Merged So there was melted steel

[Miragememories]

"If you had been following the discussion of said material, you would also be privy to the knowledge that the red material also had shiny metallic spheres present pre-ignition. I trust your finely honed truther ability to search for the truth in this matter. I will not spoon-feed you, you should be aware of the source."

Spoon-feed? Waterboard is more likely.

I have no doubt uncleaned red chips have a certain number of iron microspheres as well as other contaminants adhering to their exposed surface.

Those microspheres permeated all of the WTC dust samples so your statement is no revelation.

That is why investigators test the unexposed, clean material inside.

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

Oh really?

I didn't bring up the unusual presence of "rhombohedral shaped particles" found inside the red layer but since you chose to go there.



MM

If you had bothered to read Oystein's origin of paint thread you will have seen that these particles have been produced by mankind since at least 1947. It's called Chemistry - you can produce these particles by simple crystallisation from solution. There is nothing whatsoever that is unusual about them - infact they are so usual it's one way in which you identify Fe2O3.

Farrer is talking out of his rear end because he hasn't bothered to do any research on the matter, just like you haven't bothered.

 

[Miragememories]

"In addition it has been shown that the aluminium constituent of this material is no greater than 1.68% by weight which is from truther data and therefore shows that this material is a pathetic candidate for thermite - this you have been shown before."

You toss numbers around but never make a valid case for them.

"One of the things that I would like to stress about these chips is that they really shouldn't be there. They are not a natural formed agglomeration of aluminum from the aircraft or materials that were in the building and iron oxide that got knocked off.

The aluminum occurs in plates that are about 40 nano-meters across. I have no idea how to make those. This is high tech material and it is embedded in a carbon-rich matrix."

"Which is way below the temperature that thermite ignites at and is below the temperature that nano-thermite ignites at (see Tilitson et al and other papers. Hint: Especially the production of Fe/Al composites using ball milling and Al and Fe2O3 powders) and it has been shown that epoxy resins ignite readily at that temperature."

Some ignitions have more significance than others.

"There have been some who have argued that these red/gray chips could be paint of some form.

We did a study on some epoxy paint.

We put that in the DSC. We found that that paint would just burn up and turn to ash. You may get a minor exothermic peak but it is not energetic. It is a very smooth wide peak and it is certainly not an energetic material. As part of the actual paint [WTC] that we ignited in the DSC, it was basically ash.
There were no micro-spheres found.

We also took paint that came off of the WTC steel and looked at that in the scanning electron microscope and did compositional analysis of that and found that it was not similar to the red layer of the red/gray chips. The red/gray chips are not the primer paint that was used on the WTC steel."

MM

 

[Sunstealer]

Spoon-feed? Waterboard is more likely.

I have no doubt uncleaned red chips have a certain number of iron microspheres as well as other contaminants adhering to their exposed surface.

Those microspheres permeated all of the WTC dust samples so your statement is no revelation.

That is why investigators test the unexposed, clean material inside.

MM

I am fully aware of why the investigators exposed the fresh material inside due to potential contamination. It's plainly obvious that contamination is going to be present on the surface. However, because you are completely unfamiliar with the operation of a Scanning Electron Microscope you have no idea what sort of tiny, tiny, tiny, teensy-weensy area that you can not only look at but also perform EDX on. So if you are looking at the surface of a contaminated sample it's pretty easy to examine a tiny, tiny, tiny teensy weensy area of the sample that is not contaminated. It's done all the time.

Now lets look at some other red chips that were sent to a truther in France. View this. http://www.darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf

Yes there is contamination on the surface as expected but when he looked closer, and he provides the photographs so that anyone can see, it shows that these little metallic spheres are actually embedded in the material pre-ignition!

So you are incorrect to suggest that microspheres are only observed as contamination on the chip's surface.

 

[Miragememories]

"Please identify the organic material that was observed in the material that Harrit et al obtained."

"Another argument depends on the thermal stability of the primer paint because you might wonder why should somebody paint the World Trade Center steel with a paint which reacts violently at 430 C. And even in the NIST Report, they used the thermal reactivity of the primer paint as a measure for the temperatures for which the steel beams had been exposed. They actually took a steel beam and put it into an oven and saw what happened to the primer paint upon heating. And if you keep the beam at 250 C, it starts cracking and its called mud-cracking because of how it looks. If you heat it further to 650 C, the mud-cracking becomes severe and beyond that temperature, what happens is scales are being formed because the organic binder actually starts charring. There are no basically organic compounds which are stable beyond 450 C. It has been converted to Carbon and it starts peeling off. And this experiment you can carry on to 800-900 C. I have done it myself. But these are pictures from the NIST Report. So, from looking at the mud-cracking of the paint, they could tell how hot the steel beams had been and I can tell you as a footnote, that they did not find any steel beams that had been beyond 250 C based on this way of measuring. What our point here is, what we found, takes off at 430 C but the primary paint is thermally stable. So that is why the red/grey chips are not primer paint."

