Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[W.D.Clinger]

Progress...

IYO you think you know better than a couple of PhD's with 20 years experience as professors at major universities. I think you are full of it, but that's just my opinion.

So Christopher7 agrees that PhDs with 20 years of experience as professors at major universities can be full of it.

 

[triforcharity]

The fuel supply cannot reach those temperatures in the debris pile due to the limited oxygen. Insulation cannot increase the temperature above what the fire is burning at, it can only maintain that temperature longer.

This is absolutely, 100% wrong. Would you care to provide a source for this load of **** you keep posting as fact?

Also, would you care to post something OTHER than your opinion about the availability of oxygen in the piles? Don't forget that fires this size create their "own wind" so to speak. Ask any firefighter who has fought a forest fire about this phenomenon.

 

[triforcharity]

Wrong. A bellows is used to force more oxygen thru the fuel to increase the temp.
More oxygen = hotter fire
Less oxygen = fire not as hot

Insulation cannot increase the temperature above what the fire is burning at.

No, that causes the fire to burn FASTER, which in turn produces MORE HEAT, and therefore increases the temperature as it outpaces the rate of release.

You're wrong again.

 

[funk de fino]

You're arguing a strawman. FdF said that the eroded samples were scarce, not that there was only a single one. It's clear that there was more than one, but it also appears that there were relatively few compared to the total amount of steel in the pile. Nothing you've posted disagrees with this.

And incidentally, I thought the samples Astaneh-Asl reported on were the same samples as the ones FEMA collected.

I think you may be double-counting them.

Dave

He is.

 

[Senenmut]

You're arguing a strawman. FdF said that the eroded samples were scarce, not that there was only a single one. It's clear that there was more than one, but it also appears that there were relatively few compared to the total amount of steel in the pile. Nothing you've posted disagrees with this.

And incidentally, I thought the samples Astaneh-Asl reported on were the same samples as the ones FEMA collected. I think you may be double-counting them.

Dave

I remeber reading that Astaneh-asl wanted to piece the steel together like an airplane crash. That would have been great. then the nist would not have had to rely on a comp, they would of had the steel to see exaclty the way it fell.

and no, it wasnt the same piece:
from the deep mystery piece-
"A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."

and from the Astaneh-asl piece:
"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''


notice also that from his expert opinion, that it burned/vaporized first and then buckled. and not as it lay in the debris pile. hummmmmm....isnt that interesting.

 

[Dave Rogers]

and no, it wasnt the same piece:

You're still arguing the same strawman. So far, you've demonstrated that, based on the most pedantic possible interpretation of two quotes, there were at least two samples that showed intergranular eutectic melting. This is consistent with any rational definition of the word "few".

notice also that from his expert opinion, that it burned/vaporized first and then buckled. and not as it lay in the debris pile. hummmmmm....isnt that interesting.

Not as interesting as the fact that you will conveniently ignore any parts of his expert opinion you don't agree with, while claiming that the bits you do agree with are irrefutable.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Does Dr. Astaneh-Asl think the collapses were suspicious?

 

[Senenmut]

He is.

so your ok with this:
"Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html

that was somewhere between sept 19 and sept 29. remember prof sisson could only get "little" metal to dissolve in 24hrs. and he will not disclose how little that little is.

are you ok with this observation:

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

 

[Dave Rogers]

Does Dr. Astaneh-Asl think the collapses were suspicious?

No, he doesn't. He's repeatedly called for conspiracy theorists to stop quoting him out of context and using his words to lend credence to their theories, because he finds it personally distressing and hurtful.

Dave

ETA: Clearly, that's never going to happen.

 

[T.A.M.]

My home oven has no bellows, no "air circulator", yet we keep the oven door closed to keep in the heat, and keep up the temp.

WHY DO TRUTHERS find this hard to grasp?

TAM

 

[twinstead]

No, he doesn't. He's repeatedly called for conspiracy theorists to stop quoting him out of context and using his words to lend credence to their theories, because he finds it personally distressing and hurtful.

Dave

I'm curious as to why any truther would quote him to try to prove an 'inside job' and keep a straight face.

 

[Senenmut]

You're still arguing the same strawman. So far, you've demonstrated that, based on the most pedantic possible interpretation of two quotes, there were at least two samples that showed intergranular eutectic melting. This is consistent with any rational definition of the word "few".



Not as interesting as the fact that you will conveniently ignore any parts of his expert opinion you don't agree with, while claiming that the bits you do agree with are irrefutable.

Dave

and your not a very good skeptic considering:
from the deep mystery article
"Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."
........
"This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."

 

[Dave Rogers]

So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

As I've said before, this quote doesn't actually make sense. As it stands, Astaneh-Asl is claiming to have seen something that he's also claiming never happened. If the word "no" was accidentally left out of the second sentence, it wouldn't actually contradict itself. What do you think - is it more likely that Astaneh-Asl believes he saw something that he also believes never happened, or that a newspaper article contained a typographical error?

