Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[lapman]

Talk is cheap. The self proclaimed "experts" on this forum should write a scientific paper and publish it in a journal or STFU.

You first.

 

[Christopher7]

How did the beam that Mr. Astaneh inspected get heated to 2000oF?

Why on earth would anyone assume it was? You ask some really stupid questions.

Do you think Mr. Astaneh is stupid?

". . . he cites the way the steel has been bent at several connection points that once joined the floors to the vertical columns. . . . he describes the connections as being smoothly warped: "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [1100°C]
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm

Abolhassan Astaneh: Here, [freeway overpass in Oakland, Ca.] 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

NIST did NOT mention, much less explain how this beam melted and deformed. Your pseudo-science speculations are meaningless. Publish them in a scientific journal or stop claiming you have found the answer.

 

[Christopher7]

I have. Many others here have also. Have you? Has ANYONE from the "Truth" movement? Nope.

Please post your publications that demonstrate how sample #1 was melted or what created the iron spheres that made up nearly 6% of the WTC dust.

Neils Harrit et al have published a paper and you just hand wave it. Deniers hand wave any proof of thermite/nano-thermite or temperatures of 2800^oF as proven in the R.J. Lee Group and USGS reports.

 

[uke2se]

Do you think Mr. Astaneh is stupid?

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img408/2356/abolhassanastanehmeasur.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img408/6533/meltedbeamwtc7.jpg[/qimg]

". . . he cites the way the steel has been bent at several connection points that once joined the floors to the vertical columns. . . . he describes the connections as being smoothly warped: "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [1100°C]
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm

Abolhassan Astaneh: Here, [freeway overpass in Oakland, Ca.] 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

NIST did NOT mention, much less explain how this beam melted and deformed. Your pseudo-science speculations are meaningless. Publish them in a scientific journal or stop claiming you have found the answer.

Are you asking us how a steel-beam in a burning building was heated to 1100 degrees C?

NIST reports that maximum upper layer air temperatures reached about 1000 degrees C, and that fire temperature was around 1100 degrees C. I'd say that answers your question.

 

[uke2se]

Please post your publications that demonstrate how sample #1 was melted or what created the iron spheres that made up nearly 6% of the WTC dust.

Neils Harrit et al have published a paper and you just hand wave it. Deniers hand wave any proof of thermite/nano-thermite or temperatures of 2800^oF as proven in the R.J. Lee Group and USGS reports.

Let's assume for a moment that Harrit isn't a complete moron and just take his faulty assertions at face value. 6% of the dust is made up of iron spheres. What produced these iron spheres? Well, Harrit would have you believe thermate did.

So, 6% of the WTC dust is unreacted thermate dust. Let's disregard that some thermate would have to have reacted for it to have any effect on the collapse and just work with the 6%.

A whole bunch of buildings were damaged and subsequently knocked down after 9/11, but let's make it simple for ourselves and just count the one's that collapsed fully on that day: The Twin Towers and WTC 7. We do this because our calculations would be much much harder (impossible) otherwise, and because this way, the error makes your argument better.

Finding values for the mass of the towers is beyond me at the moment. The best I can get is approximations. Based on those, let's use the number 400.000 metric tonnes for the Twin Towers and half that, 200.000 tonnes for WTC 7. If you have better values, please let me know and we'll redo this calculation.

Now, to get a rough value of the amount of "dust", let's first get rid of any large chunks of material. According to the Journal of 9/11 Research, about 350.000 tonnes of steel and other material was removed from Ground Zero. So, to calculate the amount of dust, let's do some simple math: 400.000 + 400.000 + 200.000 - 350.000 = 650.000 tonnes. I realize this is a very high figure, so let's be generous and remove 90% of it. We're left with 65.000 tonnes. 6% of this should be thermate. 6% of 65.000 tonnes is 3900 tonnes.