Hmm. Gotta wonder why the primer paint the NIST tested can handle temperatures from 250 C to 800 C+ without any violent reaction?

Oh yes, I forgot, you believe it was a different, untested primer paint that was volatile at 430 C, though you've completely failed to prove this.

MM

 

[NoahFence]

Hmm. Gotta wonder why the primer paint the NIST tested can handle temperatures from 250 C to 800 C+ without any violent reaction?

Oh yes, I forgot, you believe it was a different, untested primer paint that was volatile at 430 C, though you've completely failed to prove this.

MM

You broke open the entire conspiracy with paint chips. WELL DONE!

I assume you'll be escorting Richard Gage to the halls of congress with this ground-breaking information?

 

[Dog Town]

You broke open the entire conspiracy with paint chips. WELL DONE!

And continues to not understand a thing explained to him. Just a cut and paste collage of well debunked nonsense, from Dr. Idiot 1, and 2! Funny, but very sad!

 

[Sunstealer]

You toss numbers around but never make a valid case for them.

That's hilarious. What this statement shows is how unfamiliar you are with the data produced from truthers. Where do you think I got this slide from?

Here is the video - look at 39:29 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AJ7hXrmMRPc#!

Now I've posted that several times. Infact you've posted in the same thread only a few posts after I've posted that graphic. Funny how you seem do dismiss data even when that data has come from truthers!

Thermite with 1.68% aluminium in it! roflmao. Ludicrous.

Some ignitions have more significance than others.

plus assorted quoted nonsense from Jones and Farrer.



MM

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh.

Why do you NOT read anything? Why? What is wrong with you? Christ on a cracker! I am going to state it in big red letters so that you may, just may be able to understand my position.

Samples a-d in the Harrit et al paper are NOT Tnemec Red primer paint.

Ok have you got that MM? Please read that statement 10 times and fully understand it. Got it? For the record I have always stated that samples a-d are not tnemec red right from the start.

Now if you had bothered to read Oystein's thread FROM THE START, you would have seen that there was MORE THAN ONE primer paint used in the WTC.

Infact you have been shown this before! You ignored it. So here it is again.

Here is the post that finds that out. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7463492&postcount=104

Again you have posted in that thread. Here is the source that proves that there was more than one primer paint used in the WTC.

4.2.7 Primer

The trusses supplied by Laclede Steel were shop primed during production using an electro-deposition process. The formulation for the primer was designated as Formula LREP-10001 and was found in Laclede files (see appendix B). The exact formulation could not be reproduced due to current environmental considerations. A stock steel primer, manufactured by Sherwin Williams and designated Type B50NV11 (recommended by Isolatek International, the manufacturer of the sprayed fire-resistive material used in these tests and in the original construction of the WTC towers was determined to be an acceptable substitute. The primer was field applied to the trusses after assembly in the ULN and ULC fire test facilities.

Page 21 of this report. http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05042.pdf

Read it.

Then read the first two pages of Appendix B. Here is the first one to help you get started.

Again you have been shown this before but you have refused to acknowledge that it exists.

So that takes care of the BS that Farrer spouts because he is unaware that there is more than one primer paint and he is talking about tnemec red when we are talking about Laclede primer.

Do you understand this now? This is why we have to spoon feed you and other truthers. You are incapable of processing plain speech that expresses simple ideas. You must be told over and over and over. I've seen young children grasp ideas quicker than truthers. Perhaps water boarding you might actually get you to grasp ideas quicker than a 4 year old.

Secondly we have no idea about what paint Farrer tested for the Harrit et al paper because there is no specification nor any DSC data for this.

Lastly I cannot even believe you actually quoted Jones saying this

"One of the things that I would like to stress about these chips is that they really shouldn't be there. They are not a natural formed agglomeration of aluminum from the aircraft or materials that were in the building and iron oxide that got knocked off.

What even possessed you to post that drivel? That is insanity right there in a nutshell. Who on earth is saying that the material (particles of al and Fe2o3) is from the plane or the building and just got knocked off and randomly mixed up and formed chips with some binder and then attached itself to a layer of iron oxide? Why would anyone even say such a thing it's bizarre - infact it shows the level of thinking that Jones uses. Nuts.

The aluminum occurs in plates that are about 40 nano-meters across. I have no idea how to make those. This is high tech material and it is embedded in a carbon-rich matrix."

