Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[ElMondoHummus]

RJ Lee supporting molten metal? How many freakin' times does it have to be pointed out that the RJ Lee reports were issued before they had the benefit of the NIST report and during the period of time when steel melting was indeed considered a serious hypothesis? How many times do conspiracy peddlers need to be told that? In regards to whether steel melted or not, RJ Lee is superceded by the NIST report. The RJ Lee group merely presumed that molten metal was one of the reasons that microspheres were in their samples. They did not determine it. Do any truthers realize that the RJ Lee Reports (plural, BTW; there was more than one) were environmental impact studies that surveyed post collapse dust samples? That they were NOT definitive statements on how components of the dust were created! They were surveys of the components of the air in Manhattan after the collapses.

On top of that, why were the citations of the WPI researchers, as well as Banovich and Foecke ignored by the thermite fantasy pushers? From Biederman, Sullivan, Vander Voort, and Sisson, on a piece from building 7:
[quote=''Microstructural Analysis Of The Steels From Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 From The World Trade Center'', Microscopy and Microanalysis (2003), 9(Suppl 2):550-551CD Cambridge University Press]The as-fabricated microstructure consisted of a hot worked banded structure of ferrite and pearlite. In severely “eroded” regions where the thickness had been reduced to less than a 1/16 of and inch significant decarburation was observed. In addition, some pearlite bands presented regions that had re-austentized as well as regions where the pearlite had started to spheroidize. These observations indicate that steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850°C.[/quote]
(Bolded for emphasis)

Banovich and Foecke, on column K-16 from one of the main towers:
[quote=''Assessment of Structural Steel from the World Trade Center Towers, Part IV: Experimental Techniques to Assess Possible Exposure to High-Temperature Excursions'', Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, Volume 6, Number 5 / October, 2006]
... One example showing a high-temperature excursion was analyzed. Single exterior column K- 16 displayed a large amount of material degradation as a consequence of erosion/corrosion processes...

...However, because its size and yield strength established that it came from no higher than the 53rd floor, as well as the corrosion pattern on the column, the degradation must have occurred after the collapse
[/quote]

Thermite doesn't burn below 850^oC - hell, it doesn't burn below 2000^oC! That right there is a negation of the claim that the sulfidation corrosion was proof of thermite! And the only column piece recovered that showed signs of sulfidation corrsion was 1. an external column, 2. Not in the collapse initiation zone, and 3. Corroded while it was laying on it's side. Even if K-16 were a core rather than a perimeter column, it's impossible to claim that the eutectic erosion was proof of thermite demolitions, since the corrosion quite obviously took place after the collapse.​

This has pretty much gone far enough. The preponderance of the evidence eliminates thermite from consideration. The collapse of the Twin Towers was absolutely not initiated by thermite, and recovered pieces from the collapse initiation zones prove this. The collapse would proceed all the way to completion once it started; Bazant and his group demonstrated this. Jones's "paper" on "energetic material" is negated via the very "evidence" contained within; that we discussed ad nauseum in this thread. WPI's microscopy demonstrates that the temperature range was below that achieved by a thermite reaction, and Banovich and Foecke, while disagreeing with WPI's top end, confirm the presence and makeup of the various iron phases WPI studied. And people like Pasquale Buzzelli, who was on the 22nd floor when the North Tower collapsed, contradict any notion of thermite or explosives given his proximity to core columns (NCSTAR 1-7 clearly diagrams the towers stairwells in relation to the core and perimeter of the buildings); he was not burnt to death by the thermite. Neither were any other survivors from WTC 1's stairwell B.

There is no longer a valid thermite hypothesis. It has been conclusively disproven. The only way to resurrect it is to ignore the evidence that exists. And when that happens, the advocate is no longer talking history or science, he is talking fantasy. ​

 

[The Big Dog]

Has anybody positiviely confirmed that this reaction occured pre-collapse?

Yes.

Source?

Edit.

That was quick. I misread your post and tried to edit.

