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

[Sunstealer]

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?

Yes and no, you would likely see less pearlite and banding of pearlite, and a higher percentage of ferrite in the microstructure along with an increase in grain size due to recrystallisation in the austenite phase and decarburisation - also larger columnar ferrite at the surface, but this doesn't mean that you would see anything radically different to what is already observed.

You can see for yourself if you read the report.

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.

So? There's evidence in the paper that temperatures where higher than 940°C, why are you focusing on the lowest temperature? Oh you're a truther so you are grasping at anything to try to support your belief.

What do you mean by

his steel microstructures should have changed all the way through

You do realise that ferrite and pearlite will precipitate from austenite below the A₁ at 723°C

Do you think that Sissons and Vander Voort are in on it? Why isn't their expert analysis good enough for you? Oh you're a truther so you won't believe an expert is competent in his field unless he supports your view.

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

Why? You aren't qualified to make any assessment.

For example you won't understand that prior working hot or cold will have an affect on the microstructure for the exact same steel composition heated to the same temperature and then cooled at the same rate.

There is no reason for Sissons to have used an A36 steel that had been through the same processing that was specified for the WTC because his experiment didn't require it. If you knew what you were talking about you'd realised that microstructure pre-heating to 1100°C would have no bearing on the ability to produce the eutectic FeO-FeS which is all that Sissons was looking at.

If you want to look at furnace cooled A36 steel microsections then there are dozens of sources available.

 

[Sunstealer]

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.

Why? What would be the point? The entire experiment was to look at the formation of eutectic not anything else. Again you are focussing on minutiae of no importance.

 

[Sunstealer]

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.


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

Where are you getting this 24 hours from? The information is there in the paper:

PRELIMINARY LABORATORY SIMULATION RESULTS

The results of a laboratory heating experiment at 1100 ºC for 12 hours where an iron sulfide (FeS) powder was placed on ground and cleaned A36 steel surface prior to heating is presented in Fig.13.

and on the slideshow

1^st Experiment

Isothermal Reaction of Compacted FeS Powder on the Ground Surface of A36 In Air for 12 Hours at 1100°C

From Erin M. Sullivan

NB. Ground is likely to mean the surface has been prepared by grinding to remove surface oxide etc.

 

[Oystein]

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)?

Sisson makes a statement about this piece of corroded steel from the WTC, not? That could not have been months or years, because it wasn't subjected to high temperatures for months or years..
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.

We can talk about that after we have agreement on what Sisson e.al. actually said and implied.

Please stop the evasions.

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

We are not there yet.
The issue still is: Sisson says that, as a result of his analysis and experiment, the particular piece of steel from the WTC rubble was probably subjected to 940-1100 °C for day - not minutes, and not months.
Last time: Do you agree that this is Sisson's conclusion?

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.

That's an issue for later. We first must agree on what Sisson actually states, concludes, implies.

Please stop the evasions.

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

But Sisson states an upper bound, right? He writes "up to maybe 1100 °C".
Do you see and agree that he provides this upper bound?

upper bound for the steel temp or the eutectic temp?

Well, question still goes to you and what your reading comprehension tells you. What do you think Sisson e.al. mean when they write:

"The microstructure of the slag with the eutectic structure and the primary FeO indicates temperatures in this region above 940 °C and maybe up to 1100 °C, as indicated by the phase diagram[4]...

... However, preliminary experiments[5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble."​

I read this as "the piece of steel under discussion, that experienced thinning, experienced temperatures above 940 °C and up to about 1100 °C for days, starting no earlier than 9/11 and ending no later than the day it was recovered from the rubble".
That would be a piece of steel that, in the course of the process, was transformed by corrosion involving the formation of eutectics in the grain boundaries. So there is no distinction between "the steel temp" and "the eutectic temp".
Do you understand that, and agree with that take?

 

[Senenmut]

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.

when he stated that "little" metal was dissolved, he shared an observation. he knew that the wtc steel showed extreme steel wastage.

