Gage's next debate

[NoahFence]

We in the Truth Movement are trying to generate enough awareness to force Congress to have a real investigation.

Sit down, read it slowly and let it sink in:

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
Why?
You don't have nearly enough new evidence to warrant a new investigation. And by "not nearly enough" I really mean "ZERO"

And you hand wave all the witnesses who heard explosions including these firefighters who tell of huge explosions that destroyed the lobby of one of the Trade Towers.

Wow. Firefighters heard explosions.
At the site of the worst terrorist attack mankind has ever seen. That's strange....
(FYI - Explosions do not equal explosives)

It is inappropriate to compare an investigation of a mass murder to a request for an investigation based on religious mythology or other such silliness.

Hardly. 9/11 "truth" is a myth.

Investigating the President's sex life was purely political and a travesty. We are talking about a mass murder.

Yes. A mass murder case that has already been solved.

The term "Truther investigation" is condescending. This is the typical attitude of those who staunchly defend the OCT. The superior attitude does not denote superiority, it's just attitude.

The science is there but you find reasons not to believe it.

Well, we choose not to believe YOUR science because it's flawed. No new investigation will take place, ever. Just give Box Boy Gage more of your hard earned money, and let him do a puff piece investigation. Any new investigation will NOT result in your desired outcome - the government did it. Why? Because they didn't. It will NOT find thermite/thermate/supernanotermites. Why? Because they weren't there. You can't sit here and talk about thermite in one breath, and explosions in the other. Thermite isn't explosive. You're contradicting yourself.

 

[LashL]

Since some of you are apparently incapable or unwilling to adhere to your Membership Agreement and incapable or unwilling to follow the Mod directives posted via mod-boxes and such previously in this thread, particularly about off-topic posts and going far afield with off-topic pet subjects and such, the thread is being closed temporarily until it can be cleaned up and appropriate Moderator actions taken.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[LashL]

The thread is being re-opened, after a whole bunch of posts have been moved to the General Discussion thread. Last warning: stick to the topic of this thread AND stick to the Membership Agreement. Failure to do so will likely result in the full weight of sanctions coming down upon you faster than free fall acceleration.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[triforcharity]

Prove it!!!






J/k kidding LashL!

 

[Christopher7]

The thread is being re-opened, after a whole bunch of posts have been moved to the General Discussion thread. Last warning: stick to the topic of this thread AND stick to the Membership Agreement. Failure to do so will likely result in the full weight of sanctions coming down upon you faster than free fall acceleration.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

LashL,

If I respond the NoahFence's blanket denial of the evidence it will illicit a barrage of responses that you might consider to be off topic like the ones you just moved. I appreciate your dilemma of trying to keep this thread on topic so I would like some guidance on whether or not I should challenge NF or wait until Chris responds.

Thank you for your forbearance and willingness to moderate this forum. Without people like yourself who donate their time and try to keep some semblance of order, there could be no forum discussion.

Chris

 

[chrismohr]

conduct on this sulfidized thread?

Hi all,

I appreciate Chris's willingness to try to stay on point with this thread, and maybe our threadmaster can give us a couple quick guidelines. Certainly anything to do with my Mohr/Gage debate, either responding to the debate or helping me prepare for its epilogue. Outside of that, I too am unclear what is and isn't appropriate.

Having said that, a thanks again for everyone who helped me understand the freefall collapse of Building 7, which I will definitely include in my Epilogues. My next question actually relates to the eutectic/sulfidized steel. Truth activists use this as evidence for thermates, and Ryan Mackey's white paper actually asserts that we don't know for sure how the sulfidized steel happened. But we do know that it melts at 1740F, which is in the range of a hot office fire and therefore doesn't show thermate-level temperatures.

There was a raging debate going on re corrosion vs melting before our thread shutdown, how much melted, etc. My eyes glazed over but I want to try to take it on again, slow and easy please for this nonchemist. I have been unconvinced by arguments that sulfur in the gypsum/drywall could have done this. Battery acid from cars seems new... is there a way to prove this and then explain it to a layperson like me and my audience?

Also, how much sulfidized steel was there? My understanding was that it was less than 1% of the total steel, not enough to explain a thermate overkill, for example. Does anyone have useful info for the debate epilogues re this question?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Hi all,

I appreciate Chris's willingness to try to stay on point with this thread, and maybe our threadmaster can give us a couple quick guidelines. Certainly anything to do with my Mohr/Gage debate, either responding to the debate or helping me prepare for its epilogue. Outside of that, I too am unclear what is and isn't appropriate.

