Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[leftysergeant]

True, this isn't CSI where things get solved before the commercial break. Nevertheless metal tampered with chemicals intended to burn it faster leave tell tale signs that are different from metal exposed to the file cabinet burning.

And there were no freaking signs of chemicals used to destroy the steel. The eutectic reaction was obviously caused by the sulphuric acid in the pile. anyone who has etched metal or bronzed baby shoes knows that.

There is no such thing as a residue-free explosive.

No guano, Bat Man!

We might not be looking for the right component, but residue is there. Samples could be taken and run through test to see what elements are found and this test recorded. And referenced later if questions of the presence of some element arises.

Derrrr....The residues would have shown up in the dust samples.

Opsuminda.

It didn't burn during the explosion and would burn later? If I burn metal with thermite and then pour gasoline over it and let it burn for more hours the evidence of thermite burn isn't going to go away. Thermite and particularly thermate cause chemical reactions in the steel. I'm not very sure a long term exposure to heat that doesn't melt the steel is going to do away with the sulfur now in the steel after thermate exposure.

You forgot something. Thermite leaves identifiable marks on the steel that any iron worker, fire fighter or cop would recognize.

Opsumnida. You loose, paleface.

 

[Senenmut]

NIST as well had a very clear criteria for their choice of samples. Their samples still had identifiable markings which could be used to determine their as-built locations prior to the collapse of the building. Conspiracy theorists seem to be of the mind that they should have simply gathered samples from the impact region without even knowing if the samples where actually from there or not. I suppose if you support an investigation that doesn't have any clear criteria that's your business, but you clearly need to understand the report you're criticizing. Pretending to find a middle-ground between conspiracy wooo and science, isn't working well for you.

do you have a source for this "clear criteria" idea. what it sounds like you are saying is that nist wouldnt be interested if the steel didnt have any identifiable markings? what if the sample came from the crash site but had
been reduced to razor thin and the marking were not there anymore. take for intance thi piece:
"For example, valuable information could come from analysis of the blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said"

or what if "melting" had occured and the marking were no longer there? take for intance this:

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, 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.

 

[Bell]

All explosions are detonations.

?!

 

[triforcharity]

[FONT=&quot]NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]NIST reply to stj911truth[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf[/FONT]

NIST aparently didn't need to, as ProTec had already done so.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

do you have a source for this "clear criteria" idea.

Read NCSTAR 1-3b chapter 3 & 4.

Chapter 3 of NCSTAR 1-3b, specifically 3.2 summarizes the method used to identify the samples starting with page 7.

From Chapter 4:

Of the 41 exterior column panels and 12 core columns positively identified, many were considered especially important to this investigation led by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Two major categories of steel are considered to be of special value:

• Samples located in or around the floors impacted by the plane
• Samples that represent 1 of 12 grades grades of steel specified for the exterior columns, and 1 of 4 grades of steel specified for the core coulmns, and 1 of the 2 grades of steel specified for the floor trusses

And you will also note the extensive references to markings for the steel in determining as-built locations on page 16 to 26:

p16:

Of the 42 positively identified exterior panels, 25 had specific markings, giving all of the information needed (building, column, floors) to locate the structural element within the building from one or both codes (ie. stampings or stencils)...

Seventeen other panels were positively identified using a combination of the stampings, including the specific yield strength and column type, the stenciled Derrick division number, or association to another panel...

p26:

For the 12 samples identified as core column material, all but two were clearly marked

One pice, C-26 (Fig. 3-14), was distinct among this group....<snip>
The markings on this piece indicated that the wide flanges were 50 ksi steel and came from the 107th floor of WTC1. Reviewing the design drawings, it was found that this piece was a component of the framed floor outside of the core.

You will also notice the explicit use of these labels in the photographic samples used in pages 39-45.

There is absolutely no question concerning how they chose their samples.

what it sounds like you are saying is that nist wouldn't be interested if the steel didnt have any identifiable markings? What if the sample came from the crash site but had been reduced to razor thin and the marking were not there anymore.