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

all he did was achieve creating a eutectic with FeO and FeS at 1100C for 24hrs.

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

jon cole did a good job at.

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.

once he stated that it was "not fast and dissolved little metal in 24hrs" then its fair game. then he should not associate his experiment by playing with powders and eutectics with the wtc steel.

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?

if u wanna through alittle jet fuel and plane parts into the mix, have at it. jon coles experiment was a good start.

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.

jon coles experiment. youve seen it.

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.

not twisting, just repeating what the articles state his observations were and when he made them.

Why not produce your email to Sissons here at JREF?

i have asked (maybe a couple of times) but have not had a response to the question about how "little" metal was dissolved. i have got a response from him about another matter but it doesnt apply to this.

 

[carlitos]

Come on Senenmut, you've being banging away for over four years now. You could have got yourself an engineering degree in less time.

Why not make 2013 the year you finally put this nonsense aside and move forward?

He might figure out how to accurately quote people, attribute sources, and use the forum quote feature first. An engineering degree is probably a stretch.

 

[Gamolon]

jon cole did a good job at.

Question.

Are saying that the components such as sulfur and high temperatures needed to create this eutectic reaction occurred AFTER the thermite finished supposedly burning on the steel members or are you saying that the components such as sulfur and high temperatures needed to create this eutectic reaction occurred DURING during the very short time the thermite supposedly burned?

 

[Senenmut]

Yes and no, you would likely see less pearlite and banding of pearlite, and a higher percentage of ferrite in the microstructure along with an increase in grain size due to recrystallisation in the austenite phase and decarburisation - also larger columnar ferrite at the surface, but this doesn't mean that you would see anything radically different to what is already observed.

fig 4,5,6,7 suggest that the steel (all the way through) did NOT heat up to 940C or even 1100C. 1100C is where sisson did his experiment. you state nothing radically different. what about fig 7.
from the paper:
"Substantial decarburization can occur in this two-phase region and result in a columnar ferrite grain morphology under the scale on the steel. An example of this microstructure is shown in Fig. 7. Columnar geometry ferrite grains form in this steel as a result of loss of carbon and grain growth under a fixed compositional equilibrium requirement. This transformation likely occurred in the range of 750 to 900 ºC."

i understand what you are saying. fig 7 is not decarburized all the way through. it looks like they are speaking of the first 200ish um's. are you saying it would be decarborized all the way through? still, fig 4,5,6 show that those transformations were near the surface and imply that the steel did not heat all the way into the austentite phase then cool back down. is there anything you can tell us about the microstructure of the steel in fig 4 and 7 in the bottom of the slides where the steel was unaffected?

So? There's evidence in the paper that temperatures where higher than 940°C, why are you focusing on the lowest temperature? Oh you're a truther so you are grasping at anything to try to support your belief.

some think the steel wastage happened above and not as it was laying in the rubble pile.

What do you mean byYou do realise that ferrite and pearlite will precipitate from austenite below the A₁ at 723°C

i was probably looking at page 27 and 28 of the wtc talk on the website you linked. thanks for the link. those pics are higher quality than the ones ive seen! its also interesting to note that page 25 and 26 state:
"Typical Microstructural Changes That occur When A36 Steelis Heated to the Vicinity of the Eutectoid Reaction ~727C (1340F), Held for a Short Time, and Cooled to Ambient Temperature."

Do you think that Sissons and Vander Voort are in on it? Why isn't their expert analysis good enough for you? Oh you're a truther so you won't believe an expert is competent in his field unless he supports your view.

no. they did give their analyze of the steel but how it got that way is steel up in the air.

Why? You aren't qualified to make any assessment.

if it is different, then heating the whole piece of steel to 1100C (like sisson did) or even to the eutectic point (940) is not how it happened.

For example you won't understand that prior working hot or cold will have an affect on the microstructure for the exact same steel composition heated to the same temperature and then cooled at the same rate.

hummm ok.