Having said that, a thanks again for everyone who helped me understand the freefall collapse of Building 7, which I will definitely include in my Epilogues. My next question actually relates to the eutectic/sulfidized steel. Truth activists use this as evidence for thermates, and Ryan Mackey's white paper actually asserts that we don't know for sure how the sulfidized steel happened. But we do know that it melts at 1740F, which is in the range of a hot office fire and therefore doesn't show thermate-level temperatures.

There was a raging debate going on re corrosion vs melting before our thread shutdown, how much melted, etc. My eyes glazed over but I want to try to take it on again, slow and easy please for this nonchemist. I have been unconvinced by arguments that sulfur in the gypsum/drywall could have done this. Battery acid from cars seems new... is there a way to prove this and then explain it to a layperson like me and my audience?

Also, how much sulfidized steel was there? My understanding was that it was less than 1% of the total steel, not enough to explain a thermate overkill, for example. Does anyone have useful info for the debate epilogues re this question?

Whoa, whoa, wait... before going in depth into any of the other things here, there's an important point to make here: Eutectic corrision is not steel melting. I know that too many truthers take it as an article of faith that they're the same thing, but they're not. Ryan Mackey put it best:

The eutectic temperature of a mixture is the lowest melting point of any constituent chemical compound. The mixture is "eutectic" in the sense that once the lowest melting temperature is reached, the entire mixture may be treated as liquid. Think of water ice well mixed with frozen alcohol -- once you melt the alcohol, the entire thing is a slurry; you do not have to reach the melting temperature of ice.

This finding is significant because it implies the original steel was never heated far beyond this temperature. If it had, the different compounds would be expected to separate or form other products. 1000^oC is far below the temperature one would expect from a "thermate cutting charge," or for that matter any form of deliberate demolition whatsoever! It is, however, completely consistent with a raging office building fire with additional diesel fuel tanks.

This is background knowledge; I'm not really certain how it would translate into actual debate points besides demonstrating that the opponents don't know what they're talking about. Regardless, it's an important distinction because the eutectic corrosion simply cannot be used as evidence for molten steel. It is not.

Also: There's another larger point about microstructures formed by the sulfidation attacks, but it's a bit much to state here in detail. So just take the following away from all of this:

1. The steel was not rendered molten; rather, out of all the various components, the one had the lowest melting point (Fe-S, Fe-O, or whatever else formed and became part of the "slag"... there are multiple candidates) was the one that became liquid to any degree.
2. The microstructures formed by the sulfidation attack on the steel would not have survived the temperatures thermite reacts at. A thermite reaction would've obliterated those structures. There's a post by Sunstealer (I think) somewhere around here that goes into more detail on this, but I don't have it handy; suffice to say that all you really have to do is read the various Worcester papers on the steel, note the components of the microstructures, and note that the temperatures they disassociate at are well beneath what thermite reacts at. In short, you wouldn't have had the layers that the Worcester Polytechnic team observed had thermite/thermate been used. The presence of those microstructures along the edges of the corroded areas actually disprove the use of thermite/thermate because they would have been obliterated by that thermite reaction.

If Sunstealer speaks up on this, pay close attention to him. He's the metallurgist; I'm simply someone who's had some undergrad chem classes in his lifetime. If there's any contradiction between what he says and what I posted, take his above mine. I'm reasonably sure I'm in the ballpark, but he's the professional at this; I'll defer to any corrections he makes on all of this.

 

[ozeco41]

Agreed - this is Sunstealer's turf not mine.

 

[Christopher7]

Hi all,

I appreciate Chris's willingness to try to stay on point with this thread, and maybe our threadmaster can give us a couple quick guidelines. Certainly anything to do with my Mohr/Gage debate, either responding to the debate or helping me prepare for its epilogue. Outside of that, I too am unclear what is and isn't appropriate.

Having said that, a thanks again for everyone who helped me understand the freefall collapse of Building 7, which I will definitely include in my Epilogues. My next question actually relates to the eutectic/sulfidized steel. Truth activists use this as evidence for thermates, and Ryan Mackey's white paper actually asserts that we don't know for sure how the sulfidized steel happened. But we do know that it melts at 1740F, which is in the range of a hot office fire and therefore doesn't show thermate-level temperatures.