If the marking is not there then there's no way to determine where it was relative to the impact regions, which they were basing their study on. There's no way to determine if this corrosion was a product of pre-collapse conditions or the conditions in the debris pile.

take for intance thi piece:
"For example, valuable information could come from analysis of the blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said"

Once again, without the marking you have a sample, but you can't definitively determine where it was located. What if the sample was part of the structure that wasn't on fire prior to the collapse, but was exposed later during the months of cleanup?

or what if "melting" had occured and the marking were no longer there? take for intance this:

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, 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.

See above. And ASTANEH's position indicates he saw extensive samples of viscoelastic creep, which is not surprising considering this is well documented behavior in steel that has been heated to the point of losing most of it's structural integrity.

 

[leftysergeant]

I understand that HEAT rounds have a warhead in the order of 9 kg (metal, explosives, detonating cap, etc) and they can cut through 400mm+ of armour. I don't think the columns were that thick so considerably less would be needed don't you think?

No.

Plus you could also use something like a two stage device. Throw thermite at it to heat and weaken the structure then fire the detonation.

Wouldn't work. The attempt would leave identifiable marks that were not there in any of the samples, nor was the sound of any sauch charges heard. You really have no training, experience or education in these matters., so it might be better for you to take Mark Twain's advice about appearing to be a fool.

 

[Java Man]

The attempt would leave identifiable marks that were not there in any of the samples,

But I can take the "NIST sampling technique" to prove that there were explosives given the sample was to small to rule out explosives even when explosive remains were not found. Just like they ruled that temperatures reached over 250ºC when no samples were found to be exposed to temperatures higher than 250ºC.

 

[Oystein]

But I can take the "NIST sampling technique" to prove that there were explosives given the sample was to small to rule out explosives even when explosive remains were not found. Just like they ruled that temperatures reached over 250ºC when no samples were found to be exposed to temperatures higher than 250ºC.

Huh? The mind boggles!

NIST's not finding samples that reached more than temp X leads them to not supposing any did, or at least to not using that supposition to proof anything.

You propose the exact opposite: Take the lack of evidence for explosives as proof that there were explosives! Simply because of sample size.


So, if I search for diamonds in my underwear drawer, and nowhere else in my apartment, does the small sample size mean there are diamonds in my apartment? If so, you get half of them, but you must promise to buy all of us a beer!

 

[Java Man]

That's stupid.

All the loose debris was sifted three times by hand and eye. Many of the people in the first two passes knew what demoLition kit looked like.

Really? I hope your loud sounding arguments don't turn out debunked like TruthersLie's about sonic booms blowing windows to seventh heaven. Just like TruthersLie you're trying to convince by loud talking. But who were these people? Where did they come from? What were their credentials? How do you know they were so knowledgeable. Were they all equally experienced? How long were their shifts? Did they rest enough to be able to perform this job well? And if so where are the facts?

 

[beachnut]

I have. Think about the following. Are charges placed on reinforced concrete pillars meant to cut right through or shatter the concrete so the steel mesh inside just collapses under the weight?

Vis a vis, concrete pillars are thicker than steel only pillars.

What does this have to do with the eutectic? Is the topic too technical for you hearsay and lies to handle?

Start your own thread on other nonsense not related to 911.

And MM could take the same advice. Can you find the eutectic in this

We know all 3 towers had masses of electrical wiring running throughout them.

Based on your expectations, much of this wiring should have also been apparent in the debris.

Could you show me some?

And if you succeed triforcharity, can you prove the wiring debris isn't det cord?

MM

The wire was in the dump or melted and in the dump. No explosives were used or found, no evidence. Understand no evidence? It is what you have for your delusions of CD as you fail to tie eutectic to your 8 years failed CD tripe.

 

[carlitos]

Your incredulity is tiresome. Educate yourself.

Really?

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/partial-list-of-agencies-organizations.html

 

[beachnut]

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/partial-list-of-agencies-organizations.html

What is true, on 911 they were looking for explosives. We were under attack and the FBI was looking for explosives. Did not find any.

What is sad, we have a thread about eutectic, and the 911 truth believers have to go off topic to spew lies since the eutectic is too technical for their shallow, failed, shoddy research.

 

[Java Man]

What does this have to do with the eutectic? Is the topic too technical for you hearsay and lies to handle?

