Metatheory and the NIST report

[Par]

To THIS ARTICLE.

Can you substantiate your insinuation that the article (CITED ABOUT 1/4 inch ABOVE) does not conclude the WPI steel is evidence of melted steel?

And had you bothered to read the paper, you'd know that it concludes the steel samples didn't get nearly hot enough to be molten. Oops.

Yes, and Gravy was refering to the paper.

 

[Gravy]

Seriously, Gravy, do you believe NIST makes a "good" argument to use the more severe case? If so, on what basis do you believe that?

Seriously, Jay, yes, I do. Did you read about the uncertainties in modeling the tenant spaces? Did you happen to notice that the increased consumable load in the simulations only caused significantly higher temperatures in WTC 2, and not 1? And did you happen to read NIST's explanation for that phenomenon? Various knowns and unknowns are discussed, and how they would affect fire progression and consumable combustibility. It's interesting. You should read it. You know the chapter.

 

[jay howard]

As I said, search this forum. There are at least two threads about this issue. That the particles are expected in a hot fire is not my opinion. Researchers testing dust samples were looking to use such particles as markers, and they say these iron spherules were expected to be found.

Please make an argument or sit on the sidelines.

Jay, the article is about the results of a study. The study is cited. The study says the steel in question did not nearly get hot enough to melt. Read it before making a further fool of yourself. Is that too much to ask?

The fool offers the first paragraph for further discussion:

"There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

You don't need to go far in this article to get to melted steel. Maybe you have some interesting explanation for the eutectic reaction that the NIST experts were either incapable or unwilling to address.

Do you understand why the author uses the word "yet" to begin the bolded sentence? I'll bet you do.

 

[GlennB]

O.k., is that your explanation, or is this just an ad hoc theory to try an maintain your original position?

Is this a good explanation? Can we repeat it? Do we see it anywhere else?

Firstly :
The Worchester article you quote is a summary of the FEMA study here .

In this the authors conclude, very clearly, that the temperatures involved would have "approached 1000C". In others words, well below the melting point of steel (my bolding).

The article you quote in support of your position actually destroys it. Perhaps you don't understand the word "eutectic", or didn't actually read the article through?

Secondly :
To repeat the findings experimentally would be extremely difficult, I would imagine, given the circumstances in which the steel found itself at GZ.


You're doing the Truther Tango, jay. Hopping around from one point to another as each of your precious scraps of "evidence" is debunked.

 

[Gravy]

Yes, and Gravy was refering to the paper.

Here, Jay, I'll help you out. From guest poster R. Mackey. And here.

 

[jay howard]

Seriously, Jay, yes, I do. Did you read about the uncertainties in modeling the tenant spaces? Did you happen to notice that the increased consumable load in the simulations only caused significantly higher temperatures in WTC 2, and not 1? And did you happen to read NIST's explanation for that phenomenon? Various knowns and unknowns are discussed, and how they would affect fire progression and consumable combustibility. It's interesting. You should read it. You know the chapter.

Again, Gravy, you present no argument to substantiate your position. You simply say I'm wrong and don't understand the report.

That tactic might work on some people, but from an analytic perspective, it is hollow.

Present an argument or sit back. Everything else is noise.

 

[Gravy]

Please make an argument or sit on the sidelines.

I have no interest in rehashing a long thread. If you need help using the forum search function, let me know.

The fool offers the first paragraph for further discussion:

Which fool would that be? Barnett is highly respected.

"There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

You don't need to go far in this article to get to melted steel. Maybe you have some interesting explanation for the eutectic reaction that the NIST experts were either incapable or unwilling to address.

Do you understand why the author uses the word "yet" to begin the bolded sentence? I'll bet you do.

You are doing very poorly. You have ignored multiple requests to read the cited paper.

 

[Gravy]

Again, Gravy, you present no argument to substantiate your position. You simply say I'm wrong and don't understand the report.

That tactic might work on some people, but from an analytic perspective, it is hollow.

Present an argument or sit back. Everything else is noise.

Jay, you misunderstand me. I do not present any novel hypotheses. I'm referring you not to my writing, but to the NIST report, which explains these things. It is clear that you haven't read all of the relevant sections. And if you have: shame on you, because you are taking NIST's methods and conclusions out of context. That's wrong. Read the whole section for comprehension.

 

[jay howard]

Firstly :
The Worchester article you quote is a summary of the FEMA study here .

In this the authors conclude, very clearly, that the temperatures involved would have "approached 1000C". In others words, well below the melting point of steel (my bolding).

The article you quote in support of your position actually destroys it. Perhaps you don't understand the word "eutectic", or didn't actually read the article through?

Secondly :
To repeat the findings experimentally would be extremely difficult, I would imagine, given the circumstances in which the steel found itself at GZ.


You're doing the Truther Tango, jay. Hopping around from one point to another as each of your precious scraps of "evidence" is debunked.

I'm just looking for a theory that can account for the evidence. If you have to expend a lot of energy figuring out how to dismiss or otherwise discount evidence of molten steel so that your original theory doesn't fall apart, perhaps it is time to alter your theory to take into account the evidence.

The FEMA report is also at odds to produce a good explanation for the steel in question. The NIST report ignores it altogether.

All I'm asking is that a repeatable or somehow demonstrable theory be presented that explains this very unusual reaction.