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

I remeber reading that Astaneh-asl wanted to piece the steel together like an airplane crash. That would have been great. then the nist would not have had to rely on a comp, they would of had the steel to see exaclty the way it fell.

What a totally idiotic thought.

and no, it wasnt the same piece:
from the deep mystery piece-
"A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."

and from the Astaneh-asl piece:
"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue. The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''


notice also that from his expert opinion, that it burned/vaporized first and then buckled. and not as it lay in the debris pile. hummmmmm....isnt that interesting.

Your semantic use of plurals is noted. There were a few pieces and the ones you are talking about were the same ones FEMA and then NIST looked at.

One of those pieces was affected in the pile. Why dont you contact the good Dr?

 

[Dave Rogers]

and your not a very good skeptic considering:
from the deep mystery article
"Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."
........
"This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."

For god's sake, yes, we know that the intergranular eutectic melting was an unusual occurrence. So is a 47-storey building collapsing into a burning rubble pile and staying alight for several weeks. And yes, we know that experts were shocked to see something they'd never seen before, even though it originated in a situation they'd never studied before. So ******* what? Unusual circumstances produce unusual results. The fact that it hadn't been seen before doesn't indicate anything whatsoever about its cause, and nothing about it indicates anything but high temperature corrosion in a noxious atmosphere over a long period of time. In particular, nothing about it suggests thermite or explosives, however much conspiracy theorists love to pretend it does.

Dave

 

[Senenmut]

As I've said before, this quote doesn't actually make sense. As it stands, Astaneh-Asl is claiming to have seen something that he's also claiming never happened. If the word "no" was accidentally left out of the second sentence, it wouldn't actually contradict itself. What do you think - is it more likely that Astaneh-Asl believes he saw something that he also believes never happened, or that a newspaper article contained a typographical error?

Dave

put that quote up again of him saying he didnt see anything molten. in the newshour report quote, he is stating that he saw evidence that the girders had melted...... nowhere did he say it was iquid steel flowing from girder?

 

[Dave Rogers]

put that quote up again of him saying he didnt see anything molten. in the newshour report quote, he is stating that he saw evidence that the girders had melted...... nowhere did he say it was iquid steel flowing from girder?

Since I don't understand the question, I'll just follow truther etiquette and repeat a quote that supports my argument.

So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders.

If that doesn't answer your question, can I pretend you asked a question it does answer, the way truthers usually do?

Dave

 

[Senenmut]

What a totally idiotic thought.

its called a forensic investigation. ill try and find his quote.

Your semantic use of plurals is noted. There were a few pieces and the ones you are talking about were the same ones FEMA and then NIST looked at.

One of those pieces was affected in the pile. Why dont you contact the good Dr?

no they were not. where in the nist or fema stockpile are those "Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin?"

 

[Senenmut]

For god's sake, yes, we know that the intergranular eutectic melting was an unusual occurrence. So is a 47-storey building collapsing into a burning rubble pile and staying alight for several weeks. And yes, we know that experts were shocked to see something they'd never seen before, even though it originated in a situation they'd never studied before. So ******* what? Unusual circumstances produce unusual results. The fact that it hadn't been seen before doesn't indicate anything whatsoever about its cause, and nothing about it indicates anything but high temperature corrosion in a noxious atmosphere over a long period of time. In particular, nothing about it suggests thermite or explosives, however much conspiracy theorists love to pretend it does.

Dave

thats what jon's experiment was meant to replicate!! an office debris fire. especially the wallboard b/c either sisson or bierdman stated that the wallboard was likely the source of the sulfur. and guess what, it didnt do jack to the steel. and sissons hypothesis with the slag of iron, oxygen, and sulfur attacking the steel didnt do jack either in 24hrs. he stated "little" metal was dissolved but hasnt stated how little. he might have created alittle eutectic attacking the steel but what we have at the wtc sites is MASIVE steel loss.

from the article Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies, we can figure out ataneh - asl was there on sept 19 and went down from his hotel to inspect the trucks carrying the steel. from there, he saw the 15.9 of a36 steel that the article stated "vaporized". lets not argue "vaporize". so what we have is 15.9mm of a36 steel gone in 8 days!!!!!!

got anymore bright ideas how to corrode/erode/dissolve 15.9mm of a36 steel in 8 days?

 

[Dave Rogers]

thats what jon's experiment was meant to replicate!! an office debris fire.

Then please list the specific variables whose values it was meant to replicate, the estimated values of those variables in the fire it was replicating, and the measured values of those variables in the experiment. You'll find that you can't. For example, this was supposed to be an experiment to investigate high temperature corrosion processes; what was the temperature profile of the experiment? Not measured.

That's a truly embarrassing level of incompetence.

Dave