Of course he has no idea how to make those because he's an idiot who is way out of his depth and refuses to do any research as to what those platelets are. Let me ask you this MM - How do you perform open heart surgery? You don't know. Fair enough, neither do I. Now that question is unfair to both of us because we are not heart surgeons. Your knowledge of heart surgery is at the same level as Jones' knowledge of materials characterisation and forensic metallurgy. Of course he won't know what he's looking at, of course he won't understand. He could if he wanted to but he doesn't so he says silly things.

This is not high tech it is very simple chemistry that any one who can read can learn. Mother nature produces these hexagonal platelets all by herself.

Kaolin (china clay)
Kaolin, also known as china clay, is a compound consisting of several clays deriving from kaolinite, dickite and nakrite. The chief component is kaolinite AI [OH8 I SiO4O10]

Kaolinite is a pure clay silicate containing water. In some cases it is definitely crystalline, in others it is extremely fine-grained and was originally in gelatinous form. The crystals are small, thin, pseudo-hexagonal discs.

The base minerals for the formation of kaolin are feldspars, which are present in granite and gneiss as rock-forming minerals, e.g.
potash feldspar K [AlSi3O8]
albite, or sodium feldspar Na [AlSi3O8]

Kaolinite develops as a result of chemical weathering when water is present. Silicates, including feldspars, have a complicated structure and they are split up into simple compounds as a result of absorbing hydrogen ions. The silicic acid then becomes a colloidal solution. During this process of decomposition, clay minerals of the kaolin type are formed in the acidic environment.

The iron ions that are present everywhere in this area and give the rock its brown tint also become a solution in this acidic environment and are washed out. This leads to the ‘bleaching’ of the rock.

http://www.geopark-kaolinrevier.de/station/01EN.php

http://www.wheal-martyn.com/clayformation.html


Of course the material is embedded in a carbon rich matrix because that's what paint is! Now don't post any crap about the MEK test and it's chip it's been done to death, get back on topic.

Now instead of quoting nonsense from Jones and derailing the thread, how about you come up with why liquid steel in the rubble pile can possibly be evidence of an inside job.


Wow us MM, wow us with loads of calculations showing how you think that thermite in tiny particles not more than a couple of mm across can possibly account for rivers or pools of "teh molten steelzzzzzz 1111eleventy!!!!!!"

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hmm. Gotta wonder why the primer paint the NIST tested can handle temperatures from 250 C to 800 C+ without any violent reaction?

Oh yes, I forgot, you believe it was a different, untested primer paint that was volatile at 430 C, though you've completely failed to prove this.

MM

You mean the people who paid different contractors to decorate different suites in the building may have used more than one paint?


OMG! It all makes sense....

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Before I reply let me qualify as I've been doing that the landfill fire I found was highest I found, I am not saying it's the highest ever.

Let's see what else the article says about that particular fire. "The excavated deposits were piled looselyin the landfill. The pile grew from September 1999 to August 2000 reaching a maximum height of 15 m. "

So the loosely piled would indicate it would be similar to the WTC, making it easier for air to get through. 15 M is about 50 feet the pile at the WTC was 80ft. Let's see what else it says. "Pile surface temperature was recorded to be 130oF (54oC)" and "Maximum temperature exceeded 960oF (516oC) at the core of the hot spot, nearly four meters below the pile surface." That means the core is about 7.3 times hotter than the surface.

So let's see we have recorded reading from NASA at 1341F on the surface.http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html So if we use the same factor that would mean there's a core temperature of 9789. Now I know this may not be the best way to come up with the core temperature, but the point is, that it's awfully hot. That is a big difference from the landfill fire, a landfill fire that by it's description should be acting the way it did at the WTC, loosely compacted. So you have the subway providing more air, and what you claim may be a different source of fuel although I can not how what was in the WTC would burn much hotter than a landfill.

Awfully interesting information this all is.

Its not information, it's idle speculation based on a data set of 1.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

"Originally Posted by PhysicistLab manager Jeff Farrer, Ph.D in Material Science in Engineering
"The red layer is not a naturally occurring material. Sure you have iron oxide everywhere that you have iron you get an iron oxide. But you don't get them in nice little 100 nanometer rhombohedral shaped particles inside of a very small red layer. By the way, just to give you a reference on the size, these particles that are in the red layer are thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair. So these are very sophisticated particles of very sophisticated materials. Not materials that we would expect to find in the demolition debris of a building. In order to get that kind of consistency with shape and size and to be that small, these really are sophisticated materials. And probably only developed in a laboratory. They maybe processed outside a laboratory but they are developed in a laboratory."