Red, do you think that people around here are dumb? You were asked a straight question, you gave a straight answer, were asked a straight question "Source?" and have refused.

Now you are claiming that you MISREAD this question:

"Has anybody positiviely confirmed that this reaction occured pre-collapse?"

and then completely **** the bed when you failed to learn how to use the god damn edit button? What a joke.

/ETA: Oh look an edit botton!
//Edit to add: Oh noes, I mispelled "button" I wish there were an edit button!
///Woe is me, I wish I could “Edit” my post to spell "misspelled" wright... er write... err correctly!

 

[Christopher7]

As to Thermite. How did it work to demolish the buildings?

How was it used to cut steel beams?

This is a denier tactic to avoid the facts. Ask a question requiring speculation so the poster can make a lot of insulting remarks about the answer. It is a child's game of diversion, denial and defamation.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Actually, it was. You will not accept that and that's OK. ;-)

There was a lengthy review/edit process.

please show your evidence for that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This is a denier tactic to avoid the facts. Ask a question requiring speculation so the poster can make a lot of insulting remarks about the answer. It is a child's game of diversion, denial and defamation.

So you don't know.

You are speculating and guessing that Thermite may have been involved.

How do you reply to this post by ElMondoHummus?

RJ Lee supporting molten metal? How many freakin' times does it have to be pointed out that the RJ Lee reports were issued before they had the benefit of the NIST report and during the period of time when steel melting was indeed considered a serious hypothesis? How many times do conspiracy peddlers need to be told that? In regards to whether steel melted or not, RJ Lee is superceded by the NIST report. The RJ Lee group merely presumed that molten metal was one of the reasons that microspheres were in their samples. They did not determine it. Do any truthers realize that the RJ Lee Reports (plural, BTW; there was more than one) were environmental impact studies that surveyed post collapse dust samples? That they were NOT definitive statements on how components of the dust were created! They were surveys of the components of the air in Manhattan after the collapses.

Does this not cut the legs from under your continued cite of the RJ Lee reports?

 

[lapman]

This is a denier tactic to avoid the facts. Ask a question requiring speculation so the poster can make a lot of insulting remarks about the answer. It is a child's game of diversion, denial and defamation.

Typical response to something that is inconvenient to your fantasy. In order for thermite to be the cause of the collapse, it has to be shown that it can do the job.

 

[Christopher7]

RJ Lee supporting molten metal?

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

don't you understand?

How many freakin' times does it have to be pointed out that the RJ Lee reports were issued before they had the benefit of the NIST report

Benefit? NIST did not address the iron spheres nor did they explain the collapse.

and during the period of time when steel melting was indeed considered a serious hypothesis?

There is clear evidence of molten steel, melted beams and iron spheres. NIST ignored all of it.

How many times do conspiracy peddlers need to be told that?

"OBL and 19 hijackers did it" is the conspiracy theory being peddled here.

In regards to whether steel melted or not, RJ Lee is superceded by the NIST report. The RJ Lee group merely presumed that molten metal was one of the reasons that microspheres were in their samples.

Who are you to say that they "presumed molten metal was one of the reasons that microspheres were in their samples"? Your arrogance is typical of the denier squad.

Thermite doesn't burn below 850^oC - hell, it doesn't burn below 2000^oC! That right there is a negation of the claim that the sulfidation corrosion was proof of thermite! And the only column piece recovered that showed signs of sulfidation corrsion was 1. an external column, 2. Not in the collapse initiation zone, and 3. Corroded while it was laying on it's side. Even if K-16 were a core rather than a perimeter column, it's impossible to claim that the eutectic erosion was proof of thermite demolitions, since the corrosion quite obviously took place after the collapse.

This is double talk. They ASSUME one scenario - thermite applied directly to the beam - and disregard any other possibility like a eutectic slag from partially cooled thermate residue dripping on the beam in the debris pile.

This has pretty much gone far enough. The preponderance of the evidence eliminates thermite from consideration.

In your dreams.

