Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[Christopher7]

It is common knowledge, I'm afraid. Anything that involves metal grinding ion metal or the melting of metal will produce particles of varying sizes including microscopic.

Gringing does not produce iron microspheres. Only melting iron and then turning it into an aerosol of very tiny droplets [one quarter the width of a human hair] with explosives can produce the abundance of iron microspheres found in the WTC dust.

There is no proof that cutting torches create an abundance of microspheres

The the how glowing thingy on the end of a welding torch (called a "flame") cuts metal, or joins it together by melting it.

Irrelevant to the question of MICROSPHERES.

I am only establishing that there is proof of temperatures far in excess of what can occur in office or debris pile fires.

No... you aren't.

Denial
"[FONT=&quot]Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC [/FONT][FONT=&quot]event, producing spherical metallic particles."

"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] vaporized [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and then condensed during the WTC event. [/FONT]

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Gringing does not produce iron microspheres.

Yes it does.

Only melting iron and then turning it into an aerosol of very tiny droplets [one quarter the width of a human hair]

Blowtorches do that.

Like the kind used in cutting up wreckage after a major collapse.

with explosives can produce the abundance of iron microspheres found in the WTC dust.

There were no explosives in the WTC. If there were, the dogs would have found them, and the signatures would have showed up on seismographs.

Irrelevant to the question of MICROSPHERES.

The microspheres are solidified droplets. The droplets form when a substance is turned to liquid (like what a welding torch does to metal) (this is common knowledge too).

Denial
"[FONT=&quot]Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC [/FONT][FONT=&quot]event, producing spherical metallic particles."

"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] vaporized [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and then condensed during the WTC event. [/FONT]

It happens in vehicle brake pads and welding torches too.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

C7, if you are seriously claiming that melting or grinding metals do not produce microspheres, then that is what is called an "extraordinary claim". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Short version: You need to back your @#$% up if you wanna play ball here.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe Cole was referring to Sunder, who said, scientists "identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse."

Are you calling Sunder's similar comment, "extraordinarily ignorant"?

If that's a verbatim quote, then it's extremely poorly worded. Sunder may have meant that thermal expansion was a new member of the set of phenomena that can cause structural collapse - I find it hard to believe that he honestly believed that thermal expansion was a new phenomenon - but if so, he expressed himself exceedingly badly.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

You didn't watch the video, did you?

You may have nopticed that I referred to some specific statements by timestamp, a bit tricky to do without watching it.

No one said the experiment was perfect, but debunkers are always whining why Twoofies don't do their own experiments.

No, we're always pointing out that truthers don't do competently designed experiments. Incompetently designed experiments, like this one, are quite commonplace.

Now you can be specific if you'd like.

More specific than I already have been? Go back and read my first post in this thread.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.

Wrong. Thermate is not a known explanation for the melted beam. If you reject fire, you'll need a third explanation, because there is no evidence that thermate is capable of producing the effects seen.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

C7, if you are seriously claiming that melting or grinding metals do not produce microspheres, then that is what is called an "extraordinary claim". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You are the one claiming grinding produces microspheres. You provide the scientific evidence that it does.
Then explain how the spheres came to be in the dust inside on the roof of a building several hundred feet away. The WTC dust was propelled into Bankers Trust in the billowing clouds the collapses made. Cutting done later, even if it produced iron microspheres, they would not have gone far like the ones in the fast moving collapse dust clouds. The USGS took samples from 35 places around lower Manhattan and the iron spheres were ubiquitous.

 

[Christopher7]

Wrong. Thermate is not a known explanation for the melted beam.

It is known that thermite melts steel.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You are the one claiming grinding produces microspheres. You provide the scientific evidence that it does.

It's common knowledge.

But if you want to turn the science of metallurgy on its head because your bigoted paranoid kookery doesn't work with out, then by all means... make your case.

Then explain how the spheres came to be in the dust inside on the roof of a building several hundred feet away. The WTC dust was propelled into Bankers Trust in the billowing clouds the collapses made. Cutting done later, even if it produced iron microspheres, they would not have gone far like the ones in the fast moving collapse dust clouds. The USGS took samples from 35 places around lower Manhattan and the iron spheres were ubiquitous.

Metal grinding on metal produces microspheres. The airplane impacts and the collapses themselves would have produced enormous amounts of them.

 

[BigAl]

It is known that thermite melts steel.