There is no reason for Sissons to have used an A36 steel that had been through the same processing that was specified for the WTC because his experiment didn't require it. If you knew what you were talking about you'd realised that microstructure pre-heating to 1100°C would have no bearing on the ability to produce the eutectic FeO-FeS which is all that Sissons was looking at.

so basically, he is just playing with powders and producing a eutectic on steel at 1100C for 24hrs. and he should not equate that research with that of the wtc.

If you want to look at furnace cooled A36 steel microsections then there are dozens of sources available.

not with FeO and FeS powders placed on them at 1100C for 24hrs!

 

[Gamolon]

Senenmut,

How come "kinfe-like" edge of the beam in this picture you say was produced by thermite...

...looks nothing like the thermite cut in this experiment?

 

[Senenmut]

Why? What would be the point? The entire experiment was to look at the formation of eutectic not anything else. Again you are focussing on minutiae of no importance.

you know the old phrase "the devil is in the details"....

 

[Senenmut]

Sisson makes a statement about this piece of corroded steel from the WTC, not? That could not have been months or years, because it wasn't subjected to high temperatures for months or years..
Agreed?

do you have the date of when he aquired his piece of steel?

The issue still is: Sisson says that, as a result of his analysis and experiment, the particular piece of steel from the WTC rubble was probably subjected to 940-1100 °C for day - not minutes, and not months.
Last time: Do you agree that this is Sisson's conclusion?

tell me when he aquired his steel. if he aquired his months after, then he might of assumed a month. but, i have emailed him showing prof astaneh's observations and hopefully he is aware of the timeframe that the "corrosion" has to occur. "days" can turn into months depending on how "little" metal he got to dissolve.

Please stop the evasions.

no evasions here. sisson has evaded my questions about how little metal he got to dissolve. so how did he get to "days."

But Sisson states an upper bound, right? He writes "up to maybe 1100 °C".

Do you see and agree that he provides this upper bound?
considering the mircrostructure of the underlying steel of the affected wtc steel, if it hit 1100C, it wasnt for very long. ie it didnt sit in a spot in the rubble pile that was 1100C for days. unless you want to say that it sat in the rubble pile that wasnt too hot but the eutectic that was "corroding" it was 940-1100C...

Well, question still goes to you and what your reading comprehension tells you. What do you think Sisson e.al. mean when they write:

"The microstructure of the slag with the eutectic structure and the primary FeO indicates temperatures in this region above 940 °C and maybe up to 1100 °C, as indicated by the phase diagram[4]...​

it had to be 940C, that is the temp at which the eutectic is liquid.

... However, preliminary experiments[5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble."

I read this as "the piece of steel under discussion, that experienced thinning, experienced temperatures above 940 °C and up to about 1100 °C for days, starting no earlier than 9/11 and ending no later than the day it was recovered from the rubble".

when was it recovered?

That would be a piece of steel that, in the course of the process, was transformed by corrosion involving the formation of eutectics in the grain boundaries. So there is no distinction between "the steel temp" and "the eutectic temp".
Do you understand that, and agree with that take?

are ya sure about that cowboy? maybe ya need to read the paper again.

 

[Sunstealer]

I'm putting Senemut back onto ignore - It's impossible to have a conversation when one person ignores what you write or simply doesn't understand even though it's been explained dozens of times - it's a complete waste of time when someone can't answer a simple question and then writes a response that has no bearing on the question. I suspect that this is Senenmut's tactic - to just keep on and on getting things wrong and mixed up on purpose and then declare victory. I've got better things to do than waste time with such a dishonest person.

I suggest you do the same Oystein, because he seems to not be able to comprehend anything that is written.

You can talk to yourself Senenmut.

 

[Sunstealer]

I'm putting Senemut back onto ignore - It's impossible to have a conversation when one person ignores what you write or simply doesn't understand even though it's been explained dozens of times - it's a complete waste of time when someone can't answer a simple question and then writes a response that has no bearing on the question. I suspect that this is Senenmut's tactic - to just keep on and on getting things wrong and mixed up on purpose and then declare victory. I've got better things to do than waste time with such a dishonest person.