Can you agree that the NIST report lacks any attempt to explain this?
Can you also agree that eutectic reactions are not normal office fire reactions?

 

[AZCat]

Can you also agree that eutectic reactions are not normal office fire reactions?

Perhaps we could agree that this was not a normal office fire?

 

[Gravy]

Can you also agree that eutectic reactions are not normal office fire reactions?

Hey, the fires in the towers and piles weren't normal! You're onto something now.

From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.

Bolding mine.

Do you agree that the studied samples do not show evidence of reaching the normal melting point of steel?

 

[beachnut]

If you do not understand the nature of my argument, please read the post #1.

Now, do you or do you not have a counterargument to any that I have made in this thread?

I read your post 1, it must of taken you weeks to actually sound intelligent. But you have failed to show anything using any intellectual prowess you alluded to in your OP with big words and your banter on science. Your OP was a veiled attempt at you trying to act intellectual and in with science. But after finding out you are just trying to introduce Jones's theories as real, you are not gaining credibility and you are not sticking to your OP (post 1). You also were not prepared, but you seemed like you were making a comeback but you are fading again.

 

[jay howard]

Here, Jay, I'll help you out. From guest poster R. Mackey. And here.

My point is that the NIST theory is inadequate to explain these phenomena. Are you also trying to claim that a eutectic reaction is normal in an office fire? Or that diesel fuel can easily account for the phenomenon?

 

[jay howard]

Perhaps we could agree that this was not a normal office fire?

So do you have a theory to account for the phenomena, or do you just chalk it up to "mysterious" and move on?

 

[AZCat]

So do you have a theory to account for the phenomena, or do you just chalk it up to "mysterious" and move on?

Do you have an answer to my question? Let's address that, then we'll get to other things.

 

[beachnut]

I'm just looking for a theory that can account for the evidence. If you have to expend a lot of energy figuring out how to dismiss or otherwise discount evidence of molten steel so that your original theory doesn't fall apart, perhaps it is time to alter your theory to take into account the evidence.

All I'm asking is that a repeatable or somehow demonstrable theory be presented that explains this very unusual reaction.

You are not looking for an theory to explain 9/11, you have chosen a theory of Jones. His theory was made up in 2005, he keeps changing it, he lies about photos, and makes up more stuff as he goes.

What molten steel are you talking about? Even Jones does not say molten steel. You 9/11 CTers need to come up with one single story, and stop making up stuff and misquoting your own people.

Okay science boy, tell me what potential for eutectic reactions means to 9/11. Put so even my pilot side can understand, but you better be real good so my engineering side, which remembers my chem engineering class, is not real upset you have no idea on what it means for 9/11 and you are wasting my time on a subject (eutectic) you can not tie to BS or 9/11.

 

[Gravy]

My point is that the NIST theory is inadequate to explain these phenomena. Are you also trying to claim that a eutectic reaction is normal in an office fire? Or that diesel fuel can easily account for the phenomenon?

NIST was charged with determining the most probable causes of the tower collapses and for making building code change recommendations. They were not responsible for looking at anomalies that may have occurred long after the collapses, and that were not widespread.

There is no indication that eutectic steel had anything to do with the collapses. It's an interesting phenomenon and worthy of more study. Given the unprecedented chemical stew, heat, and duration of fire in the piles, I'd look there for the culprit.

 

[GlennB]

I'm just looking for a theory that can account for the evidence. If you have to expend a lot of energy figuring out how to dismiss or otherwise discount evidence of molten steel so that your original theory doesn't fall apart, perhaps it is time to alter your theory to take into account the evidence.

The FEMA report is also at odds to produce a good explanation for the steel in question. The NIST report ignores it altogether.

All I'm asking is that a repeatable or somehow demonstrable theory be presented that explains this very unusual reaction.

Can you agree that the NIST report lacks any attempt to explain this?
Can you also agree that eutectic reactions are not normal office fire reactions?

The FEMA report explains it very well. What's observed is not the melting of the steel, but an unusual corrosive effect where the steel grains, in effect, are falling apart in a slurry. It becomes liquidised at the attack boundary ( here I'll wink to Gravy's second link )

In addition, you suggest that "eutectic reactions are not normal office fire reactions". Agreed. GZ was by no stretch of the imagination a "normal office fire".

 

[David Wong]

Jay, do you realize that the sources you linked to do not in any way suggest an alternative theory to the 9/11 attacks? And that they do not claim explosives or thermite or any other factors were involved?

Do now you realize that the materials you linked to support your argument do not support your argument?

 

[pomeroo]

Do you have a specific criticism with my argumentation or are you just telling me how you feel?

If it's the latter, it's irrelevant. I came to this site to express these views with the thought that intelligent people can see past honoraries and into the substance of an argument.

Look at the substance of my arguments. Look at the substance of the NIST case. Compare them. Don't let other people do your thinking for you. And don't reply that you "don't let other people think for you" because you just said you did--so long as they had the right credentials.

That may be alright for you, but "experts" can still spout scientific-looking nonsense. The only way to tell is to deconstruct their arguments and test them against objective criteria.

I'm not telling anyone what to think. Just think.

Why do persist in lying about "molten steel." There is no evidence for molten "steel," as you know.