• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

The trouble with the above pictures is, no one has any idea of the condition of the steel before the attacks. A simple air conditioning leak over a period of years could cause this type of damage.

I'm not saying this is what happened because I have no evidence. Of course semenut wants to believe its thermite just because he wants to.
 
no slag? the steel from the fema bpat report on the wtc7 steel and the steel beam astaneh photographed look very similar. did the fema report have slag on it?


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450f1b21e84975.jpg[/qimg]
you've mentioned this a few times but you seem to have missed something along the lines of why this is significant. Are one of these known to be the result of thermite ? BPAT was examining wtc steel and so was Astenah weren't they?
 
Last edited:
Definite fail!
If anyone is going to propose that thermite can erode a steel structural member and produce a thin "knife edge", then that extrodinary claim should be backed up by something better than "probably used differentlly"
After 11.5 years someone should have been able to reproduce such an artifact using thermite. Its not like thermite or steel beams are particularily expensive.

The same applies to microstructures. IF you claim thermite was used to create these eroded steel members then demonstrate it is possible. Remember , you are trying to come up with a mechanism by which bildings were caused to collapse whereas in the matter of eroded steel, NIST is not considering it significant to, or related to, cause of collapse.

i need to reword that. the steel from the fema report and the steel astaneh photographed are very similar. so they were most likely "attacked" the same way. the thermite damage that jon cole shows off is different. was it some other form of thermite that caused the damage displayed in the fema report and astaneh's photo?
 
i need to reword that. the steel from the fema report and the steel astaneh photographed are very similar. so they were most likely "attacked" the same way. the thermite damage that jon cole shows off is different. was it some other form of thermite that caused the damage displayed in the fema report and astaneh's photo?

It was corrosion. Corrosion in fire. No thermite. This was proved by study of the steel, which you ignore and quibble about.

Thermite is hot stuff, it melts steel, there is no melted steel on 911. Case closed on 911.

Why do you ignore the terrorist attack caused the collapse?

Are you saying there is low temperature thermite?
 
i need to reword that. the steel from the fema report and the steel astaneh photographed are very similar. so they were most likely "attacked" the same way. the thermite damage that jon cole shows off is different. was it some other form of thermite that caused the damage displayed in the fema report and astaneh's photo?

The task at hand for you, or anyone wishing to claim thermite usage in this matter, is to demonstrate the ability of thermite to reproduce those types of damage to steel!
11.5 years after this first 'aha! steel that was eroded therefore thermite!' no one has ever demonstrated this. You might as well be claiming pixies eroded the steel, or some sort of unknown space based steel eroding weaponry.

You are commiting a logical fallacy if you are trying to say that it could have been a special type of thermite that leaves no slag. Its special pleading and an arguement from ignorance
 
The task at hand for you, or anyone wishing to claim thermite usage in this matter, is to demonstrate the ability of thermite to reproduce those types of damage to steel!
11.5 years after this first 'aha! steel that was eroded therefore thermite!' no one has ever demonstrated this. You might as well be claiming pixies eroded the steel, or some sort of unknown space based steel eroding weaponry.

You are commiting a logical fallacy if you are trying to say that it could have been a special type of thermite that leaves no slag. Its special pleading and an arguement from ignorance

what steel are you speaking of? (bolded above)
 
You are commiting a logical fallacy if you are trying to say that it could have been a special type of thermite that leaves no slag...

No slag? If there's no slagged off iron, then there's no thermite reaction. The iron oxide/aluminum redox itself produces raw iron, nevermind what it's supposedly being used on to cut through.
 
No slag? If there's no slagged off iron, then there's no thermite reaction. The iron oxide/aluminum redox itself produces raw iron, nevermind what it's supposedly being used on to cut through.

Well, Mark Basile recently said on Truther radio, that the thermite reaction can get so hot the aluminium oxide actually boils of, turns to gas! :D

Boiling point of Al2O3: 2977 °C
Boiling point of iron: 2862 °C

So by the time the Al2O3 boils off, the iron is long gone.




(Of course Basile is plain wrong.)
 
It was corrosion. Corrosion in fire. No thermite. This was proved by study of the steel, which you ignore and quibble about.
And that is essentially it.

You'll never see Senenmut or any other truther ever arguing the scientific points in this study. Never, for the simple fact that they are incapable of doing so.

Senenmut isn't qualified to analyse such a specific report, so instead of trying to do so, he throws out nonsense with scientific words attached, hoping to engage people and fool people them. I've had enough because you can't ever hope to have any meaningful discussion when someone has no-idea what the are talking about.