Steel melts at 2750F. Only thermite with added sulfur making it thermate can lower the melting temperature of steel. The FEMA team tried to replicate the melted beam but they used unrealistic conditions in their test:
"The results of a laboratory heating experiment at 1100ºC [2000ºF] for 12 hours where an iron sulfide (FeS) powder was placed on ground and cleaned A36 steel surface prior to heating is presented in Fig.13. The microstructure that developed showed oxidation, sulfidation and eutectic liquid reactions that are quite similar to the microstructure that formed on the WTC 7 steel in the fire."
http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf

There was a raging debate going on re corrosion vs melting before our thread shutdown, how much melted, etc. My eyes glazed over but I want to try to take it on again, slow and easy please for this nonchemist. I have been unconvinced by arguments that sulfur in the gypsum/drywall could have done this. Battery acid from cars seems new... is there a way to prove this and then explain it to a layperson like me and my audience?

The melted/corroded debate is really one of semantics and a diversion from the point that it is not enough to simply have sulfur present or this would happen in other fires. The combustible contents in the debris pile were mixed with noncombustibles.

Also, how much sulfidized steel was there? My understanding was that it was less than 1% of the total steel, not enough to explain a thermate overkill, for example. Does anyone have useful info for the debate epilogues re this question?

99.5% of all the steel evidence was destroyed. The steel was being removed at the rate of about 400 truckloads a day. The FEMA volunteers never saw most of it and only managed to save a few pieces of what they were allowed to inspect.
The team of experts that studied the Sample #1 from WTC 7 are a helluva lot more qualified than Ryan Mackey or the anonymous Sunstealer.

Dr Barrett, who headed the team that studied Sample #1, could not explain the corrosion/melting - but they did not consider thermate even though the spectrogram indicated that it was.

Dr. Barrett did say that the steel should have been photographed, its location noted and inspected as it was removed. At 17:56
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l183LaNay0A&feature=player_embedded#at=206

No one was killed in WTC 7 and there was no need destroy the evidence of what caused the collapse. The investigation of WTC 7 has been compared to conducting an autopsy without the corps.

 

[Sunstealer]

This will probably be the last time I make a constructive post in this thread because it just takes far too long to debunk C7's tiresome posts due to the quantity of incorrect statements.

Steel melts at 2750F. Only thermite with added sulfur making it thermate can lower the melting temperature of steel.

Preposterous nonsense. Thermite melts other metals due to the high heat of reaction not by solid state diffusion of a gas into the parent metal which was observed due to sulphides being found below the solid un-melted surface of the steel. Thermite can't do that.

"Steel" melts over a temperature range between the solidus and the liquidus. Liquid and solid exist together in that range until either the solidus is reached on cooling or the liquidus is reached on heating. Learn the Iron Carbon phase diagram!

Secondly no aluminium in the photomicrograph means no thermite. Simples.

The FEMA team tried to replicate the melted beam but they used unrealistic conditions in their test:
"The results of a laboratory heating experiment at 1100ºC [2000ºF] for 12 hours where an iron sulfide (FeS) powder was placed on ground and cleaned A36 steel surface prior to heating is presented in Fig.13. The microstructure that developed showed oxidation, sulfidation and eutectic liquid reactions that are quite similar to the microstructure that formed on the WTC 7 steel in the fire."
http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf

Nope, you miss the point of the test. The test was to examine whether FeS has an effect at 1100°C. We know FeS was produced because it's in the microstructure of the sample recovered, therefore they wanted a quick way to replicate the effect.

You don't understand the report. Where's the Al/Al2O3, a product of the thermite reaction, in that report? No Al = no thermite.

The melted/corroded debate is really one of semantics and a diversion from the point that it is not enough to simply have sulfur present or this would happen in other fires. The combustible contents in the debris pile were mixed with noncombustibles.

There is no debate. The science is in the reports and the mechanism of corrosion is well enough understood for us to recognise it. Semantics has no place. If you think it's just semantics then things are gonna get technical very, very, quickly.

The team of experts that studied the Sample #1 from WTC 7 are a helluva lot more qualified than Ryan Mackey or the anonymous Sunstealer.

I'll agree with that, but it makes no difference - their report is exactly what I'm saying. If you understand the science then you can't conclude anything else but high temperature corrosion via sulphidation, oxidation, decarburisation leading to a liquid Fe-O-S causing inter-granular attack.

Dr Barrett, who headed the team that studied Sample #1, could not explain the corrosion/melting - but they did not consider thermate even though the spectrogram indicated that it was.