Now, I realize and admit that the calculations above are very rough, and using no certain figures. However, I strive very hard to err on the side of making the thermate argument plausible. Still, we're left with a ridiculously large mass of thermate in the buildings. To give you an idea of the amount of thermate that equals 3900 tonnes, this weighs about 3600 tonnes.

So, do you believe that there were 3900+ tonnes of thermate in the buildings? If not, how do you explain the iron spheres?

 

[alienentity]

Let's assume for a moment that Harrit isn't a complete moron ....

So, do you believe that there were 3900+ tonnes of thermate in the buildings? If not, how do you explain the iron spheres?

This stuff is sheer idiocy, dressed up to look like science. Even Steven Jones doesn't believe it, as he has already offered that the nanothermite would likely be used as a trigger for conventional explosives.
Even Harrit posits much the same thing - that massive conventional explosives were needed.

But there is not a shred of evidence to back up their claims. All they can really do is challenge us to prove a negative. But we don't need to fall for that semantic trap - the onus is on them to come up with actual evidence.

They will never be able to do this, of course, since there is no evidence to be had. Both Harrit and Jones are complete amateurs as far as nanomaterials and forensics go. That's pretty obvious.

Yet another fine example of the dangers of dabbling outside your areas of expertise, and using your 'Dr' title as a claim to authority. Hmmm....reminds me of a certain 'Dr' of Theology who claims to be an expert on..well, everything about 9/11.
I'm sure he can 'prove' the virgin birth to us as well. LOL

 

[Christopher7]

Are you asking us how a steel-beam in a burning building was heated to 1100 degrees C?

NIST reports that maximum upper layer air temperatures reached about 1000 degrees C, and that fire temperature was around 1100 degrees C. I'd say that answers your question.

No it does not. Gas temperatures do not mean the steel was heated to those temperatures. NIST admitted that the fires lasted about 20 to 30 minutes in any location. That is not anywhere near enough time to heat an insulated beam to 1000^oF. The beams has 2 hr fire protection.

Furthermore, it does not explain the melting of the beam. FEMA said that a detailed study needed to be done. NIST did not mention, much less do a detailed study of Sample #1.

 

[DGM]

No it does not. Gas temperatures do not mean the steel was heated to those temperatures. NIST admitted that the fires lasted about 20 to 30 minutes in any location. That is not anywhere near enough time to heat an insulated beam to 1000^oF. The beams has 2 hr fire protection.

Furthermore, it does not explain the melting of the beam. FEMA said that a detailed study needed to be done. NIST did not mention, much less do a detailed study of Sample #1.

Do you think the aircraft impacts would have no effect on the insulation? Why do you keep asserting the same crap year after year?

 

[AZCat]

Furthermore, it does not explain the melting of the beam. FEMA said that a detailed study needed to be done. NIST did not mention, much less do a detailed study of Sample #1.

Evidence, once again, of your poor research abilities. Have you even read the NIST reports? Or do you merely parrot what you read from conspiracy websites?

 

[DGM]

Evidence, once again, of your poor research abilities. Have you even read the NIST reports? Or do you merely parrot what you read from conspiracy websites?

[cue C7] Source?

(Followed by a complete ignore of what's posted)

[end C7]


Do I get my million?

 

[AZCat]

<cue C7> Source? </C7>

(Followed by a complete ignore of what's posted)


Do I get my million?

Not from me. The source is the same damn section of the NIST reports he should have been looking at the whole time - NCSTAR 1-3C.

 

[uke2se]

No it does not. Gas temperatures do not mean the steel was heated to those temperatures. NIST admitted that the fires lasted about 20 to 30 minutes in any location. That is not anywhere near enough time to heat an insulated beam to 1000^oF. The beams has 2 hr fire protection.

You mean the 2 hr fire protection that was ripped off the beams by the plane crashes - which NIST also mentions, btw?

Furthermore, it does not explain the melting of the beam. FEMA said that a detailed study needed to be done. NIST did not mention, much less do a detailed study of Sample #1.

Let's recap: Your only evidence for a melted beam is one single report by one single person on one single sample, and that person has later said that his report is being mischaracterized by truthers?

