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

[beachnut]

... remember this supposed paper that really never was written:

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel (WPI Seminar, September, 2003. Presented by Erin Sullivan.)
Abstract
To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure. In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants.

AKA Corrosion in Fire. lol, you guys gish gallop to debunking yourself.

The steel was studied, it did not melt. You don't do eutectic. The steel corroded in fire, up to 1000 C. What is your temperate of attacking thermite on steel? lol, you debunked yourself again. And in the wrong thread.

Chemistry is not used by 911 truth, failure is; 11 years of solid failure. No thermite. Millette found? No thermite. This can't get funnier as you present evidence of no thermite.

 

[Senenmut]

AKA Corrosion in Fire. lol, you guys gish gallop to debunking yourself.

The steel was studied, it did not melt. You don't do eutectic. The steel corroded in fire, up to 1000 C. What is your temperate of attacking thermite on steel? lol, you debunked yourself again. And in the wrong thread.

Chemistry is not used by 911 truth, failure is; 11 years of solid failure. No thermite. Millette found? No thermite. This can't get funnier as you present evidence of no thermite.

tell us how much steel they got to "corrode" in 24hrs...

 

[beachnut]

tell us how much steel they got to "corrode" in 24hrs...

The steel you spoke of was corroded in fire. It was found after 911. Corrosion is not thermite damage. You gish galloped into debunking 911 truth fantasy thermite claims. Should have taken some chemical engineering courses, you would not be pushing eutectic diagrams, and other nonsense which explains why you are gullible to believe lies of thermite.

Lucky for you jtl also has zero chemistry, and engineering, or you would be tilting at thermite alone. Take the Harrit paper, and the Millette paper to a chemist or chem engineer.

No surprise 60 Minutes will not be running the fantasy of thermite; they don't like to make fun of people who have insane claims like Harrit and Jones.

 

[Senenmut]

The steel you spoke of was corroded in fire. It was found after 911. Corrosion is not thermite damage. You gish galloped into debunking 911 truth fantasy thermite claims. Should have taken some chemical engineering courses, you would not be pushing eutectic diagrams, and other nonsense which explains why you are gullible to believe lies of thermite.

Lucky for you jtl also has zero chemistry, and engineering, or you would be tilting at thermite alone. Take the Harrit paper, and the Millette paper to a chemist or chem engineer.

No surprise 60 Minutes will not be running the fantasy of thermite; they don't like to make fun of people who have insane claims like Harrit and Jones.

"little metal" was what i was looking for from ya. you know what sisson said about his experiment. he will not tell us how "little" that little amount is.

FYI
with the microstructure below the slag in sisson's paper (fig4,5,6) showing that the steel temp got between 550-850C, it would be hard to explain that the steel sat in 940-1100C temps for days, weeks, or a month. especially when the steel in fig 3 shows that the piece analyzed (fig 4) showed extreme wastage already

here is the paper:
http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa...m-world-trade-center-buildings-1-2-and-7.html

 

[beachnut]

"little metal" was what i was looking for from ya. you know what sisson said about his experiment. he will not tell us how "little" that little amount is.

FYI
with the microstructure below the slag in sisson's paper (fig4,5,6) showing that the steel temp got between 550-850C, it would be hard to explain that the steel sat in 940-1100C temps for days, weeks, or a month. especially when the steel in fig 3 shows that the piece analyzed (fig 4) showed extreme wastage already

here is the paper:
http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa...m-world-trade-center-buildings-1-2-and-7.html

You are debunking thermite. Stop while you are ahead; or deep in fantasy I mean. The steel was in a fire, at temperatures lower than thermite. The steel did not melt, it was corroded in fire.

 

[Senenmut]

You are debunking thermite. Stop while you are ahead; or deep in fantasy I mean. The steel was in a fire, at temperatures lower than thermite. The steel did not melt, it was corroded in fire.

no, im debunking the idea that it sat in temps 940-1100C for days, weeks, or even a month.

 

[Sunstealer]

its from WPI's website yrs back. i dont even know if its there anymore. it was a response from when you stated from the thermitic paper:

"We have observed that some chips have additional elements
such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these
significant, and why do such elements appear in some red
chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31)
which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and
displays multiple red and gray layers."


who knows, it could be just some leftover stuff when they made the material or it could help with the grain boundary penetration when this stuff was set off.

