Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[Gamolon]

They discuss explosives because their high priest, S.Jones has admitted that the amount of thermite required to raise the temp high enough is unreasonable, and as a result, when cornered by dr. Greening, suggested the thermite was only used in the detonators for conventional explosives.

TAM

Is there a link to this admission? I'm not finding it.

Thanks T.A.M.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You acknowledge that oxygen starved fires will not burn as hot as a well ventilated fire.

Where exactly do you imagine I did that?

Insulation can only retain heat. It cannot increase the temperature above the temperature of the smoldering debris pile fire.

It can allow the temperature of the entire debris pile to approach that of the hottest part of the flame, which is quite a lot higher than the air temperature observed in a standard well-ventilated office fire. In principle, there's no reason the debris pile fire couldn't have been hotter than an office fire.

But, again, all this is just ignorant handwaving. You don;t know what temperatures are achieved in a normal fire; you don't know for certain that a well-ventilated, diffusion-limited fire can't achieve the same, or even higher, temperatures; if you did know for certain that it was cooler, you wouldn't know how much cooler; and you continually overestimate the temperature required to produce the phenomenon you're trying to explain. You're comparing two numbers, neither of which you know, and insisting that one is larger than the other. Until you've got at least a vague idea of how hot the pile could have been, and until you're prepared to be honest about the temperatures required, you're just dressing word salad.

Dave

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sorry to side track, Hydraulic hoses are used on 'hot' Mill Rolls in every Steel Mill in the world, they have no problems with hoses bursting, Hot Coils and Billets are moved in and out of Soaking Pits using hydraulic systems, they machinery is in direct contact with glowing hot steel with no problems.

 

[Senenmut]

Excuse me, "[FONT=&quot]A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot sulfur attack on the steel.[/FONT]"

You can tap dance around it all you like but at the end of the day there is no explanation for this other than thermate.

There is NO scientific evidence that sulfur from any other source can do what was done to the beam from WTC 7.

i had a thread about this quote prof jones wrote at 911blogger:

"I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel. OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.) We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject."

i tried to email him to see if he took any pics but i havent had anything back yet.

but interestingly, i emailed prof sisson to see if i could get a copy of his students work:
•"A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel", M.S., Erin Sullivan, 2003.

that would have been a very interesting study but the graduate student did not graduate according to prof sisson so no paper......how about that.

oh and i did ask him about how LITTLE metal was dissolved with his hypothesis about slag consisting of iron, oxygen, and sulfur attacking the steel for 24 hrs.....just silence!!

 

[Dave Rogers]

i had a thread about this quote prof jones wrote at 911blogger:

"I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel.

Nice anecdote. And yet, despite having access to a 'journal' that would publish his latest shopping list if he wanted it to, he hasn't written this work up. Can't it even meet the nonexistent quality standards of the Journal of 9/11 Studies?

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So what? Show the science that confirms that sulfur could create the effect on the WTC beam.
Like the "sulfur from drywall" BS, this is just baseless speculation.

So is saying it must be Thermite.....one can prove their is sulfur in drywall (and probably elsewhere in building contents......but I doubt you can prove the presence of Thermite (Jones, certainly did not do so......)

You guy do mental gymnastics trying to fine alternatives while ignoring the simplest explanation - thermite/thermate. Occam rolls in his grave.

LOL so please show how thermite is the "simplest" explanation......how did it get there, what was it used for, does it really cause the effects shown.
Your explanation also requires a massive conspiracy........so Occum is hardly appropriate when comparing it to a simple, if unexpected, chemical reaction in a burning debris pile.....

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Umm... there's no proof that is steel. If it was, the hydraulic hoses would likely burst.

why would they do that? The hoses are well away from the glowing piece of metal.

 

[T.A.M.]

Is there a link to this admission? I'm not finding it.

Thanks T.A.M.

Lol...i have posted in various threads in this forum dozens of times. However, i am on my iPad at work now, so when i get home, i will look for the link in my bookmarks. If i find it sooner, ill post it here then.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Here you go. This page, post #521 by dr.g

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

Of course you could simple, if you were a devoted truther, say that greening is lying, but given greening has made no secret his distain for debunkers over here, i do not see what motive he would have for doing so.

TAM

 

[Edx]

Here you go. This page, post #521 by dr.g

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html

Of course you could simple, if you were a devoted truther, say that greening is lying, but given greening has made no secret his distain for debunkers over here, i do not see what motive he would have for doing so.

TAM

I've tried to get truthers to say whether they are saying all these other experts are either lying, delusional, incompetent or stupid and they always refuse to answer. Its quite amazing.

 

[Kent1]

This thread here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162996
Jones

"During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the “super-thermite matches” described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX, in the destruction of the WTC buildings."

This always cracks me up. Ha, Ha ha!!

 

[carlitos]

Right. Never mind that office fires cant melt iron but something did. Just change the subject and take a few cheap shots at Prof Jones. That's the JREF way.

Dr. Jones believes crazy things based on faulty logic. This seems relevant.

Is the third time a charm? Care to address the following?

One last try:

I must disagree with you again. The evidence definitely points toward explosives.

