Bump for jay.
Of course, you might have given up on that claim. Please let us know.
NCSTAR 1-3C said:
The wasting of the web plates most likely resulted from a high temperature, corrosion process that was exacerbated by the presence of sulfur. While not enough evidence was available to indicate whether corrosion occurred through gaseous, liquid , or solid attack (in addition to varied conditions possible in the rubble pile and lack of information associated with the recovery of the column at the WTC site), it was most likely that the degradation process was most likely a complex combination of these three....
Assuming that the original microstructure in this area was similar to that found in Fig. 6-22a, the re-distribution of pearlite and larger ferrite grain size would imply significant changes in the microstructure that could have only been achieved through austenitizing of the steel. Concomitantly, this would suggest that temperatures were much higher in this portion of the plate than found at the base of the column. With the average weight percent carbon in the material at 0.16, the plate temperature would have to exceed 830C (above the upper critical temperature [A3]) to enter the fully austenitic region. In this region, both the original ferrite and pearlite have completely transformed. 230, 231
To which, you responded:
Glenn B said:
They conclude that the corrosion occurred in the debris pile, and explain why (p229 and elsewhere)
This is an interesting attempt to dismiss the significance of these temperatures for a few reasons:
1. FEMA is very clear on the issue that there is a lack of evidence to demonstratively place the event pre or post collapse. NIST again shows us how to insert certainty without evidence--despite the fact FACT that there is no clear source for the sulfur--only speculation. For those who think the answer lies in sheetrock, please explain why NIST never came up with such an obvious answer.
2. Regardless of the location of these temperatures, an energy source would still need to be accounted for. Steel temps of 830C are far above what we should expect from "oxygen starved" fires in the debris pile. If in fact, they occurred there, what energy source could possibly have produced them? Remember, gas temp DOES NOT equal material temp. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. The air around the steel in question would have to reach temperatures in excess of the steel temperature in proportion to the steel mass and conductive rate. The NIST theory of combustible office products does not deal well with this evidence.
3. Some of the steel in question clearly indicates a eutectic reaction took place. Yes, that lowers the melting point of steel, but it does not help explain what the source of a eutectic reaction was--if you have evidence that they are naturally occurring phenomena in office fires, please don't hide your results. Apollo 20 says he can replicate this phenomenon with ordinary construction materials. Many would like to see this.
4. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the ferrous microspheres found by the USGS have a very small likelihood of occurring through evaporation of blood (ridiculous!) and a much higher probability of occurring as a by-product of some kind of fast-heating reaction of steel. Again the absolute crap explanations of these occurring as a result of evaporating blood (or whatever process of blood reduction is stipulated) would be fascinating indeed if they could be reproduced. But instead of the much more probable, yet incompatible theory that they were produced from a high-heat attack of steel is pushed aside to maintain an extremely low-probability event. That's not pseudo-scientific at all.
As many are happy to point out when the answer is in front of you, you need to read the report. Specifically, read 1-3C. If you still don't understand what they've found there, I'm sure you'll let me know.
I pointed it out earlier, but predictably, a flurry of tangential posts flooded the board.
As said before:
What must happen first is to demonstrate that the current, official conspiracy theory is unable to answer the question of how the WTC buildings fell. Then and only then is a better theory necessary.
If the official conspiracy theory is a complete, falsifiable theory that explains all the evidence better than any other theory, then there is no need to appeal to alternate theories.
If the official version is deficient, then we look for an answer that is less deficient.
As I've said from the OP, these are not unrealistic conditions for a theory to meet. This is not a special case where logic and reason do not apply.
If you are unwilling to put the NIST explanation through the metatheoretical ringer, then you are maintaining an article of faith. Isn't part of the purpose of JREF to expose belief systems that pose as scientific theories?
I find it odd that on a forum dedicated to cutting through the bachelor of science and getting to the truth of matters, most participants seem either to have the attention span of a goldfish or they would very much like for this debate to go away. It's as though people who support the party line are as protective of their own worthless theories as the certifiable crazies who argue creationism far beyond the limits of rationality.