FTFY

and where do you think paints are developed? in kids sand boxes? In machine shops?
in army barracks? No, they are developed in Laboratories.....

 

[jaydeehess]

LOL so the voids would allow greater air flow and at the same time restrict water flow. You should make a video of this. You could put it in a playlist right after your video of "debunking" CD with a CD technique.

Actually, yes. The water can only come from ONE direction, above. Air can come in from any direction, follow any path through the rubble.

In the example of the forest fire in a blow-down that I recited earlier this was the problem. The water ran off the top sufaces of the blown down trees, or simply wet down the non-burning top surfaces, which protected the fire underneath. The water that made it to the ground level all ran to the lowest locations and stayed there until it evaporated. The area where this occured is very hilly meaning that water that was dropped actually hit very little of what was burning.

 

[Travis]

AW, that is off-topic in this thread. Let's not allow anyone to move goal posts, and let's not do it ourselves.

The premise of this thread is explicitly:


Can we all please agree to press for answers that inform the OP?

Well, one of my questions in the OP was how they removed the solidified slags of previously molten steel. I'm imagining that it would be a pretty involved process to cut them up and take them offsite.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Oystein
"Do you think there were such bulk amounts of molten steel days or weeks after 9/11?"

Molten metal in the debris pile was observed be many credible sources. I have no reason to disbelief those eyewitnesses.
..............I could write a whole book on the many references to the molten and red hot metal found at WTC Ground Zero.

MM

But the question remains unanswered by either MM or tempesta.

 

[excaza]

Actually, yes. The water can only come from ONE direction, above. Air can come in from any direction, follow any path through the rubble.

In the example of the forest fire in a blow-down that I recited earlier this was the problem. The water ran off the top sufaces of the blown down trees, or simply wet down the non-burning top surfaces, which protected the fire underneath. The water that made it to the ground level all ran to the lowest locations and stayed there until it evaporated. The area where this occured is very hilly meaning that water that was dropped actually hit very little of what was burning.

Obviously, they should have phoned Glaceau.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hang on.

They did NOT contain iron microspheres?

You people need to get your stories straight. Seriously. No wonder you're ALL viewed as idiots.

The whole "iron microspheres" thing is a distortion of S. Jones's paper, which claimed presence of iron-rich microspheres. bill smith and others of below average mental ability continually misrepresent or misunderstand even their own truther sources.

Straw man. Who is claiming the thermite would have burned endlessly?

Umm... Just because someone claims that something would only last seconds doesn't mean they believe the opposition is claiming that it would actually last an infinite amount of time. The claim was that thermite was what was keeping parts of the debris pile hot enough to maintain steel in a liquid state to be observed weeks later.

Your post is the straw man.

 

[tmd2_1]

Actually, yes. The water can only come from ONE direction, above. Air can come in from any direction, follow any path through the rubble.

In the example of the forest fire in a blow-down that I recited earlier this was the problem. The water ran off the top sufaces of the blown down trees, or simply wet down the non-burning top surfaces, which protected the fire underneath. The water that made it to the ground level all ran to the lowest locations and stayed there until it evaporated. The area where this occured is very hilly meaning that water that was dropped actually hit very little of what was burning.

Wait a second so you're really telling me that holes/voids will make it tougher for the water to get through?

 

[Travis]

Wait a second so you're really telling me that holes/voids will make it tougher for the water to get through?

No, he was telling you that there is more surface area for fire to cling to while water will simply drop down thanks to gravity.

 

[jaydeehess]

Wait a second so you're really telling me that holes/voids will make it tougher for the water to get through?

I am saying that I have had the experience of knowing that such a situation was the case.
Air can get to fire that is under a covering layer of debris by any path available. It is not confined to a direction dictated by gravity whereas water is.

Think of a bonfire in a rain storm. It gets puts out right?
However what if there is an umbrella over the fire? water runs over the umbrella and exits around the fire. If the fire is on higher ground than its perimeter then the water simply never tounches any burning material. Smoke billows up and around the umbrella, and air enters to sustain burning from any direction.

In a rubble pile the water runs to the lwest point and certainly no fire is possible there. However there are many places where the burning material is shielded from the water coming from above. Its unaffected no matter how much water pools below.

 

[CORed]

Jesus, TMD, humans discovered how to smelt metal in a furnace 5000 years ago.

We are going to have to insist that you not reverse 5000 years of human development with your truthyisms.

Thanks.

The earliest smelters didn't use coal or coke, they used charcoal and a forced draft (bellows, or in some cases, human lungpower) to achieve temperatures high enough to smelt iron ore.