I suggest you do the same Oystein, because he seems to not be able to comprehend anything that is written.

You can talk to yourself Senenmut.

 

[ozeco41]

I'm putting Senemut back onto ignore ...

Good choice Sunstealer. I have long had Senenmut categorised as "de-facto troll" - close to C Sarns in disguising trolling as legitimate technical discussion.

BUT with the telling characteristic that discussion always circles and never progresses. So clearly we are not dealing with a genuine truther who is amenable to reasoned explanation. For whatever reason.

And, if the tandem pair of you and Oystein with your combined technical and explanatory skills cannot make progress then we have no-one better IMNSHO.

Back in my early days I routinely went to the same extent as you and Oy have dealing with the engineering of WTC collapse - my area of technical expertise. I recall "wearing down the opposition" by staying at the debate - most of them left rather than concede. I no longer have either the interest nor the energy.

But full marks to you and Oystein for trying.

I suggest you do the same Oystein, because he seems to not be able to comprehend anything that is written...

That "seems" covers the options neatly.

 

[carlitos]

Good choice, if a bit slow in coming. Congrats.

 

[Senenmut]

Good choice Sunstealer. I have long had Senenmut categorised as "de-facto troll" - close to C Sarns in disguising trolling as legitimate technical discussion.

BUT with the telling characteristic that discussion always circles and never progresses. So clearly we are not dealing with a genuine truther who is amenable to reasoned explanation. For whatever reason.

And, if the tandem pair of you and Oystein with your combined technical and explanatory skills cannot make progress then we have no-one better IMNSHO.

Back in my early days I routinely went to the same extent as you and Oy have dealing with the engineering of WTC collapse - my area of technical expertise. I recall "wearing down the opposition" by staying at the debate - most of them left rather than concede. I no longer have either the interest nor the energy.

But full marks to you and Oystein for trying.

That "seems" covers the options neatly.

i think they are having a hard time explaining how the sample fema had showed severe steel wastage but also at the same time, microstructure that showed that the steel didnt just sit in 940C -1100C heat in the rubble pile for days or months.
take this example. this paper states that "the wide flange beam displayed a microstructure that consisted of a banded hot worked mixture of ferrite and pearlite (fig3). the microstructure in these regions displayed no effects of excessive heat or metal loss.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1361/154770206X129006#page-1


[

[/url]




from this????: (if not, he does not specify where on the beam he got the above sample)

 

[Senenmut]

Good choice, if a bit slow in coming. Congrats.

if ya cant hang with tha big dogs, get out of the kitchen.

 

[jaydeehess]

Senenmut,

How come "kinfe-like" edge of the beam in this picture you say was produced by thermite...
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/knifebeam_zps972f8433.jpg[/qimg]

...looks nothing like the thermite cut in this experiment?
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/thermitecut_zps2994c590.png[/qimg]

you know the old phrase "the devil is in the details"....

Well I could be wrong but I think one of the points Gamalon is making is the 'detail' in thermite cuts that has large blobs of slag frozen as it flowed away from the reaction.

Care to answer why we cannot see that detail in the 'knife edge' beam?

IOW can you show that thermite can be used in such a way as to create a similar knife edged beam?
Your arguement seems to be that it has not been shown to be eutectic action that caused it therefore thermite but that's simply not good enough. The paper demonstrates that eutectic errosion can be made to occur in similar fashion to whatever caused the large scale errosion of the WTC sample.BUT your side of the fence has not, to my knowledge demonstrated that thermite can do so at all.

 

[Spanx]

if ya cant hang with tha big dogs, get out of the kitchen.

I can just see you mincing around your handbag

How's the magnatite experiment coming on. I assume you will be using your kitchen ?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

if ya cant hang with tha big dogs, get out of the kitchen.

I'm not sure big dogs should be allowed in the kitchen.



ETA - Still waiting for you to print the full text of that email you didn't receive from Chang, in support of the theory you don't have