Bolded is wrong - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Barnett puts his name to that and the report explains the corrosion mechanism.

Secondly which EDX spectra are you talking about? The harrit et al paper or the two papers/reports in this post? Where is the aluminium in the corroded steel in the paper you quote? Where is the Sulphur in the Harrit et al paper? It's not there - therefore no thermite/thermate.

See - it's tedious. That's why I gave it a rest in 2009.

 

[triforcharity]

Sunstealer,

I was talking to one of the firefighting instructors about this just now, and he made a point that I am not familiar with. Hoping you could clear that up.

When you burn polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP) high density polyethylene (HDPE) does it produce sulfer as a byproduct of combustion?

I wasn't sure, so I figured you would be the perfect person to ask.

Cheers!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Sunstealer,

I was talking to one of the firefighting instructors about this just now, and he made a point that I am not familiar with. Hoping you could clear that up.

When you burn polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP) high density polyethylene (HDPE) does it produce sulfer as a byproduct of combustion?

I wasn't sure, so I figured you would be the perfect person to ask.

Cheers!

I don't mean to speak for Sunstealer, so if he knows something I don't, he should respond anyway. But to the best of my knowledge, there's no sulfur in those polymers.

--------

But, to riff on a point I just recalled earlier: In regards to sulfidation attacks, Frank Greening in his Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster paper had noted that the presence of chlorines in a slag would contribute towards metal corrosion in high temp conditions. He cited these four works for that tidbit:

• K. Natesan et al. “Fireside Corrosion of Alloys for Combustion Power Plants.” U.S. D.O.E Report Under Contract W-31-109-Eng-38. 2001.
• A. Karlsson et al. “Iron and Steel Corrosion in a System of O2, SO2 and Alkali Chloride. The Formation of Low Melting Point Salt Mixtures.” Corrosion Science 30, 153, (1990).
• H. J. Grabke et al. “The effects of Chlorides, Hydrogen Chloride, and Sulfur Dioxide in the Oxidation of Steels Below Deposits.” Corrosion Science 37, 1023, (1995).
• D. A. Shifler. “High-Temperature Gaseous Corrosion Testing.”

As Dr. Greening noted:

These sulfur and chlorine-rich deposits tend to form fluxes with the protective iron oxide scale that cause accelerated wastage of the base metal. Studies have shown that the tendency to form deposits increases under reducing conditions when CO (carbon monoxide) is present. Under these circumstances deposition rates as high as 1g of deposit per kilogram of fuel are possible. We therefore suggest that some areas of the WTC rubble pile were exposed to conditions comparable to those in a furnace chimney where hot combustion gases rich in CO, carrying particles of alkali sulfates, impinged on steel surfaces. This led to the formation of hot (up to 800 ^oC) corrosive slags that initiated exothermic reactions with steel and other surfaces, thereby sustaining the slag’s molten state.

So while sulfur shouldn't be in PVC/polypropylene/polyethylene polymers, the chlorine in PVC could indeed be a factor in the corrosion being discussed.

Sorry if this is digressing away from what you were asking, but since it's a point I was going to make anyway, and a small part of it dovetails a tiny bit with your question, I went ahead and wrote it.

 

[triforcharity]

ElMondo,

No problem! I appreciate the links. I will look at them later.

Sent from my BlackBerry© on the Sprint Now Network©

 

[Christopher7]

I have been unconvinced by arguments that sulfur in the gypsum/drywall could have done this. Battery acid from cars seems new... is there a way to prove this and then explain it to a layperson like me and my audience?

Steel melts at 2750F. Only thermite with added sulfur making it thermate can lower the melting temperature of steel.

The point is: Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam. Sulfur from drywall is speculation. The FEMA "test" was totally unrealistic.

1) It requires a pile of pure iron sulfide powder on a ground and cleaned beam.

2) It only mentions a similar EDX result but it does not say the beam actually melted/corroded like Sample #1.

3) Extracting sulfur dioxide from drywall requires a very specific set of conditions including an atmosphere containing nitrogen. These conditions are only attainable in a kiln where the atmosphere is controlled.

4) Even if the powdered drywall could produce a significant amount of sulfur dioxide, the drywall was only about 30% of the dust and the sulfur would be very diversified.

5) They don't even try to explain how sulfur dioxide combined with iron to produce iron sulfide.


The following is bombastic BS double talk

Thermite melts other metals due to the high heat of reaction not by solid state diffusion of a gas into the parent metal which was observed due to sulphides being found below the solid un-melted surface of the steel. Thermite can't do that.

