Going round and round with these guys is only useful to a point and arguing the chemistry is too technical for most people. They will never admit that the beam melted. They will insist on using the word corroded which means:
To destroy a metal or alloy gradually, especially by oxidation or chemical action: acid corroding metal.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/corroded
Rusting is an example of corrosion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrosion
This beam was not corroded gradually over a period of time, it melted.
I did not know that beam was from WTC 7. Is it the one from which Sample #1 [FEMA C report] was cut? I have a file on Abolhassan Astaneh but I didn't have this article so I'm glad I butted in.
You are like Senenmut - you have zero understanding of
High Temperature Corrosion and the various mechanisms that apply. We have very specific definitions in the materials science world to avoid this sort of incorrect and misleading crap you are spouting. Your general understanding of corrosion does not take into account "High Temperature Corrosion" which is different.
Do you know the difference between an electro-chemical explanation of corrosion and a solid state diffusion one? Do you know why one applies in this case and the other does not? Nope - you won't have a clue. Even google won't help you because you have no frame of reference on where to begin.
For example from the report
Macroscopically, the steel samples supplied exhibited severe “erosion” with plate thickness varying from 12.7mm to a total loss of metal in many areas.
and
In severely “eroded” areas in the A36 steel, where the thickness had been reduced substantially, heating in a hot-corrosive environment was evident in the microstructure.
The word erosion has a specific meaning in metallurgy when talking about corrosion and in this context it's wrong, which is why it has quotation marks around it, because it's not used in the metallurgical context of corrosion, but in general. There's a difference when talking about wind, rain and glaciers too. Usually the reader is sufficiently experienced to understand the context it's used in even if it doesn't have quotations.
For example Erosion Corrosion is a specific corrosion mechanism - it's used to describe a particular
type of corrosion.
Materials engineers/metallurgists would never use the word melted (as you do) in this situation because that word does not apply. That's why we differentiate between "bulk melting" which is on a
macro-scale (which is what you, as an ignorant layman, understand the term "melting" as being) and localised melting such as liquation (or "grain boundary melting") which is on the
micro-scale. The two are completely different yet you don't have the willing to understand such a simple concept and continue to make the elementary mistake. Ditto the word "corrosion" it's never used unless it's very general or as part of a specific phrase to describe a particular type. We do this so the reader understands what we are on about! The laymen's dictionary definition doesn't apply because it's not specific enough. e.g:
Uniform Corrosion, Concentration Cell Corrosion, Intergranular Corrosion, Atmospheric Corrosion, Erosion Corrosion, Fretting Corrosion, Dealloiyng, Formicary Corrosion, Microbiological Corrosion - MIC, Galvanic Corrosion or Bimetallic Corrosion, Pitting Corrosion - Crevice Corrosion, Stress Corrosion Cracking, Cavitation Corrosion, Hydrogen Embrittlement, Immunity, Corrosion Fatigue and many others.
The beams suffered from a high temperature corrosion attack that included intergranular melting (micro) - the funny thing is that the mechanisms differ slightly between the two samples analysed. One is exhibiting Liquid Metal Embrittlement (LME), which has observable crack propagation rates in the order of meters per second (very fast), due to the segregation of copper (from the alloy addition and the copper strike from the nickel plating) to the grain boundaries which forms a copper sulphide and melts. The other is exhibiting the formation of iron sulphide and it's oxygen eutectic at grain boundaries which subsequently melts and attacks the steel along grain those boundaries - we don't know if this will cause LME, but if so it would easily explain such high corrosion rates and large section loss. Both require high temperatures and solid state diffusion to occur, but bulk melting does not occur.
It's a subtle difference, but lost on truthers.
The steel did not melt in the general term as C7 understands it. Unfortunately he doesn't understand a word of the explanation which is in this report.
http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf
P.S - horses are not cows are not wildebeest - saves him typing it.