The collapse of the Twin Towers was absolutely not initiated by thermite, and recovered pieces from the collapse initiation zones prove this.

99% of the evidence was destroyed. You have no idea what evidence it held.

The collapse would proceed all the way to completion once it started; Bazant and his group demonstrated this.

Bazant admitted that his one dementional model did NOT explain the collapse of the South Tower.

 

[excaza]

Iron spheres from human remains? STUNDIE!!!

The suggested intake of iron for adults is something around 20 milligrams a day. Without it, hemoglobin wouldn't work and you'd die.

 

[lapman]

Benefit? NIST did not address the iron spheres nor did they explain the collapse.

Thank you for proving that you have no concept of what the meaning of the word scope is pertaining to an investigation.

This is double talk. They ASSUME one scenario - thermite applied directly to the beam - and disregard any other possibility like a eutectic slag from partially cooled thermate residue dripping on the beam in the debris pile.

Except that would provide globs of cooled therm*te and not any type of effect that was shown on the beams.

99% of the evidence was destroyed. You have no idea what evidence it held.

Typical twoofer copout. Prove that it wasn't forensically investigated prior to destruction.

 

[twinstead]

There is clear evidence of molten steel, melted beams and iron spheres. NIST ignored all of it.

In YOUR dreams

 

[T.A.M.]

"Research results are reported concerning the microspheres both adhering to and separated from metal and metal alloy surfaces in grinding and erosion processes."

This is about spheres created in the grinding process that is sometimes done to "clean up" welds. This is done with a grinding wheel spinning at high rpm. There is no proof that columns and beams "grinding together" as they fall will create these spheres. Furthermore, a very small percentage of the microspheres created by grinding would actually stick to the columns. Most would be carried away on the breeze. You are grasping at straws.

We have only the word of an anonymous poster so stop making that claim until you are willing to identify yourself and SHOW your credentials.

Iron spheres from human remains? STUNDIE!!!

1. Well you will have to stundie doctor greening as well, since we had a discussion about this here on the JREF, and all parties agreed that it was possible.

The human body is full of iron (and oxygen) rich hemoglobin.

Your lack of knowledge is beginning to show.

2. If most of the "grinding" spheres would be carried away in the breeze, then so would your "thermite" spheres. You think the WTC dust didn't blow with the breeze. There is no grasping at straws here, except by you of course.

 

[Christopher7]

In order for thermite to be the cause of the collapse, it has to be shown that it can do the job.

You demand what cannot be known in order to avoid what is known.

NIST promised to investigate all the issues raised by FEMA. They did not. There is no mention, much less an explanation, for the melted beam from WTC 7.

There was molten steel reported by many at the scene.
JREFers say "It could have been copper or aluminum" but you will NEVER admit that it could have been molten iron or steel.

Over a hundred first responders and survivors heard explosions. Some described it as looking like a CD.
JREFers say "Explosions don't necessarily mean explosives" but you will never admit that what they heard, and in some cases felt, could have been explosives.

Now y'all are doing mental gymnastics trying to ignore the pretty pictures of nano-thermite. This is not rocket surgery The thermite paper is clear enough to be understood by the lay person. The group of highly qualified scientists photographed and analyzed the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust. They have determined that it is nano-thermite.

Your relentless search for reasons to deny this information is consistent with your overall denial of anything that disproves the Official Collapse Theory. NIST did NOT explain the collapse, nither did Bazant. You are fanatically defending a half baked theory published in a half baked farce.

 

[T.A.M.]

There was molten steel reported by many at the scene.
JREFers say "It could have been copper or aluminum" but you will NEVER admit that it could have been molten iron or steel.

There was MOLTEN METAL seen at the scene. Given the temperatures recorded in the debris pile, it is much more likely that molten metal was aluminum or copper, then iron or steel. Does that mean it was impossible...no, just much much less likely....us Occam.

Over a hundred first responders and survivors heard explosions. Some described it as looking like a CD.
JREFers say "Explosions don't necessarily mean explosives" but you will never admit that what they heard, and in some cases felt, could have been explosives.