That's the most hilarious thing I've heard from you. What are you talking about? You are just making up stuff pulled from your behind. In the words of Ricky Gervais, "Stop talking ****".

All of the above can be found in paint because they are in common pigments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inorganic_pigments

The fact that this was not picked up on by Harrit shows that the authors think that if a chip is red then it is thermite. As long as the chip was red it didn't matter if some had Pb, Cu, Ti, Ba, K, Cr, Sr etc, it was all nano-thermite to them. They made that assumption and didn't think anything through. If they had thought about it for 5 seconds they would have realised that they would expect to find paint particles in their separated material. They don't report finding any in the paper at all. None. Not one red paint. That should set alarm bells ringing to anyone with a working brain stem.

"it could help with the grain boundary penetration" - comedy gold. I actually facepalmed. Amazing.

 

[Senenmut]

That's the most hilarious thing I've heard from you. What are you talking about? You are just making up stuff pulled from your behind. In the words of Ricky Gervais, "Stop talking ****".

All of the above can be found in paint because they are in common pigments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inorganic_pigments

The fact that this was not picked up on by Harrit shows that the authors think that if a chip is red then it is thermite. As long as the chip was red it didn't matter if some had Pb, Cu, Ti, Ba, K, Cr, Sr etc, it was all nano-thermite to them. They made that assumption and didn't think anything through. If they had thought about it for 5 seconds they would have realised that they would expect to find paint particles in their separated material. They don't report finding any in the paper at all. None. Not one red paint. That should set alarm bells ringing to anyone with a working brain stem.

"it could help with the grain boundary penetration" - comedy gold. I actually facepalmed. Amazing.

comes straight out of wpi research. it is just a thought....


"In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants.
"

 

[chrismohr]

"little metal" was what i was looking for from ya. you know what sisson said about his experiment. he will not tell us how "little" that little amount is.

FYI
with the microstructure below the slag in sisson's paper (fig4,5,6) showing that the steel temp got between 550-850C, it would be hard to explain that the steel sat in 940-1100C temps for days, weeks, or a month. especially when the steel in fig 3 shows that the piece analyzed (fig 4) showed extreme wastage already

here is the paper:
http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa...m-world-trade-center-buildings-1-2-and-7.html

Senenmut do you remember Jonathan Barnett, the EPA chief who first reported on eutectic steel? I've written to him several times in the past year, personally, about this phenomenon and he consistently says the corrosion on the steel was probably caused by one of three things: battery acid, burning of gypsum walls, or the residue from acid rain in fire. I asked specifically if he thought the eutectic steel mystery could be solved by thermite or CD and he said no there is no evidence for that. Whenever I personally go out and talk to the people who are quoted by 9/11, I ALWAYS get the same kind of response. I got another response from a chemist and we might have a lead for some independent answers re Millette vs Harrit/Jones. I also have experiments that I have requested, such as the burning of known paint chips on rust flakes to see if iron-rich spheres are created.

 

[Senenmut]

Senenmut do you remember Jonathan Barnett, the EPA chief who first reported on eutectic steel? I've written to him several times in the past year, personally, about this phenomenon and he consistently says the corrosion on the steel was probably caused by one of three things: battery acid, burning of gypsum walls, or the residue from acid rain in fire. I asked specifically if he thought the eutectic steel mystery could be solved by thermite or CD and he said no there is no evidence for that. Whenever I personally go out and talk to the people who are quoted by 9/11, I ALWAYS get the same kind of response. I got another response from a chemist and we might have a lead for some independent answers re Millette vs Harrit/Jones. I also have experiments that I have requested, such as the burning of known paint chips on rust flakes to see if iron-rich spheres are created.

if ya speak with him again, ask how many beams he saw that looked "evaporated".

 

[Childlike Empress]

Senenmut do you remember Jonathan Barnett, the EPA chief who first reported on eutectic steel? I've written to him several times in the past year, personally, about this phenomenon and he consistently says the corrosion on the steel was probably caused by one of three things: battery acid, burning of gypsum walls, or the residue from acid rain in fire. I asked specifically if he thought the eutectic steel mystery could be solved by thermite or CD and he said no there is no evidence for that.

Sounds silly. He comes up with three theoretical explanations for a phenomenon and rejects a forth because there is no evidence for it? What kind of logic is that?

 

[DGM]

Sounds silly. He comes up with three theoretical explanations for a phenomenon and rejects a forth because there is no evidence for it? What kind of logic is that?