And there was no steel recovered st WTC that had ever been melted.

The steel sample we are discussing was eroded by chemical processes, not by melting.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is known that thermite melts steel.

It is not known that thermate corrodes steel by intergranular eutectic melting; such a process has never been demonstrated. Evidence suggests that the temperatures created by thermate are too high for this phenomenon to occur, as it requires that the steel should not be melted except at the points of corrosive attack. Therefore, unless and until it has been demonstrated that thermate can cause this specific effect, it is not a viable explanation for it.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

It's common knowledge.

Merry-go-round ;-)

Metal grinding on metal produces microspheres. The airplane impacts and the collapses themselves would have produced enormous amounts of them.

Supposition.

 

[Christopher7]

And there was no steel recovered st WTC that had ever been melted.

The steel sample we are discussing was eroded by chemical processes, not by melting.

You are playing with semantics.
FEMA C pg 5
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel. liqueify = melted

 

[Christopher7]

He provided what was needed. He is not required to provide you an illegal copy of a paper that requires membership and/or fee to view. That is up to you, if you wish to verify his source...sorry. The paper is there...if you doubt the validity of his quotes, then check the paper yourself...the fee is your responsibility.

TAM

Actually, he didn't quote anybody. He just speculated.
"The corroded steel could not have exceeded 1000^oC. It's definitely possible they were lower; Banovich's and Foecke's work indicates lower temperatures, albeit still above 850^oC. Regardless, that is well, WELL below the temperatures that thermite reach. The characteristics of the steel's microstructure surrounding the corrosions, as well as the sulfidation layers, would simply not exist if thermite were used, because they would have been destroyed."

This is assuming the thermite is applied directly to the beam. Thermate residue [molten iron at much less than its starting temperature of 4,500 degrees F] could have dripped on the beam while it was in the debris pile and slowly eroded it. This is a possibility.

We cannot possibly know exactly how the beam came to be as it now is.
What we do know:
We know thermite melts steel.
We know of nothing else that could have melted the beam.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Merry-go-round ;-)

When substances become liquid, droplets form. This is grade-school stuff.

You're the one rotating here.

Supposition.

No. That's your turf, truther.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You are playing with semantics.
FEMA C pg 5
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel. liqueify = melted

Steel melts at 2900F. The steel cannot have melted since by your own admission the temperature was insifficient.

Ergo, you have shot yourself in the foot.

Smooth move, Ex-Lax™. What do you do for an encore? Gargle peanut butter?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Actually, he didn't quote anybody. He just speculated.

The truther is whining about speculation.

Apparently it's only ok when they do it.

Hypocrite.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thermate residue [molten iron at much less than its starting temperature of 4,500 degrees F] could have dripped on the beam while it was in the debris pile and slowly eroded it. This is a possibility.

No, it isn't. Drops of molten iron would give rise to localised heating rather than the general heating to between 850 and 1000ºC that was actually seen, and more importantly would have solidified on the beam leaving very obvious structures that were not, in fact, observed.

What we do know:
We know thermite melts steel.
We know of nothing else that could have melted the beam.

No. What we do know is that the beam was exposed to temperatures between 850 and 1000ºC for very long (several days) periods of time. We know that a smouldering, diffusion-limited fire in well-insulated conditions is capable of achieving this temperature and maintaining it for this period of time. We know, also, that thermite is incapable of maintaining a steady temperature in this range, or for maintaining any elevated temperature at all over this time period. Therefore, we can be absolutely certain that these elevated temperatures were not caused by thermite, and it is reasonable to examine hypotheses based on their cause being the known fires in the rubble pile.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Steel melts at 2900F.

Actually it's ~2750^oF

The steel cannot have melted since by your own admission the temperature was insifficient.

Something other than the fires melted the steel. The only known possibility is some form of thermite.

Lead was VAPORIZED during the event because the lead then condensed on fibers. That means; something heated it to 3182^oF
The only known possibility is some form of thermite.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Something other than the fires melted the steel.

The steel didn't melt. Can't you read?

The only known possibility is some form of thermite.

Or it could have been a eutectic reaction.

Lead was VAPORIZED during the event because the lead then condensed on fibers. That means; something heated it to 3182^oF

Leftysergeant already covered this.

The only known possibility to 9/11 truthers is some form of thermite.

Corrected free of charge. It was good of you to come here where those who know far more than you do (which isn't actually hard) could provide you the details you are missing.