Well how can you have a eutectic reaction if your steel is covered by concrete as in a reinforced concrete column we commonly see in the videos cited.

WTC columns were all steel. So we are basing a great deal of conclusions on videos of reinforced concrete columns not all steel columns. That's odd and something that I'm bringing to light with this questioning. The relevance is thus very high because we could be using the wrong type of videos to arrive to conclusions which could not be valid for all steel structures.

 

[carlitos]

Videos? WTF?

ETA - Here is the original post.

Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDF...layer_embedded

So what's wrong with the experiment? What's it's weaknesses? Does it have any validity? If not, why not?

I don't think it's perfect, but I think this is a very helpful experiment. As Cole points out, whereas there may be sources for sulfur in the building materials, how did it enter the intergranular structure? And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?

If this video and experiment is not the type of sincere research that can be done by independent scientists, I'd like to know what is. Besides there are shoutouts to Jones, Greening and Mackey. Enjoy.

 

[Senenmut]

Read NCSTAR 1-3b chapter 3 & 4.

Chapter 3 of NCSTAR 1-3b, specifically 3.2 summarizes the method used to identify the samples starting with page 7.

From Chapter 4:



And you will also note the extensive references to markings for the steel in determining as-built locations on page 16 to 26:

You will also notice the explicit use of these labels in the photographic samples used in pages 39-45.

There is absolutely no question concerning how they chose their samples.

If the marking is not there then there's no way to determine where it was relative to the impact regions, which they were basing their study on. There's no way to determine if this corrosion was a product of pre-collapse conditions or the conditions in the debris pile.

i know they were marked and that could help determine where they were located in the wtc.

what if these pieces were on top of the pile early in the aftermath that showed "corrosion". it would be logical that it started before and continued after the collapse only to cool in the debris pile.
take this example:
these pieces were seen between sept 19 and sept 29th:
"For example, valuable information could come from analysis of the blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said."
also just 9 days after from wtc 7 (9 days? do you think they were digging deep in the debris pile):
"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

some of the towers were also like strata which would make it alittle easier to figgure out which floors the steel came from if it didnt have any marking:
"Here were ten stories of the South Tower, compacted into an area of about six feet.”

Once again, without the marking you have a sample, but you can't definitively determine where it was located. What if the sample was part of the structure that wasn't on fire prior to the collapse, but was exposed later during the months of cleanup?

your right!! no need to save those flanges that had been reduced to razor thin in just a couple of weeks or that piece of wtc 7 steel that lost 15.9mm of a36 steel in 9 days!!! lets just melt it down and make a new boat for the military with it!

See above. And ASTANEH's position indicates he saw extensive samples of viscoelastic creep, which is not surprising considering this is well documented behavior in steel that has been heated to the point of losing most of it's structural integrity.

got a source stating that prof Astaneh-asl's position is that he thinks its from vicoelastic creep?

"He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.”


note that he says nothing of viscoelastic creep. i wonder what happened to this sample as C7 pointed out earlier? gone to china i guess!!

 

[BigAl]

Really? I hope your loud sounding arguments don't turn out debunked like TruthersLie's about sonic booms blowing windows to seventh heaven. Just like TruthersLie you're trying to convince by loud talking. But who were these people? Where did they come from? What were their credentials? How do you know they were so knowledgeable. Were they all equally experienced? How long were their shifts? Did they rest enough to be able to perform this job well? And if so where are the facts?

The debris handling at WTC is described in the history books. I recommend Nine Months at Ground Zero: The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took on a Job Like No Other - Charles Vitchers - Robert Gray - Glenn Stout.

To paraphrase the book; The team with the rake, shovel and pail went through the debris as they filled the bucket. The bucket was passed back to the front-end loader and it was sifted by hand sifted through once more. Then it was trucked to the landfill operation described below.

Any other questions?

SI Landfill operation

http://disaster.pandj.com/World Trade Center Forensic Recovery.pdf​

There was so much going on visually that it was impossible to grasp the enormity of it, so the team took pictures to allow them to study the specifics of the site in more detail. The initial debris
estimate included 125,000 tons of glass, 50,000 tons of steel, 450,000 cubic yards of concrete, 12,000 miles of electrical cable, and 198 miles of ductwork.