I'd love to see him do this with another topic at a conference - he'd just be laughed at. Only on the internet and JREF is he given a voice and an audience.
 
He must be wrong by definition - he is a Truther - so it is subject to "Blue Sky Syndrome". ;)

Could be.

But no.

Since iron has the lower boiling point, and the heat of vaporization is significant, the max. temperature a thermite reaction would reach in practice is practically limited to a temperature below the boiling point of Al2O3. Only exception I could think of would be a pressurized vessel.

Basile has, by the way, offered neither an argument nor any documentation that the thermite reaction can produce gaseous Al2O3.



(And you almost temped me to calculate if the enthalpy of the thermite reaction even suffices to boil off both products)
 
And that is essentially it.

You'll never see Senenmut or any other truther ever arguing the scientific points in this study. Never, for the simple fact that they are incapable of doing so.

Senenmut isn't qualified to analyse such a specific report, so instead of trying to do so, he throws out nonsense with scientific words attached, hoping to engage people and fool people them. I've had enough because you can't ever hope to have any meaningful discussion when someone has no-idea what the are talking about.

I'd love to see him do this with another topic at a conference - he'd just be laughed at. Only on the internet and JREF is he given a voice and an audience.
ok. dont you see something wrong in the sisson paper. the "corroded" steel was in at least 940C environment for the eutectic to even be liquid. even at 1100C sisson could only get "little' metal to corrode. at the 1100C for 24 hrs. , the steel microstructure would be different. you even state it yourself:
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.

sisson analyzed a heavily corroded region. the microstructure underneath the slag does not indicate that it stayed in an environment that was 940C up to 1100C for days, weeks, or a month. in fig 4,5,6, the mircrostructures are only 300-400um below the slag attack. figure 3 shows you how thin the steel was that he analyzed.
 
Well, Mark Basile recently said on Truther radio, that the thermite reaction can get so hot the aluminium oxide actually boils of, turns to gas! :D

Boiling point of Al2O3: 2977 °C
Boiling point of iron: 2862 °C

So by the time the Al2O3 boils off, the iron is long gone.

(Of course Basile is plain wrong.)

My Inner Archivist is screaming for a link so I can save this for posterity!
(And you almost temped me to calculate if the enthalpy of the thermite reaction even suffices to boil off both products)


Iron's enthalpy of vaporization is a little over 6 kJ/g, so their energy account is already almost depleted. (2 g thermite produces 1 g iron, enthalpy of thermite is 4 kJ/g) I haven't been able to find alumina. It's quite probable that alumina begins to dissociate back to aluminum and oxygen at that temperature, which makes things complicated!
 
My Inner Archivist is screaming for a link so I can save this for posterity!
The interview is here:
http://www.911freefall.com/2012/12/mark-basile-and-wtc-dust.html
And he speculates about where the thermite and its residue was towards the end - can't give you a time stamp right now. I think after 45 minutes. Going to bed next, so I don't want to look it up myself yet.

Iron's enthalpy of vaporization is a little over 6 kJ/g, so their energy account is already almost depleted. (2 g thermite produces 1 g iron, enthalpy of thermite is 4 kJ/g) I haven't been able to find alumina. It's quite probable that alumina begins to dissociate back to aluminum and oxygen at that temperature, which makes things complicated!

Let me double-check for accuracy...
Iron's enthalpy of vaporization is 340 kJ/mol
Standard atomic weight is 55.845 (g/mol)
So enthalpy of vaporization is (340 kJ/mol) / (55.845 g/mol) = 6,09 kJ/g.
Cool, you're right :)

Heat capacity is 25.1 J/mol/K = 0,449 J/g/K
Melting point is 1538 °C
So to get Iron to its melting point from room temperature, 20 °C, you expend 25.1*(1538-20) J/mol = 38.10 kJ/mol
Add to that the Heat of Fusion = 13,81 kJ/mol = 0,247 kJ/g, and you need 51.91 kJ/mol = 0.93 kJ/g to melt iron at juuust above 1538 °C


Same with Al2O3:
Molar mass is 101.96 g/mol
Heat capacity (Specific Heat) = 0.88 J/g/K = 89,72 J/mol/K
Melting point = 2072 °C
Heat of fusion = 1,09 kJ/g = 111,1 kJ/mol
Boiling point = 2977 °C
Heat of vaporization = ?
So we expend (2072-20) °C * 0.88 J/g/K = 1.81 kJ/g to bring Alumina to the brink of melting, and an additional 1,09 kJ/g to melt it.


1 g of stoichiometric thermite produces ideally 0.523 g iron and 0.477 g alumina.
The mix has thus an average heat capacity of (0.523*0,45 + 0,477*0.88) J/g/K = 0.655 J/g/K.