Read your post over and over. Maybe it will start to make sense.

Hint: Focus on the word "evidence".

 

[Sunstealer]

comes straight out of wpi research. it is just a thought....


"In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants. "

Your thoughts are worthless because you aren't educated in the relevant fields. You don't understand what this sentence means because you don't know what the phrase "alloying elements" means or what contamination means within the context of the sentence.

You continually do this because you refuse to learn anything and simply take any non-related quote mined text and wrongly apply it to a completely different topic.

Alloying elements specifically relates to elements added to a base metal to produce an alloy. Different alloying elements have differing effects on the properties of the alloy and it's response to heat treatment etc.

http://www.chasealloys.co.uk/steel/alloying-elements-in-steel/

Nothing to do with Ba, K, Pb, and Cu in paint.

Try learning something instead of simply making things up and trying spot connections where there are none.

 

[Sunstealer]

Sounds silly. He comes up with three theoretical explanations for a phenomenon and rejects a forth because there is no evidence for it? What kind of logic is that?

Strolls on over to the stundie thread.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Read your post over and over. Maybe it will start to make sense.

Hint: Focus on the word "evidence".

You mean what he wanted to say is "yes, but there's no evidence for it being the cause"? Well, that goes for the other three theoretical explanations as well. Duh.

 

[Stamuel]

Childlike Empress:

You mean what he wanted to say is "yes, but there's no evidence for it being the cause"? Well, that goes for the other three theoretical explanations as well. Duh.

Most likely he meant that there is no evidence that thermite or other CD devices were present at all. We know with certainty that there were thousands of batteries in the towers, we know with certainty there were tons of gypsum, and we know there were fires and rain in the debris. So there is overwhelming evidence these thing were at least there and thus potentially could have done it. But there is no evidence of CD or thermite.

 

[DGM]

You mean what he wanted to say is "yes, but there's no evidence for it being the cause"? Well, that goes for the other three theoretical explanations as well. Duh.

Nope:

Things at the WTC:

Battery acid: Yes

Gypsum wallboard, water and heat: Yes

Acid rain: (You're not denying this, right) Yes

CD: No evidence.

See how that works?

 

[beachnut]

Sounds silly. He comes up with three theoretical explanations for a phenomenon and rejects a forth because there is no evidence for it? What kind of logic is that?

Too bad you were not being sarcastic, you would have it right.

It is called science Childlike Empress. The steel never saw temperatures over 1000C (after they studied it, not talked about it), thermite can be ruled out. There was no thermite product fused to the steel; in real life, the thermite would leave evidence, in 911 truth's fantasy world, like CIT and 911 truth, they don't use evidence, they make up opinions they think are evidence. Jones and Harrit make up a conclusion to match their crazy fantasy; Millette found no themite, no thermite was used on 911.

Due to the eutectic, due to evidence, we know it was corrosion in fire, not CD, not thermite. What did it? There are many ways to corrode steel; was there any battery acid in the WTC? How many tons?

Millette did the science, Jones and Harrit did woo. What do you say about Millette? Got some research, understand chemical engineering, understand why a scientist can exclude nonsense, since there was no evidence, but not know the exact cause. Check out the eutectic and the report next time.

Chris is a show me kind of guy, he wants more evidence to rub in the noses of the gullible 911 truth nuts. Millette found no themite, USGS found no thermite, RJ Lee found no thermite. We found 911 truth is confused by chemistry/science/logic.

Will studies like Millette's stop people who can't think for themselves from falling for idiotic claims made by 911 truth failed leaders? No.

 

[jaydeehess]

Nope:

Things at the WTC:

Battery acid: Yes

Gypsum wallboard, water and heat: Yes

Acid rain: (You're not denying this, right) Yes

CD: No evidence.

See how that works?

One other thing of course, while it is possible to erode steel by eutectic action, so far no one has demonstrated that therm?te can be utilised to produce a steel sample with the erosion seen in a few steel pieces from the WTC rubble.
,,,, and that may have figured in the statement that no evidence of therm?te was found.

 

[DGM]

One other thing of course, while it is possible to erode steel by eutectic action, so far no one has demonstrated that therm?te can be utilised to produce a steel sample with the erosion seen in a few steel pieces from the WTC rubble.
,,,, and that may have figured in the statement that no evidence of therm?te was found.

Yes. There is no evidence for what they claim they have evidence but, can not produce.

Most would see this for what it is, and have.