[FONT=&quot]You don't know what activated thermate will do to structural steel. You don't have an EDX of a thermate attack on structural steel.
[/FONT]

"Steel" melts over a temperature range between the solidus and the liquidus. Liquid and solid exist together in that range until either the solidus is reached on cooling or the liquidus is reached on heating.

Steel starts to lose its shape at around 2650-2700ºF and is considered "liquid" [can be poured] at about 2750 ºF.

Secondly which EDX spectra are you talking about? The harrit et al paper or the two papers/reports in this post? Where is the aluminium in the corroded steel in the paper you quote? Where is the Sulphur in the Harrit et al paper? It's not there - therefore no thermite/thermate.

Thermate is the only known explanation for melted/corroded beam from WTC 7.

The nano-thernite found in the dust did not contain a significant amount of sulfur.

An intelligent person would immediately recognize that these two are not related.

This is evidence that both were present. It takes some very twisted logic to conclude that this evidence proves neither was present.

If you knew anything about thermite you would know that the aluminum is vaporized and released as white smoke during the thermetic reaction.

 

[R.Mackey]

Sunstealer,

I was talking to one of the firefighting instructors about this just now, and he made a point that I am not familiar with. Hoping you could clear that up.

When you burn polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP) high density polyethylene (HDPE) does it produce sulfer as a byproduct of combustion?

I wasn't sure, so I figured you would be the perfect person to ask.

Cheers!

Not Sunstealer, but if I recall correctly, the answer is no. But you can get hydrochloric acid. This was an angle that Dr. Greening worked on a long time ago. There is historical precedent for this creating higher-than-normal but not terrifying concentrations of HCl, and some actual corrosion of metals, in real fires.

However, with HCl and wallboard, you could get H₂S or maybe even some sulfuric acid in detectable quantities.

This is not a crazy hypothesis. It bears looking into. I'm pretty sure the effect is too subtle to matter in this case, though.

ETA: Bah, beaten to it. Sorry.

 

[newton3376]

The point is: Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.

Incorrect.

Thermate is actually one of the most unlikely explanations.....

You don't know what activated thermate will do to structural steel. You don't have an EDX of a thermate attack on structural steel.

Are you reading what Sunstealer is writing?

Steel starts to lose its shape at around 2650-2700ºF and is considered "liquid" [can be poured] at about 2750 ºF.

Once again...

Are you reading what Sunstealer is writing?

Thermate is the only known explanation for melted/corroded beam from WTC 7.

Nope. Incorrect.

The nano-thernite found in the dust did not contain a significant amount of sulfur.

No one found any nano "thermite", "thermate", "sooper dooper thermite", etc.

I think thats one of the issues you are having.....you think someone found this stuff in the dust....and once again you are incorrect.

 

[Sunstealer]

Sunstealer,

I was talking to one of the firefighting instructors about this just now, and he made a point that I am not familiar with. Hoping you could clear that up.

When you burn polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP) high density polyethylene (HDPE) does it produce sulfer as a byproduct of combustion?

I wasn't sure, so I figured you would be the perfect person to ask.

Cheers!

Answered already by others. I'm not the only one who knows stuff like this! Even a chemist will know.

P.S. sorry, as a metallurgist I've always had a friendly rivalry with chemists. Hated organic chemistry at A-level and I've never had a good chemistry teacher but, in this case, they would be the perfect person to ask.

 

[Sunstealer]

3) Extracting sulfur dioxide from drywall requires a very specific set of conditions including an atmosphere containing nitrogen. These conditions are only attainable in a kiln where the atmosphere is controlled.

Could you please tell us why nitrogen is so important/significant in this regard.

Thanks.

 

[triforcharity]

Answered already by others. I'm not the only one who knows stuff like this! Even a chemist will know.

P.S. sorry, as a metallurgist I've always had a friendly rivalry with chemists. Hated organic chemistry at A-level and I've never had a good chemistry teacher but, in this case, they would be the perfect person to ask.

Thanks Sun. I for some reason thought you were a chemist.

Ryan an El Mondo, thanks again!

 

[Dave Rogers]

3) Extracting sulfur dioxide from drywall requires a very specific set of conditions including an atmosphere containing nitrogen. These conditions are only attainable in a kiln where the atmosphere is controlled.

Because it's not like there's much nitrogen in the atmosphere normally? Nice work, Chris; it's good to see you back in contention for the Stundies.

Dave