similar to the reactions observed in the WTC 7 steel beam. A thermodynamic analysis of the Fe-S-O system with additions of Mn, Si, and Cu is currently underway to determine the conditions that would form these sulfidation and oxidation products."
page 9 of article you linked

And you have been asked several times, infact it took 3, before you supplied a source for that, which turned out to be a comment from Jones in a blog's comment section.

ive emailed him. never heard a reply. maybe you can or ever chris mohr could get a response!

Yet you continue to spout this as if it's gospel. Once again please provide evidence that this was performed. Why hasn't Jones released this data if it shows what he claims? Show us the data or shut up about it.

he has the equipment to analyze it. he has the will to do it so i do not doubt that he has infact done the experiment.....even in front of the BBC at that!
you also continue to spout professor sisson's hypothesis as if it was gospel even though he has only gotten "little metal" to dissolve in 24 hrs. maybe you can nail him down for how little that little is. I tried, no answer.

 

[funk de fino]

I [/B] NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

It could not have caused the thermal expansion that supposedly initiated the collapse, at 5:20 p.m.

Stop using the prelim report. It is dishonest.

 

[Sunstealer]

so your getting alittle defensive b/c I point out that this is the first time an office fire/debris fire caused 15.9mm of a36 steel to "corrode" in just 8 days and steel turned an inch to razor thin in just 8-18 days. I understand, you have NO clue how it happened that fast do you. all you can do is try and make fun of someone that actually questions the corrosion rate. remember what the bpat report stated:
"The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. "

we know that 15.9mm of a36 steel was gone in 8 days.

so show me a "corrosion" sample that lost 15.9mm of a36 steel in 8 days or steel that lost one inch in just 8-18 days from an office/debris fire then i just might drop the first time in history.

Well firstly I wasn't making fun, it was a rhetorical question that was intened to prove a point and I'm surprised it's been pulled.

How many buildings have collapsed and burned for 8-18 days+? How many of those had the steel from that building examined? 911 was a unique event.

Of course we don't know the corrosion rate, how could we? Corrosion rate will depend on many factors, since we don't have those exact factors then we can't give a corrosion rate. That's the reason why we examine atmospheres in coal plants etc, the reason why we control atmospheres in furnaces during corrosion experiments and the reason we use alternative materials capable of coping with these environments.

i dropped him a line. ive been trying to acquire something lately. maybe he will help for free but if he need a "consultation" fee, that fine by me.

Good - I hope he's helpful.

how hot was the liquid slag?

We don't know because it was impossible to measure. All we can say is 940°C plus was reached based on the temperature of the eutectic point for Fe-O-S.

they suggest that the austentite only reached 950C. the austentite grains closest to the "liquid slag" could have been much higher considering it had crossed the a3 line. only thing higher up is for the steel to "melt." fig 8 showed that it was "fully austenitic and had undergone substantial grain growth."

See above. That grain growth occurs whilst the steel is in a solid state. Austenite is solid by definition. In the heat treatment of steel, holding above the A3 temperature for a certain period of time is used for homogenisation and control of grain size before cooling (including quenching). If etching was required to see prior-austenite grains then this would have been performed. They may have done it or not considered it important.

I agree that the temperature of the austenite could be higher. If it was all that is going to do is aid the corrosion attack. Austenite at these temperatures is soft.

page 5 of paper:
"The severe erosion observed is a result of sulfidation caused by liquid penetration into the austenite grain boundaries resulting in large grain pullout of material due to a
liquid intergranular attack[/B]. This liquid transforms isothermally to a two-phase eutectic product on cool-down."

Large grain pullout - key words. What's happening is the liquid is freeing these grains from the material. Subsequently they are removed from the solid steel reducing it's cross-section. There is nothing mysterious about this process, it accelerates the corrosion rate.

considering thermite has its own oxygen supply, maybe that is what caused the decarburisation.

Bear in mind that any Al in the thermite reaction is going to oxidise preferentially over iron (see reactivity series) then it's highly unlikely. That's why the thermite reaction proceeds.

they dont know either.

Yes they do. What you are looking at is nickel plating. The copper strike is applied for a good bond to the steel and to ensure an even surface. The nickel is applied over the top.

If thermite was used this plating would have been destroyed. Instead what we see is the copper diffusing into the grain boundaries forming a copper sulphide that reacts with iron sulphide. (Note: Cu as an alloy addition will also do this) LME is part of the mechanism for the corrosion of this beam.

Thermite would destroy the nickel and copper surface layer and we wouldn't see copper in the grain boundaries at the level we do see.

Funny how you say they don't know yet you quote the text that explains exactly why we see oxidation below the surface:

"The inward concentration gradient of particles beneath the steel surface indicates a diffusion controlled internal reaction is occurring in this steel. Again, this is similar to the reactions observed in the WTC 7 steel beam. A thermodynamic analysis of the Fe-S-O system with additions of Mn, Si, and Cu is currently underway to determine the conditions that would form these sulfidation and oxidation products."
page 9 of article you linked

ive emailed him. never heard a reply. maybe you can or ever chris mohr could get a response!

