Merged Has this structural engineer been debunked? / Astaneh-Asl "melting of girders"

[MarkLindeman]

did sisson do an experiment at 940C that i missed?

Seriously? "Yes" / "No" / "I don't know" just doesn't apply somehow?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

snip-a-dee-doo-dah...

So, to sum up; you won't be posting the email response you claim to have received from Kenneth Chang.

And you won't be acknowledging that you understand that neither Barnett nor Astaneh-Asl support truther demolition theories, and that both men have repeatedly had their comments mangled, misquoted and misrepresented by truthers.

Got it

 

[ozeco41]

Still going round in circles - it reminds me that Aussie kids sing the 'earwiggo song'



'earwiggo round the mulberry bush.......'

 

[Oystein]

did sisson do an experiment at 940C that i missed?

Senemut, please go back to post #1115 - I instructed you very specifically to answer the question that I asked, and answer it with "yes", "no" or "I don't know", as these are the only possible natural base answers to the question I asked.


To explain why I insist: My question is about reading comprehension. You quoted from an article co-written by Sisson. Before we discuss the content, I want to make sure we both understand the text that you quoted, and that our understanding is the same. You know, simply understand what Sisson wrote, what he implied, and not anything beyond that.

We can go beyond that, if you wish, but only after we have an agreement on simple reading comprehension.

My question is, I paraphrase (but please respond to the more specific post #1115!)

Sisson writes that the effect microstructural effect that he observed on that paper-thin piece of steel occurs at up to 1100 °C^[1]. It does NOT occur at temperatures much higher than 1100 °C. His experiment AT 1100 °C shows that it is a slow process, whose macro scale effect takes place on the order of days.
Do you agree that this is what Sisson writes?​

Again, this is just an attempt to find common ground between you and me about reading comprehension of the short bit of text by Sisson.

If I find that in your next reply you don't answer the question I asked, and realize it is about reading comprehension, then I will, conclude for good that you fail utterly at basic reading comprehension, and are thus fundamentally incapable of reading and understanding what is written in this forum, let alone participate.

Do you understand that I am testing your basic reading comprehension? Then now is your chance that your reading comprehension approaches that which is required of, say, 7th-graders.




[1] You may have noticed that he qualifies that number a bit - so I am ok with "up to approximately 1100 °C" and understand that the upper bound might be slightly higher

 

[jaydeehess]

did sisson do an experiment at 940C that i missed?

in the context of A--A's writings, or Oystein's post, why would that be at all important or to be considered a sufficient response?

 

[Senenmut]

You didn't read a single thing I wrote nor did you respond to the questions.

We know what caused the severe wastage - it's called high temperature corrosion due to sulphidation and oxidation causing a eutectic slag that further attacked the steel.

We don't need to knock down buildings with aeroplanes in order to recreate conditions to show that because we can get everything we need to know from this

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=181&pictureid=4465[/qimg]

which I can read like a book. I've even put helpful markings to show what's happened.


Highlight what you disagree about that conclusion and argue why that conclusion is wrong. You can't, you can't even write properly let alone argue against it. Why would Sissons reply to a crazy truther who can't write properly? It's a waste of his time. You only get attention at JREF and I'm most likely going to put you back on ignore because you have zero understanding and zero reading comprehension. What's the point in replying to you when you willfuly refuse to understand such simple points?

did you see any grains (ferrite or pearlite) in sisson's paper or his powerpoint presentation when they were describing their experiment. both pictures are towards the end of his paper and powerpoint. i sure couldn't.

 

[Senenmut]

Sisson writes that the effect microstructural effect that he observed on that paper-thin piece of steel occurs at up to 1100 °C^[1]. It does NOT occur at temperatures much higher than 1100 °C. His experiment AT 1100 °C shows that it is a slow process, whose macro scale effect takes place on the order of days.
Do you agree that this is what Sisson writes?​

now how would you know that the "macro scale effect takes place on the order of days?" he has not told us how little steel dissolved via his powder experiment. he is placing powder directly on the steel bypassing how the office/debris fire created it.

Again, this is just an attempt to find common ground between you and me about reading comprehension of the short bit of text by Sisson.

your the skeptic....right? im more skeptical than you. where in the world are you getting that it would take just days? how many are we talking? why not months? or even yrs for that matter!