They estimated that Ground Zero looked to have about a million cubic yards of debris


Guiliani had promised that 100 percent of the victims would be identified, and the way he chose to do that was to haul everything to the Staten Island Landfill, lay it out and let the agents
(NYPD, FBI, Secret Service, CIA, and K-9 units) go through the debris looking for evidence


The first thing the P&J team did when they took over the site was to make life easier for the agents. The debris was being laid out on the ground, and the agents (about 2,000 of them working 24/7) would have to rake through the debris looking for body parts, personal effects, and evidence at their feet. We brought in Picking Stations, which placed the debris at waist level on
conveyor belts. This immediately cut down on the fatigue level and increased productivity

Over 55,000 discrete pieces of evidence had been recovered

• 4,257 body parts had been recovered
  
• Debris from Ground Zero was brought to the landfill via truck or barge
  
• Large metal debris was separated and investigated
  
• Remaining debris was carried to Shaker Screens by front-end loaders where grapple backhoes fed the Shakers
  
• The Shaker Screens separated the debris into two distinct debris streams: larger fragments that slid off the top of the screen and finer debris (fines) that fell through the screen
  
• The larger fragments were moved to a manual sorting area for investigation

The fines were taken to one of the Screening Plants for processing where they were further separated into two debris streams: small mixed fragments and very small mixed fragments

These two sizes of mixed fragments were passed onto separate conveyor belts that carried the debris to Picking Stations where agents manned each side of the conveyor belt and
investigated the debris as it passed

After sorting and investigation by agents, the debris was dealt with as follows:

Human remains were separated and placed into protective containers and then removed to the on-site morgue for further analysis

Evidence was placed in secure Evidence Trailers for future processing

 

[beachnut]

i...
got a source stating that prof Astaneh-asl's position ...!!

He said your ideas on 911 are nonsense. You use a source who says no CD, no termite, no inside job. Why make up delusions about the eutectic when they only prove you are making up delusions? You have no evidence, no substance, no rational story on 911.

Please stop using experts who have conclusions which don't support your delusional conclusion. It is self-debunking.

 

[Senenmut]

He said your ideas on 911 are nonsense. You use a source who says no CD, no termite, no inside job. Why make up delusions about the eutectic when they only prove you are making up delusions? You have no evidence, no substance, no rational story on 911.

Please stop using experts who have conclusions which don't support your delusional conclusion. It is self-debunking.

he stated that he did not see molten metal. i have NOT stated that he saw molten metal. get with the program man.

 

[beachnut]

here is an interesting part of jennings transcript. you might have already read it:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Barry_Jennings#Transcript_from_interview
......
He found the stairwell... we went down the stairs. When we reached the sixth floor... there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging and I had to climb back up and I had to walk back up to the 8th floor... it was dark and very very hot. I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows.

Once I broke out the windows I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire, buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there, I looked the other, the building was gone. I was trapped in there for several hours. I was trapped in there when both buildings came down.

The firefighters came. I was going to come down on the fire hose, because I didn't want to stay there because it was too hot; they came to the window and started yelling "do not do that, it won't hold you". And then they ran away. I didn't know what was going on. That's when the first tower fell.

When they started running, the first tower started coming down. I had no way of knowing that. And then I saw them come back... with more concern on their faces. And then they ran away again. The second tower fell.


from that account, the explosions happened before either tower fell down.

Eutectic? LOL


Jennings landing falling, not exploding? Was due to debris from the WTC tower damaging WTC 7. How does the eutectic play in this part of your fuzzy, not well defined delusions on 911?

 

[Java Man]

The debris handling at WTC is described in the history books. I recommend Nine Months at Ground Zero: The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took on a Job Like No Other - Charles Vitchers - Robert Gray - Glenn Stout.

To paraphrase the book; The team with the rake, shovel and pail went through the debris as they filled the bucket. The bucket was passed back to the front-end loader and it was sifted by hand sifted through once more. Then it was trucked to the landfill operation described below.

Any other questions?

Yes, what were the findings of the "further processing" done to the evidence? Is that documented?