The evidence points towards exploding transformers (there were many transformers in the building, exposed to heat, damage, and power surges), exploding aeresol or oxygen cannisters (there were plenty of each, both exposed to areas of excessive heat and physical damage), and falling debris.

The evidence, IN NO WAY, points towards explosives. In studies done cataloging the injuries presented at ERs from survivors of the attacks, there is no mention, NO MENTION, of barotrauma that would have certainly been seen with the use of multiple piles of explosives. There was no det cord, there was no explosive residue found or mentioned.

Now y'all are doing mental gymnastics trying to ignore the pretty pictures of nano-thermite. This is not rocket surgery The thermite paper is clear enough to be understood by the lay person. The group of highly qualified scientists photographed and analyzed the red/gray chips found in the WTC dust. They have determined that it is nano-thermite.

Your relentless search for reasons to deny this information is consistent with your overall denial of anything that disproves the Official Collapse Theory. NIST did NOT explain the collapse, nither did Bazant. You are fanatically defending a half baked theory published in a half baked farce.

Your middle name should be "mental gymnastics".

A group of semi qualified scientists, OUT OF THEIR AREAS OF EXPERTISE, allegedly...ALLEGEDLY found red/grey chips that were not found in any other samples but theirs, that magically produce a minute amount of heat. SO little heat, that it would take hundreds of sprayed layers of this "nanothermite" to raise the temperature of an adjacent steel column sufficiently to weaken it...IF THEY COULD FIND AWAY TO APPLY IT IN SUCH A FASHION.

Jones says these chips were in good quantity in his samples, yet RJ and other groups make no mention of such things in their samples...and the whole "not gonna find it if ya aint lookin for it crap" does not hold water.

TAM

 

[Senenmut]

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

the rj lee report states they were formed via surface tension.

"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension."

 

[T.A.M.]

the rj lee report states they were formed via surface tension.

"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension."

do you have any idea what surface tension means? How does that rule out spheres made via grinding?

TAM

 

[Christopher7]

1. Well you will have to stundie doctor greening as well

Indeed! Dr. Greening is truly Stundie worthy.

since we had a discussion about this here on the JREF, and all parties agreed that it was possible.

We all say it is so, therefore, it must be so.

The human body is full of iron (and oxygen) rich hemoglobin.

Iron makes up a tiny percentage of the human body and it is dispersed. There is no way it could form into spheres when a body is crushed. This is getting hilarious.

If most of the "grinding" spheres would be carried away in the breeze, then so would your "thermite" spheres. You think the WTC dust didn't blow with the breeze.

That is precisely what happened. The spheres were carried in the collapse dust clouds the blanketed lower Manhattan and were deposited everywhere the dust went. This includes the interior and the roof of the Bankers Trust building. There is no mechanism for any appreciable amount of spheres to be deposited there later.

 

[Christopher7]

do you have any idea what surface tension means? How does that rule out spheres made via grinding?

TAM

Columns and beams "grinding" against each other in a collapse don't produce iron spheres like a high speed grinding wheel does. You are playing with semantics again.

 

[Christopher7]

the rj lee report states they were formed via surface tension.

"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension."

Right. The "surface tension" of a tiny droplet of liquid iron will cause it to form a sphere.

The microscopic iron spheres made up almost 6% of the dust. That means there were billions of them. 6% is a very large proportion for something that normally accounts for .04% of dust. The R.J. Lee Group correctly stated that the spheres were formed during the event. They could not have been formed in that volume before the event or deposited after the event.

 

[excaza]

Columns and beams "grinding" against each other in a collapse don't produce iron spheres like a high speed grinding wheel does.

And your reasoning behind this is...incredulity?

 

[DGM]

Columns and beams "grinding" against each other in a collapse don't produce iron spheres like a high speed grinding wheel does. You are playing with semantics again.

Wait, Didn't you say grinders don't produce iron micro-spheres? I thought you said it could ONLY be high temps? Is your fantasy falling apart?