If I find that in your next reply you don't answer the question I asked, and realize it is about reading comprehension, then I will, conclude for good that you fail utterly at basic reading comprehension, and are thus fundamentally incapable of reading and understanding what is written in this forum, let alone participate.

my reading comprehension is fine. it is how one would want to interpret info/intel is where we differ.

[1] You may have noticed that he qualifies that number a bit - so I am ok with "up to approximately 1100 °C" and understand that the upper bound might be slightly higher

slightly?

 

[Senenmut]

here is the experiment with the powders pic. no grains?

 

[Spanx]

here is the experiment with the powders pic. no grains?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450e9186a2b8e6.jpg[/qimg]

Senenmut, can you explain in your own words what the picture is showing and what scale it is. Can you also provide a picture of what you think the picture should look like ?

Please explain in leymans terms so I can understand, thank you.

 

[Oystein]

now how would you know that the "macro scale effect takes place on the order of days?"

Because he got some of that effect, though "little", in one day. Tells me this can be conveniently measured in days (plural) rather than, say, seconds, or centuries.

Agreed?

he has not told us how little steel dissolved via his powder experiment. he is placing powder directly on the steel bypassing how the office/debris fire created it.

Correct. So?
The question is still: What does Sisson himself say and imply?
He clearly implies that, in his opinion and judging from his metallurgical analysis and experiment, it took "days", and not "minutes", to create the effect in the observed quantity.
That is what he implies, agreed?

(Whether he is right or wrong is a different issue - we can debate that in the next step, but I first want you to acknowledge that Sisson has concluded, and implies in the quoted passage, that the steel beam must have been exposed to a certain temperature range "up to 1100 °C" and sulfur-rich environment for days, and not just second, minutes or even hours)

your the skeptic....right? im more skeptical than you. where in the world are you getting that it would take just days? how many are we talking? why not months? or even yrs for that matter!

I am not making any claims that way. I said "days" (plural), and that that is what Sisson implies: 1 days is not enough, it has to be x days, with x > 1.
(Can't be months or years, obviously, as the steel beam was recovered less than "months" after the beginning of the high temperature events at the WTC on 9/11/2001 8:46 am, so it has to be "days" - Sisson clearly implies that)

my reading comprehension is fine. it is how one would want to interpret info/intel is where we differ.

Nope, cuz I am not at interpretation yet. Still just reading comprehension.

slightly?

Yep, "slightly". Sisson offers a temperature range of "in this region above 940 °C and maybe up to 1100 °C, as indicated by the phase diagram[4]".
So Sisson offers an upper bound, that is 160 °C higher than the lower bound, but qualifies it with a "maybe". This would indicate that the upper bound could be somewhat higher or lower, but suggests (implies) it wouldn't be hundreds of degrees higher, for the reason of that range is determined by a phase diagram.
Repeat: Sisson DOES provide an upper bound and places it at 1100 °C - allowing for some inaccuracy.
This implies there IS an upper bound, and it isn't grossly different from 1100 °C.

Again, whether or not these claims made and implied by Sisson are true may be another matter, but for now I just want you to acknowledge that Sisson does provide 1100 °C as the upper bound, and implies, through his wording, that it could be "slightly" higher or lower.
Do you agree with that?

 

[Senenmut]

Because he got some of that effect, though "little", in one day. Tells me this can be conveniently measured in days (plural) rather than, say, seconds, or centuries.

Agreed?

not agreed. it could be months or yrs for that matter. sisson's experiment is under a controlled environment bypassing how the office/debirs fire makes the eutectic to begin with. all he is doing is playing with eutectics and steel. do you think his steel microstructure would be similar to that exhibited by the A36 beam analyzed in his paper (fig 4,5,6,7)?

Correct. So?
The question is still: What does Sisson himself say and imply?
He clearly implies that, in his opinion and judging from his metallurgical analysis and experiment, it took "days", and not "minutes", to create the effect in the observed quantity.
That is what he implies, agreed?

we can determine that when he comes clean with how little steel was dissolved. all he is doing is playing with eutectics on steel. not showing how office/debris fires can cause the eutectic to begin with that would cause the severe steel wastage.

(Whether he is right or wrong is a different issue - we can debate that in the next step, but I first want you to acknowledge that Sisson has concluded, and implies in the quoted passage, that the steel beam must have been exposed to a certain temperature range "up to 1100 °C" and sulfur-rich environment for days, and not just second, minutes or even hours)

do you agree that the steel beam must have been exposed to temps up to 1100cish for days?