Then why were you discussing thermite?

 

[T.A.M.]

This thread here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162996
Jones

"During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the “super-thermite matches” described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX, in the destruction of the WTC buildings."

This always cracks me up. Ha, Ha ha!!

Interesting i hadnt seen that Reference. Thats 2 times he has brought it up now.

TAM

 

[alienentity]

=Christopher7;6145803
Insulation can only retain heat. It cannot increase the temperature above the temperature of the smoldering debris pile fire.

Christopher, this is a nonsense argument. The temperature of smoldering debris fires is a function of the amount of fuel, availability of oxygen and heat loss or dissipation. That's it.
Coal seam fires are a reasonable analogy, although they probably have a lot less oxygen than the WTC debris piles did. However they are known to reach high temps, easily over 1000 F.

There is no valid reason to insist that the debris pile fires were especially low in temperature.

Your argument about eutectics is based on two fallacies:

1) That the temperature was extraordinarily high, not achievable in a normal fire. This is not the case. Your own quotes show 'This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, ' which is within the range of a normal fire. You have also imposed an artificial temperature of 1500 C, which is not supported by the literature you quoted.
ie: as others have already pointed out, the eutectic process does NOT indicate temps above 1000 celsius!! FAIL

2) That the sulphur did not come from any known source present in the building materials or contents. But you have failed to eliminate those very things - simply denying that gypsum could supply the sulphur is not a valid argument. FAIL

Further, your doctrinal insistence that the sulphur came from <thermate or thermite> is remarkably weak since there is no direct evidence of either material!! You're essentially invoking something which is highly speculative and most likely fictitious.

Your arguments are weak and unconvincing, sorry. Repeating them ad infinitum does not strengthen them, it just makes your behavior that of a troll.

cheers

AE

 

[funk de fino]

You are the one "unable to discern" between two different events.

The beam from WTC 7 had its melting point lowered by a sulfur incursion.

The temperatures in excess of 2800^oF are necessary to melt iron and create the iron spheres found in the Bankers Trust building.

Stick to one then. By finally bringing someones elses description of eutectic without understanding what it meant, means you have just debunked your claims on the 2 samples. Now you want to run back to the spheres? Too funny.

Now why dont you answer the question as to why there were only 2 such samples out of all that tons of steel that was foresically examined?

 

[BigAl]

We have covered this already. You are assuming the thermite can only be applied directly to the beam. That is not the case. Thermite slag could drip onto the beam and slowly melt thru it.

Thermite slag can't melt steel. Most of thermite's energy was given up becoming slag.

Thermite is only effective on steel when in direct contact. Any thermite that burns by itself is wasted.

 

[Oystein]

...
Insulation can only retain heat. It cannot increase the temperature above the temperature of the smoldering debris pile fire.

I am a layman when it comes to fires. But it kinda occurs to me as quite natural that, while insulation retains the heat created eariler, fires still burning inside would be good candidates for the question "what increased the temperature inside the smoldering debris pile?".

Like I said, I am not an expert, but in my experience, fires have always tendet to heat things up...




(To make a more valid argument: "Fire" is shorthand for "exothermic reaction". Which means that chemical energy is transformed into heat. Which means a fire always adds heat to the system, no matter how much heat there is already. Which means that under hypotheticel conditions of perfect insulation, closed system, unchanged volume, temperature can rise to any level, limited only by the potential energy of the reactants. As BigAl explained in an easy to understand way: Fire adds heat, convection, radiation and other processes subtract heat; there is no law that prescribes that less intense fires under good insulation produce lower temperatures than more intense fires under poor insulation. The equlibrium is determined by both factors!)

 

[Oystein]

You are mixing two different events too.

Seems to be a condition around here.

1) Sample #1 from WTC 7
The beam melted at about 1000^oF because of the sulfur attack.

2) Iron spheres found in and on the roof of the Bankers Trust building.
The iron melted about 2800^oF because there was no sulfur attack. It was then atomized into microscopic droplets that hardened into spheres.

Why are we discussing 2)? Isn't that off topic to the OP?

 

[Oystein]

We have covered this already. You are assuming the thermite can only be applied directly to the beam. That is not the case. Thermite slag could drip onto the beam and slowly melt thru it.

Where is the slag? How much of it should have been found?
From whence did the cooling thermate slag drop onto said beam?
What proof to you have that any thermate was present anywhere, except your disbelief that sulfur from any of a number of possible sources could have formed the eutectic?
If thermate burned anywhere at anytime, there should have been detectable traces of resolidified steel. Do you have any to show?

 

[Oystein]

So what? Show the science that confirms that sulfur could create the effect on the WTC beam.
Like the "sulfur from drywall" BS, this is just baseless speculation.

You guy do mental gymnastics trying to fine alternatives while ignoring the simplest explanation - thermite/thermate. Occam rolls in his grave.

You seem to state with conviction that NO compound containing sulfur can possibly imagined that would release sulfur of the required composition.
You state with equal vonviction that thermate can do exactly that.

Now you show the science that shows that
a) thermate can do it
b) all other sulfuric materials cannot.