To heat it to the melting point of iron you need 1518 K * 0,655 J/g/K = 0.994 kJ/g of thermite.
Then the iron melts and eats (0.523 * 0,247) kJ/g = 0.129 kJ/g of thermite.
Then we continue to the melting point of alumina, or an additional (2072-1538) K = 534 K. Let's assume the same 0.655 J/g/K still apply - that costs 0.35 kJ/g of thermite.
Then the alumina melts and eats 0.477 * 1,09 kJ/g = 0.52 kJ/g of thermite
Then we heat up an additional (2862-2072) K = 790 K to the boiling point of iron. Still assuming a constant heat capacity of 0.655 J/g/K, that would cost 0.52 kJ/g of thermite.

So up to this point, the thermite products would have swallowed
(0.13 + 0.35 + 0.52 + 0.52) kJ/g = 1.52 kJ/g.

To now boil off the iron, we'd need (0.523 * 6,09) kJ/g of thermite = 3,2 kJ/g.

However, the thermite reaction only releases 3.96 kJ/g, and after expending 1.52 kJ/g already, we are left with only 2.44 kJ/g - enough to vaporize at most 76% of the iron - and none of the alumina, which has a higher boiling point.


So that's indeed the max temperature the thermite reaction could reach in theory.




I have ignored the fact that heat capacity is not constant, it tends to increase with temperature. Also ignored are all the losses that you encounter in practice - that you start out with surplus alumina, that you can't avoid losses due to radiation, etc.
 
How Mark Basile, a Chemical Engineer, can get such basic chemistry wrong just shows you the calibre of the truth movement.

Enthalpy is taught in the UK at A-Level (16-18 years old), it's a trivial exercise to calculate ⌂vap if you've been taught it. Basile should know better, however he can spout any old nonsense and his followers lap it up because they don't know any better.
 
This problem that the energy released in the thermite reaction is insufficient to vaporize is products gets even worse when you consider that, in Basile's opinion, the "nanothermite" was probably used to vaporize the surrounding organic matrix to do "explosive" volume work. Of course, every Joule expended to heat and vaporize the organics (or anything else for that matter) can't be expended to heat and melt, let alone vaporize, the thermite products.

He found himself less than 5% potential thermite in the red layer and more than 70% carbon, which means more than 80% organics. As I have already shown in my blog, that little thermite content "does not nearly suffice to turn [all the] organic polymers to gas" - for which a temperature of no more than 430°C (in the example case of epoxy) would be needed.


Furthermore, suggesting that alumina was in fact vaporized at the WTC assumes that the perpetrators carefully geared the nanothermite towards minimum efficiency - for if you put so much your heat into vaporizing the stuff, little to none would be left to do volume work. The worst you could then do is ... simply burn or melt other stuff! Duh!
 
ive emailed that article to astaneh and he has never stated that he didnt say that.

But I did!

I specifically referred to the New York Times article written in 2001 in my email.

His response. I bolded the most important part so you wouldn't miss it.
Dear XXXXXX:

Thank you for your e-mail and inquiry. In response to your inquiry, in my more than 10 years of studying WTC, I have not seen any shred of evidence that supports any conspiracy theory. My research findings have been distorted , changed, mus-interpreted by some in these conspiracy theory circles to serve their mis-guided purporposes. I have clarified the point several times to them in the past but they just simply do not want to give up interpreting our data in totally incorrect way to serve their totally mis-guided and false theories which have absolutely no scientific evidence for. The quotes that you are referring to are all false and should not be attributed to me. I presented my findings at the May 6, 2002 hearings of the Committee on Science of U.S. House of Representative on WTC a transcript of which is available on the Internet.


Best regards.

A. Astaneh, Professor
www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh
 
i need to reword that. the steel from the fema report and the steel astaneh photographed are very similar.

Right

so they were most likely "attacked" the same way.

Yes.

the thermite damage that jon cole shows off is different.

:clap:

was it some other form of thermite that caused the damage displayed in the fema report and astaneh's photo?

So you have no proof whatsoever that thermite can create "knife-like" edges and corrode steel like we see in the two photos provided by Astaneh and FEMA. You even admit that the Cole experiment damage results are different.

Every piece of evidence and information provided points to the fact that thermite was NOT used, yet you still want to cling to the notion that it was. Even to the point that you claim that maybe some "special" type of thermite was used after you start to doubt that "normal" thermite was used.

:rolleyes:
 
But I did!

I specifically referred to the New York Times article written in 2001 in my email.

His response. I bolded the most important part so you wouldn't miss it.

show what you wrote and we can decide about that.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom