Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[BigAl]

A bellows is used to provide the extra oxygen necessary to bring the fire up to a temperature that will heat steel to a point where it can be worked.

Ventilation is a factor in retaining heat but attaining maximum temperatures of ~1000^oC requires a large air flow. This would not be possible in the WTC 7 debris pile IMO.

You are wrong, ask any fireman.

Combustion temperature is a equilibrium between heat generated and heat lost by conduction, radiation and convection.

A "well ventilated" fire loses lots of heat via convection, if nothing else.

A fire that is oxygen-limited may be very hot if it is well insulated and losing little heat to conduction, radiation and convection.

 

[Dave Rogers]

[FONT=&quot]The subject at hand is: Thermate is the only known source for the melted beam. People like to play with semantics but the beam melted.[/FONT]

Well, I didn't believe it when you put it in size 2 text, but I must admit it gets 50% more convincing when you size it up to size 3. Remind me, what's a 50% increase on zero?

Now, let's look at playing with semantics. You're insisting that the beam 'melted', when in fact we know parts of it were liquified in a process that is known to take place below 1000ºC. So why this insistence on jettisoning the actual details of the process and referring to it by a single word that gives a highly simplified and thoroughly misleading impression that it was actually a different process taking place? I'll tell you why: because the real evidence shows that thermite had nothing to do with this process, and if the evidence disagrees with you then it must be obscured by oversimplification and misrepresentation.

If you made a credible attempt at arguing honestly, you might garner more respect round here. Unfortunately, that would require you being prepared to admit the possibility that your knowlede might be incomplete, which you're markedly reluctant to do.

I'm not convinced that the studies of this beam have determined the exact and detailed mechanism for its erosion; in particular, Frank Greening's comments on the possible role of chlorides have considerable merit, and might bear further investigation. What appears quite certain is that there is no vestige of evidence that thermite played any role in the process whatsoever; what is equally certain is that there is no reason to suspect, or even an existence theorem for, the involvement of a thermite reaction in the collapse of any of the WTC buildings, or any other building before or since. Your theory is therefore at least two steps removed from reality.

Dave

 

[excaza]

A bellows is used to provide the extra oxygen necessary to bring the fire up to a temperature that will heat steel to a point where it can be worked.

No. If you completely burn a lump of coal (or anything else), it's going to release the same amount of energy and use the same amount of oxygen no matter how hard you blow on it.

A bellows is used to provide more oxygen which speeds up the combustion, this added speed increases the temperature because the forge dissipates heat at a fixed rate. If you burn faster than that dissipation, your temperature goes up.

 

[Christopher7]

You're insisting that the beam 'melted', when in fact we know parts of it were liquified in a process that is known to take place below 1000ºC.

liquefied: to become or make liquid
melted: change from solid to liquid state.

I'm not convinced that the studies of this beam have determined the exact and detailed mechanism for its erosion;

But you rule out the only known possibility.

in particular, Frank Greening's comments on the possible role of chlorides have considerable merit, and might bear further investigation.

Merit, schmerit. It's speculation, not science.

What appears quite certain is that there is no vestige of evidence that thermite played any role in the process whatsoever;

Wrong. Thermate is indicated.

 

[carlitos]

It's really not productive to argue with someone who makes arguments up out of thin air. It's high time to put him on ignore.

Since he's ignored my 4 or 5 direct questions, I'll take your advice.

 

[Oystein]

Less oxygen = less heat. Do you know what a bellows is for?

Still WRONG. Less oxygen = less heat PRODUCTION.
Do you know what insulation is for?

To heat a steel beam that is constantly dissipating heat, fuel must be replenished. [FONT=&quot]A fire burning at 1000^oC would have to burn for a long time in one spot to heat a beam to 1000^oC.[/FONT]

How long did the trash heaps burn?

Coal is concentrated carbon fuel. The combustibles in WTC 7 were crushed between 40 + concrete slabs.

You still need to make up your mind if oxygen supply is the limiting factor or fuel supply is the limiting factor. You can't have it both ways. I am prepared to go with you on whatever you decide, but as long as you want to have it both ways, I'll keep calling you on it.

 

[Oystein]

...
"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." - FEMA C pg 5

Liquify <> melt, still.
It liquified because it turned into a eutectic compound, while retaining (not gaining) heat.

...
A debris pile fire could not attain, much maintain 1100^oC for 12 hours. And this is with compacted FeS powder on a ground surface.

Your private speculation rests solely on your lack of understanding how heat builds up in a fire.

 

[Oystein]

Depends on how hot the thermate slag is. If the drips keep coming they could do what we see. This is a possibility.

The potential chemical energy per gram of mass stored thermate is surprisingly low - much lower than that of most organic combustibles found in office buildings, such as paper, wood, paints, plastics and many fibers. (ETA: btw., That's why the Harriet/Jones paper conclusively proves that the red/gray chips are NOT thermate: By their own data, they chips release more energy than thermite of any kind contains. Then again, I have to add a disclaimer here: paper would prove this conclusively, if the method used had been valid. It wasn't. So really the paper proves nothing except that its authors are incompetent /ETA) Since the thermate reaction releases no gas, it reaches its extremely high temperatures. However that heat quickly dissipates through radiation.
ETA: In other words: The thermite reaction produces very high temperatures locally (i.e. the reactants themselves get hot for a brief moment), but produces much less heat than conventional combustibles. Therefore, to reach the same sustained heat at a certain volume (say, a steal beam, or a trash heap), you need a lot more thermate than usual office contents. /ETA

How much thermate slag would you need to heat a steal beam to the required temperatures, given its low content of kJ/g, how could it have been places, and would it not have melted any materiel it was attached to while it burned? Why was no resolidified steel found anywhere in the 3 rubble piles?

 

[Oystein]

A bellows is used to provide the extra oxygen necessary to bring the fire up to a temperature that will heat steel to a point where it can be worked.

temperature <> heat
Given the same insulation, more oxygen will indeed help heat up your specimen more quickly.
Now you must start to also consider the effects of more or less insulation.
For a blacksmith, it is not practical to insulate his sword as he wants to have a free way hammering it. However, insulation is a factor in a debris pile.

Ventilation is a factor in retaining heat but attaining maximum temperatures of ~1000^oC requires a large air flow. This would not be possible in the WTC 7 debris pile IMO.

Ventilation at the same time increases heat release through burning AND increases heat dissipation through convection. Which of these effects is bigger always depends on cirsumstances.

What you say there was wrong the first time you said it, and it will continue to be wrong no matter how often you repeat it.

 

[Oystein]

liquefied: to become or make liquid
melted: change from solid to liquid state.
...

WRONG.

You forget something important there, that has been pointed out to you before, therefore I start suspecting that you are not only mistaken but consciously lying:

melted: change from solid to liquid state by adding heat.
That difference is fundamental to understanding the eutectic liquification (liquidation?).

 

[triforcharity]

Less oxygen = less heat. Do you know what a bellows is for?

To heat a steel beam that is constantly dissipating heat, fuel must be replenished. [FONT=&quot]A fire burning at 1000^oC would have to burn for a long time in one spot to heat a beam to 1000^oC.[/FONT]

Coal is concentrated carbon fuel. The combustibles in WTC 7 were crushed between 40 + concrete slabs.

No Chris, less oxygen=/= less heat. Less oxygen means less flame. The only reason a bellows works it because it adds ADDITIONAL oxygen into a fire, causing the fire to burn more effeciently.

Why do you insist on arguing about something you know nothing about? Why do you insist that ANY of the pile was oxygen-starved? This is where your biggest flaw is.

No, it would not. I refer you to the National Geographic expirement where they dumped about 7,000 gallons of jet fuel in a hole, put a loaded beam over it, and lit that thing up. How long did it take the beam to loose it's strength? 4 minutes.
You're talking out of your *** still.

 

[triforcharity]

99% of the evidence was destroyed. We have no idea what was destroyed.

This is a subject shift.

[FONT=&quot]The subject at hand is: Thermate is the only known source for the melted beam. People like to play with semantics but the beam melted.
[/FONT]
"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." - FEMA C pg 5

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To get a similar result, the WPI Team conducted this test:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Isothermal reaction of compacted FeS powder on ground surface of A36 in air for 12 hours at 1100[/FONT]^o[FONT=&quot]C[/FONT]
http://www.abmbrasil.com.br/cim/download/Vander_Voort.pps

A debris pile fire could not attain, much maintain 1100^oC for 12 hours. And this is with compacted FeS powder on a ground surface.

Huh? Really? Cite your source........ I'll wait...........

 

[excaza]

Huh? Really? Cite your source........ I'll wait...........

No, you state YOUR source that it CAN. I'll wait!

The only reason a bellows works it because it adds ADDITIONAL oxygen into a fire, causing the fire to burn more effeciently.

Small quibble, burn more quickly, nothing to do with efficiency.

 

[triforcharity]

A bellows is used to provide the extra oxygen necessary to bring the fire up to a temperature that will heat steel to a point where it can be worked.

Ventilation is a factor in retaining heat but attaining maximum temperatures of ~1000^oC requires a large air flow. This would not be possible in the WTC 7 debris pile IMO.

I found the problem Chris. I even went to the trouble to hilite it for you...

 

[Dave Rogers]

liquefied: to become or make liquid
melted: change from solid to liquid state.

What a bizarre response. I accuse you of twisting semantics, and your response is to twist semantics.

But you rule out the only known possibility.

Thermite is not a possibility. Nobody has demonstrated that it's capable of causing intergranular eutectic melting, and all the inferential evidence suggests that it isn't. Until you can propose a viable mechanism, which you've not even seriously attempted to do, thermite is not worthy of serious consideration.

And our wonderful American government is altruist, has our best interests at heart, and would never ever lie to us.

You are so deeply immersed in lies that you are not actually capable of representing an opposing position honestly.

Dave

 

[alienentity]

Correct. The limiting factor in a debris pile fire is oxygen.

But how much oxygen was available? What was the structure of the debris piles? Without that info you don't know what you're talking about.

Incorrect. Coal is concentrated fuel and cannot be compared to combustibles mixed with a larger amount of non-combustibles.

Wrong. It demonstrates that you can get very high temps with virtually no oxygen. Missed that critical point, you did.
The factors of fuel availability and insulation are questions you cannot answer, since you don't have that data. Ever ponder to think about diesel fuel or other materials which could provide energy? No, you didn't.

I said here is NO scientific evidence that sulfur from any source other than thermate can invade steel and cause the intergranular melting.

Nonsense. There's actually no evidence of either thermate or thermite, and you haven't provided any.

The melted beam is the evidence of thermate. There is NO other known explanation.

Nonsense. Just pure nonsense.

Is that the best you've got? It fails big time. Next issue...

 

[alienentity]

Christopher, you're not convincing anybody, because your repetitive claims are ridiculous.
I've rarely seen so much disingenuous handwaving, except by fairly dishonest debaters.

It's boring and stupid, really.

Onto ignore you go. Have a nice life.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Christopher,

Show all of us a picture of a steel beam melted by thermite/thermate. It must be documented by an expert who is well known in the world of using thermite/thermate. But you'd rather vent off like a village idiot rather than face facts that you're 100% wrong.

 

[funk de fino]

99% of the evidence was destroyed. We have no idea what was destroyed.

All the steel was inspected by forensic examiners and demo team member and public officials at the sorting site prior to being destroyed.

This is a subject shift.

No, it is not. Why did they only have a few pieces like this out of all that steel?

[FONT=&quot]The subject at hand is: Thermate is the only known source for the melted beam. People like to play with semantics but the beam melted.
[/FONT]
"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." - FEMA C pg 5

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To get a similar result, the WPI Team conducted this test:
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Isothermal reaction of compacted FeS powder on ground surface of A36 in air for 12 hours at 1100[/FONT]^o[FONT=&quot]C[/FONT]
http://www.abmbrasil.com.br/cim/download/Vander_Voort.pps

A debris pile fire could not attain, much maintain 1100^oC for 12 hours. And this is with compacted FeS powder on a ground surface.

More handwaving speculation. Why was there only a few pieces with this effect found?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So Chris thinks that "99% of the steel was destroyed". Really Chris? My town has a piece of WTC steel near the downtown area & in Hanger 17 at JFK Airport they have much more WTC steel that's locked up as evidence.