Isn't that suspicious? Surely if he's done what he says then he has results. Why wouldn't he publish this on his site if it strengthens his position?

he has the equipment to analyze it. he has the will to do it so i do not doubt that he has infact done the experiment.....even in front of the BBC at that!

His experiment is worthless unless people can see the results irrespective of whether the BBC were present.

you also continue to spout professor sisson's hypothesis as if it was gospel even though he has only gotten "little metal" to dissolve in 24 hrs. maybe you can nail him down for how little that little is. I tried, no answer.

It's not a hypothesis. The microphotographs show exactly what the cause is. That data cannot lie. Show that report to any metallurgist familiar with high temperature corrosion and they will agree with the analysis.

The reason for the FeS powder test was a quick test to see if corrosion would proceed with the same mechanism. It does. That was all that is needed to be done at that time. There is only so much time in which to produce a report for a given amount of money. Further testing would have to be a high priority and funded.

If I thought that report or parts of it were incorrect then I'd say so and I'd back it up with data/papers showing why. Their conclusion is correct.

Go and read George Vander Voorts Bio - if you think he doesn't know a microstructure when he see's one then there is no hope for you. If you wanted someone to perform metallography for you, he's probably one of the most experienced in the world.

 

[Senenmut]

Of course we don't know the corrosion rate, how could we? Corrosion rate will depend on many factors, since we don't have those exact factors then we can't give a corrosion rate.

but we know that 15.9 mm was gone only after 8 days and one inch to razor thin in just 8-18 days.

We don't know because it was impossible to measure. All we can say is 940°C plus was reached based on the temperature of the eutectic point for Fe-O-S.

at least you entertain the possiblilty that the "slag" could have been higher.

I agree that the temperature of the austenite could be higher. If it was all that is going to do is aid the corrosion attack. Austenite at these temperatures is soft.

we dont know the temp of the slag but if it was hot enough to "melt" the steel that has already passed the a3 line close to the slag, then all it would do is cool to the austenite after it had "melted".

Large grain pullout - key words. What's happening is the liquid is freeing these grains from the material. Subsequently they are removed from the solid steel reducing it's cross-section. There is nothing mysterious about this process, it accelerates the corrosion rate.

do ya think alittle "liquid" or alot of liquid is needed to accomplish this?
im curious as to how one can lose 15.9 mm in 8 days and 1 inch in just 8-18.

Bear in mind that any Al in the thermite reaction is going to oxidise preferentially over iron (see reactivity series) then it's highly unlikely. That's why the thermite reaction proceeds.

true.....
thought experiment:
do you think the oxygen in the fe2o3 (gray layer) in jones red chips would do anything. that is assuming the chips are thermitic in nature with multiple layers and the heat from the reaction melted the grey layer and forced it onto the steel?

Yes they do. What you are looking at is nickel plating. The copper strike is applied for a good bond to the steel and to ensure an even surface. The nickel is applied over the top.

they are currently working to determine the conditions!!!!
"A thermodynamic analysis of the Fe-S-O system with additions of Mn, Si, and Cu is currently underway to determine the conditions that would form these sulfidation and oxidation products."
page 9 of article you linked

as for the copper:
there was copper in the wtc steel. but, the ncstar page 283 states that "the copper web plate analyzed had copper additions of approzimately 0.05, based upon the chemical results obtained in this study. given this low value of copper in the steel, it would seem unlikely that enough copper could diffuse to form the amount of (fe,cu) sulfides observed in the FEMA/BPAT analysis.......more likely that a localized, external source of copper was available....."

Funny how you say they don't know yet you quote the text that explains exactly why we see oxidation below the surface:

im assuming they are speaking of the internal oxidation here as well:
"A thermodynamic analysis of the Fe-S-O system with additions of Mn, Si, and Cu is currently underway to determine the conditions that would form these sulfidation and oxidation products."

It's not a hypothesis. The microphotographs show exactly what the cause is. That data cannot lie. Show that report to any metallurgist familiar with high temperature corrosion and they will agree with the analysis.

ill hold my judgement until jones or anyone else releases data to show that thermate can or can not look like the wtc 7 steel under the scope! if it does, then a thermitic reaction which would be hot and fast would be a scenario to consider since we saw 15.9mm gone in 8 days and an inch in just 8-18 days.

The reason for the FeS powder test was a quick test to see if corrosion would proceed with the same mechanism. It does. That was all that is needed to be done at that time. There is only so much time in which to produce a report for a given amount of money. Further testing would have to be a high priority and funded.

bypassing the critical step of the office/debris fire causing the eutectic to attack the steel in the first place.

Go and read George Vander Voorts Bio - if you think he doesn't know a microstructure when he see's one then there is no hope for you. If you wanted someone to perform metallography for you, he's probably one of the most experienced in the world.

i read about him before i emailed him. he is a very learned man. gotta respect that.

 

[beachnut]

but we know that 15.9 mm was gone only after 8 days and one inch to razor thin in just 8-18 days.

...

Not due to thermite, the structure would be different. Suggest you take one or two semesters of chemical engineering, and come back and try again. 9 years is a long time to keep false ideas on a topic.