I am not making any claims that way. I said "days" (plural), and that that is what Sisson implies: 1 days is not enough, it has to be x days, with x > 1.
(Can't be months or years, obviously, as the steel beam was recovered less than "months" after the beginning of the high temperature events at the WTC on 9/11/2001 8:46 am, so it has to be "days" - Sisson clearly implies that)

bingo! so how little was it? what if that X amount of steel wastage sisson is getting from his experiment at up to over a couple of months! astaneh's observations put a time rage on the steel wastage and he also told us how much steel was gone.

Yep, "slightly". Sisson offers a temperature range of "in this region above 940 °C and maybe up to 1100 °C, as indicated by the phase diagram[4]".
So Sisson offers an upper bound, that is 160 °C higher than the lower bound, but qualifies it with a "maybe". This would indicate that the upper bound could be somewhat higher or lower, but suggests (implies) it wouldn't be hundreds of degrees higher, for the reason of that range is determined by a phase diagram.
Repeat: Sisson DOES provide an upper bound and places it at 1100 °C - allowing for some inaccuracy.
This implies there IS an upper bound, and it isn't grossly different from 1100 °C.

the eutectic could have been hotter. 940C is the lowest temp for the FeO and FeS system.

Again, whether or not these claims made and implied by Sisson are true may be another matter, but for now I just want you to acknowledge that Sisson does provide 1100 °C as the upper bound, and implies, through his wording, that it could be "slightly" higher or lower.
Do you agree with that?

upper bound for the steel temp or the eutectic temp?

 

[Sunstealer]

here is the experiment with the powders pic. no grains?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450e9186a2b8e6.jpg[/qimg]

ROFLMFAO!!!! I've actually got tears running down my face.

Senenmut says,"Look, Look no grains!!!111eleventy I've discovered something important look, looooooooooook!!"

No grains hey! lol. Oh boy you clearly know absolutely nothing. You won't answer this but I'll post it anyway:

What do you require to do to a mounted and polished sample in order to resolve microstructures in steel?

Hint: The explanation is in the slideshow you got the photo from.

 

[Senenmut]

ROFLMFAO!!!! I've actually got tears running down my face.

Senenmut says,"Look, Look no grains!!!111eleventy I've discovered something important look, looooooooooook!!"

No grains hey! lol. Oh boy you clearly know absolutely nothing. You won't answer this but I'll post it anyway:

What do you require to do to a mounted and polished sample in order to resolve microstructures in steel?

Hint: The explanation is in the slideshow you got the photo from.

some say 4% nital etch and some dont. some that dont say that, i can still see the microstructure.

 

[Sunstealer]

Senenmut, can you explain in your own words what the picture is showing and what scale it is. Can you also provide a picture of what you think the picture should look like ?

Please explain in leymans terms so I can understand, thank you.

Go here

http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_litigation.html

Bottom 2 links - first is the metallurgical analysis, second is talk slideshow. Photomicrograph is near the bottom and has the scale present.

Senenmut is talking about grains - see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_boundary

but he has no idea why he or anyone else can't see them. Hint: The grains are there but we can't see them because______________

Senenmut doesn't know what the __________ part is - if he did then he wouldn't made himself look like an idiot.

 

[Sunstealer]

some say 4% nital etch and some dont. some that dont say that, i can still see the microstructure.

Yay! Well done. That's why you don't see any ferrite or pearlite because the sample is not etched. So why are you talking about it?

Secondly these are images from the SEM because they want to analyse the eutectic which doesn't require any etching to be used. Why do you even bring this up?

 

[Senenmut]

Go here

http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_litigation.html

Bottom 2 links - first is the metallurgical analysis, second is talk slideshow. Photomicrograph is near the bottom and has the scale present.

Senenmut is talking about grains - see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_boundary

but he has no idea why he or anyone else can't see them. Hint: The grains are there but we can't see them because______________

Senenmut doesn't know what the __________ part is - if he did then he wouldn't made himself look like an idiot.

all i can tell is that it is penetrating the steel but the steel is highly oxidized. i cant make out any microstructure even when the pic is backed out to 50 um. but yeah, it would be nice if they did do a 4% nital etch so we could see what was going on.

 

[Sunstealer]

]now how would you know that the "macro scale effect takes place on the order of days?"[/B] he has not told us how little steel dissolved via his powder experiment. he is placing powder directly on the steel bypassing how the office/debris fire created it.