 

[uke2se]

You never adressed this, C7:

Let's assume for a moment that Harrit isn't a complete moron and just take his faulty assertions at face value. 6% of the dust is made up of iron spheres. What produced these iron spheres? Well, Harrit would have you believe thermate did.

So, 6% of the WTC dust is unreacted thermate dust. Let's disregard that some thermate would have to have reacted for it to have any effect on the collapse and just work with the 6%.

A whole bunch of buildings were damaged and subsequently knocked down after 9/11, but let's make it simple for ourselves and just count the one's that collapsed fully on that day: The Twin Towers and WTC 7. We do this because our calculations would be much much harder (impossible) otherwise, and because this way, the error makes your argument better.

Finding values for the mass of the towers is beyond me at the moment. The best I can get is approximations. Based on those, let's use the number 400.000 metric tonnes for the Twin Towers and half that, 200.000 tonnes for WTC 7. If you have better values, please let me know and we'll redo this calculation.

Now, to get a rough value of the amount of "dust", let's first get rid of any large chunks of material. According to the Journal of 9/11 Research, about 350.000 tonnes of steel and other material was removed from Ground Zero. So, to calculate the amount of dust, let's do some simple math: 400.000 + 400.000 + 200.000 - 350.000 = 650.000 tonnes. I realize this is a very high figure, so let's be generous and remove 90% of it. We're left with 65.000 tonnes. 6% of this should be thermate. 6% of 65.000 tonnes is 3900 tonnes.

Now, I realize and admit that the calculations above are very rough, and using no certain figures. However, I strive very hard to err on the side of making the thermate argument plausible. Still, we're left with a ridiculously large mass of thermate in the buildings. To give you an idea of the amount of thermate that equals 3900 tonnes, this weighs about 3600 tonnes.

So, do you believe that there were 3900+ tonnes of thermate in the buildings? If not, how do you explain the iron spheres?

So, how about it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

What kinds of explosives are there that will deliver enough energy to cut steel beams but not make a bang that can be heard?

As for Sulphur and similar Eutectic reactions. Coal Fired Railway Locomotives suffer from the same problem in their boiler fireboxes and fire tubes. It's one of the main reasons they have to be rebuilt every ten years or so.

 

[Christopher7]

You never adressed this, C7:

So, 6% of the WTC dust is unreacted thermate dust. Let's disregard that some thermate would have to have reacted for it to have any effect on the collapse and just work with the 6%.

Your reading comprehension is seriously flawed. The dust contained almost 6% iron spheres that were a result of iron or steel being melted.

 

[uke2se]

Your reading comprehension is seriously flawed. The dust contained almost 6% iron spheres that were a result of iron or steel being melted.

Wait... this is new information. Is it safe to say that you disagree with Harrit/Jones who claimed that the iron spheres were a result of a thermitic reaction?

 

[funk de fino]

A bunch of anonymous adolescent posters call PhD professors armatures. That's funny.

Have your resident "experts" write a paper and publish it.

Not as funny as that.

Brent Blanchard wrote some pieces in a paper and they debunk you.

 

[funk de fino]

There are over a million people dead and it will never stop until the truth about 9/11 is brought to light.

Where?

 

[Senenmut]

I think he calls obvious trolls and liars like you a liar.

What explosives are silent?
You have been given an example of a CD. ALl those explosions were very obvious.

What kind of explosive can you think of that doesn't go bang?

one behind blazeshield might be a whole lot quieter:

Acoustical Properties
As an efficient sound-absorbing material, BLAZE-SHIELD II adds value
to the fire protection application in areas where high-noise levels
are anticipated.

http://www.isolatek.com/pdfs/CAFCO BLAZE-SHIELD II Brochure.pdf

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do you think Mr. Astaneh is stupid?

No, Dr. Astaneh knows his field of expertise better than we or you do. And we respect and support his conclusions that fire and airplane impacts brought down the Twin Towers.

Do you think Dr. Astaneh is stupid?