Parabolic rate kinetics.

 

[Senenmut]

Yay! Well done. That's why you don't see any ferrite or pearlite because the sample is not etched. So why are you talking about it?

do you think heating the steel to 1100C would change the microstructure from what we see in the wtc 7 A36 steel pics in fig 4,5,6,7 in sisson's paper?
IMO, fig 4 shows that changes occured in the region at 550-850C. sisson went all the way up to 1100 for 24hrs so his steel microstructures should have changed all the way through.

Secondly these are images from the SEM because they want to analyse the eutectic which doesn't require any etching to be used. Why do you even bring this up?

i would like to see the microstructural changes that took place at 1100C for 24 hrs compared to the actual wtc 7 beam.

 

[Sunstealer]

not agreed. it could be months or yrs for that matter. sisson's experiment is under a controlled environment bypassing how the office/debirs fire makes the eutectic to begin with. all he is doing is playing with eutectics and steel. do you think his steel microstructure would be similar to that exhibited by the A36 beam analyzed in his paper (fig 4,5,6,7)?



we can determine that when he comes clean with how little steel was dissolved. all he is doing is playing with eutectics on steel. not showing how office/debris fires can cause the eutectic to begin with that would cause the severe steel wastage.

bingo! so how little was it? what if that X amount of steel wastage sisson is getting from his experiment at up to over a couple of months! astaneh's observations put a time rage on the steel wastage and he also told us how much steel was gone.


the eutectic could have been hotter. 940C is the lowest temp for the FeO and FeS system.


upper bound for the steel temp or the eutectic temp?

You simply refuse to understand that Sissons was not looking to recreate the wastage seen but looking to show that sulphur produces a eutectic at 1100°C.

That is all he was doing, nothing more nothing less. He achieves this.

He was not looking to recreate conditions in the rubble pile. Those conditions are impossible to recreate because they are unknown.

How much or how little steel was "dissolved" is a strawman that you want to push at all cost. It means nothing because the experiment was not looking at how much dissolution could be produced.

Secondly you seem to be wanting an experiment that requires an aeroplane to be crashed into a skyscraper - you do know why that's not a very good idea right?

Of course Sissons experiment is under lab conditions - that's the bloody point! How else would you do it? Propose your own experiment, give me a test plan.

I suspect this is why you get no reply. You are asking an irrelevant question an I suspect Sissons smells twoofer and knows that any reply will be twisted just as you twist Dr Astaneh-Asl's words.

Why not produce your email to Sissons here at JREF?

 

[Sunstealer]

Senenmut - you are focussing on 0.000000001% of the paper written. Why are you not focussing on the rest?

You are looking at minutiae and getting hooked on that when the big picture tells you EVERYTHING you need to know.

eg: What is wrong with this statement from the metallurgical analysis

MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The FEMA team obtained the structural steel examined in this study. The steel from WTC 7 was ASTM A36. The nominal composition of A36 is 0.28% C max, 0.8-1.2% Mn, 0.04% P, 0.05% S, 0.15-0.3% Si balance Fe. The as-fabricated wide flange beam analyzed had a microstructure that consisted of a banded hot worked mixture of ferrite and pearlite as shown in Fig. 1. The structural steel column that was examined was from either WTC 1 or 2 and was known to be a high strength structural steel, and not A36. Since chemistry control for structural steels is generally quite liberal, the exact ASTM designation was not known. The nominal composition of this steel is 0.15% C max, 1.00% Mn max, 0.04% P max, 0.04% S max, 0.2% Cu min with a possible Si addition and residual amounts of gases, such as N and O, and elements (small amounts of these could be deliberate additions, depending upon the grade and steelmaker) such as Cr, Mo, Ti, V, Nb and Zr (with the balance being Fe) similar to an ASTM A242 grade high-strength, low-alloy (HSLA) steel. The as-fabricated column microstructure consisted of a banded hot worked mixture of ferrite and pearlite as shown in Fig. 2. The grain size is somewhat coarser and there is substantially less pearlite than observed in the A36 steel. Also, a fine dispersed phase is observed in the ferrite regions at higher magnification. Severe erosion reduced the cross sections in both steels from a nominal 12.7-mm to less than a millimeter as shown in Fig. 3.

Do you agree or disagree with the above?

BTW I'm going to do this with EVERY section of the paper just to show how dishonest you are.