Merged Molten metal observations

Java Man said:
Well most of those variables don't matter. Acid isn't going to corrode more at a higher temperature. It might corrode it faster, but once all the acid is spent it's gone. And we do know the mass of the beam. One SO4 will match up with one Fe to make FeSO4. You start with H2SO4 and a big block of Fe. Do the math.
Click to expand...

This isn't even the right reaction you're talking about.

The metal wasn't simply dissolved by sulfuric acid. It was attacked by eutectic corrosion.

This page shows some analysis of the beam in question.

The sulfur-iron eutectic that forms from the iron, acid, and heat has a much lower melting point than the steel itself. It attacks the metal at the grain boundaries, causing it to slowly flake away. You can clearly see this in the images in the article I linked.
 
Java Man said:
So it was acid formed by sulfur? Once again. How much acid would be required to produce that effect?
Click to expand...

Please show an example of eutectic erosion caused by any form of therm*te, in the scientific literature.
Cite any paper which demonstrates your claim.


The therm*te argument is exceedingly weak for a number of reasons, including the simple fact that there is no evidence it can cause eutectic erosion of steel (which is not a melting process, doesn't occur at the temp which therm*te burns at, etc)

But possibly the most glaring error in official Therm*te CD Theory™ is the fact that none of the recovered WTC steel was melted. IF therm*te really had been present, attached directly to structural steel as truthers claim, then there would HAVE to be some direct evidence of melted steel.

There isn't any. There are no partially melted steel beams.

This pseudo-scientific theory is dead just for that reason alone, let alone all the others.
 
alienentity said:
Please show an example of eutectic erosion caused by any form of therm*te, in the scientific literature.
Cite any paper which demonstrates your claim.


The therm*te argument is exceedingly weak for a number of reasons, including the simple fact that there is no evidence it can cause eutectic erosion of steel (which is not a melting process, doesn't occur at the temp which therm*te burns at, etc)

But possibly the most glaring error in official Therm*te CD Theory™ is the fact that none of the recovered WTC steel was melted. IF therm*te really had been present, attached directly to structural steel as truthers claim, then there would HAVE to be some direct evidence of melted steel.

There isn't any. There are no partially melted steel beams.

This pseudo-scientific theory is dead just for that reason alone, let alone all the others.
Click to expand...

Entirely true, of course, but Java Man will just fire back the phrase "eutectic melting" and dance with glee at having thrown another random spanner into the works of logic, just for jollies. That's his m.o.

We should all just 'fess up in the "I am insane" thread in Forum Community and have done with it :D
 
alienentity said:
But possibly the most glaring error in official Therm*te CD Theory™ is the fact that none of the recovered WTC steel was melted. IF therm*te really had been present, attached directly to structural steel as truthers claim, then there would HAVE to be some direct evidence of melted steel.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Simply because there is no recovered steel. Just a few odd pieces here and there. Yet the theory that that piece of metal could have ended like that is also very unlikely. How is your calculation for the amount of acid required coming along?
 
Java Man said:
You are correct. Simply because there is no recovered steel. Just a few odd pieces here and there. Yet the theory that that piece of metal could have ended like that is also very unlikely. How is your calculation for the amount of acid required coming along?
Click to expand...
No thermite was found, and all the steel was recovered. No thermite was recovered. What happen to the thermite in your delusion? Do you make up these lies on your own? Where is your proof of melted steel, so far we have two pieces of steel that rusted in fire, called corrosion, and you have failed to get a chemical engineering course in before making up more nonsense and posting it at a skeptic forum.

Why don't you list the products of a thermite reaction when you get a chance, and explain why you cling to the delusion of melted steel? What was your claim, your evidence free posts don't seem to be supporting much of anything beside your ignorance on thermite, corrosion, and steel?
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
Sulfur
Click to expand...

Grizzly Bear said:
I asked earlier when he initially brought it up, and he stated he could not explain it. Simple fact is thermi*te burns at a high enough temperature to melt the material. There are no such characteristics in the sample
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that from his response quoted here.

Basically his arguement from complete ignorance goes something like this "since sulphedation is said to have caused this thinning and since thermate contains sulphur and since thermate is fast acting incindiary, then thermate can cause the effect seen on that piece of steel"

It of course absolutly ignores what an incindiary that burns at the temps of a thermate burn actually does to steel,,,,it melts it in the same fashion that thermite does and the only difference is in the speed at which it does it! Certainly not in evidence in this piece of steel --- a FAIL!
 
Java Man said:
How many liters of sulfuric acid (battery grade) would be required to destroy a beam like that?

Here I'll give you a tip:

Mass fraction H2SO4 Density (kg/L) Concentration(mol/L) Common Name
10% 1.07 ~1 dilute sulfuric acid
29–32% 1.25–1.28 4.2–5 battery acid
(used in lead–acid batteries)
62–70% 1.52–1.60 9.6–11.5 chamber acid
fertilizer acid
78–80% 1.70–1.73 13.5–14 tower acid
Glover acid
95–98% 1.83 ~18 concentrated sulfuric acid


Molecular formula H2SO4
Molar mass 98.086 g/mol
Density 1.84 g/cm3, liquid
Click to expand...

How does that in any way shape or form address my post in which I stated
Originally Posted by jaydeehess
2) the corrorsion took place during the time when the steel was in the fire and or rubble fire AND in contact with a material with a moderate to high sulphur content such as gypsum board, pvc piping or several other candidates.
Click to expand...
 
Clayton Moore said:
Have the debunkers here explained 9/11 smoldering molten steel?


NEW YORK, Dec. 19, 2001
WTC Fires All But Defeated
After More Than 3 Months, Main Fires Put Out At World Trade Center

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml


9/11 - Ground Zero Molten Metal Confirmed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XA0Rv1Ng8
Click to expand...

No demonstration of "Molten steel" .
Red hot solid material - check
Reports of pools of molten material that the speaker refers to as steel - check

The former is not "molten" and the latter simply cannot be said to be steel soley based on the visual assumption of an observer.

BTW how does steel, even molten steel, "smolder"?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Have the debunkers here explained 9/11 smoldering molten steel?


NEW YORK, Dec. 19, 2001
WTC Fires All But Defeated
After More Than 3 Months, Main Fires Put Out At World Trade Center

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml


9/11 - Ground Zero Molten Metal Confirmed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XA0Rv1Ng8
Click to expand...
Kind of sad you can't get a Pulitzer with this nonsense after 9 years; normally takes less than a year to expose a real conspiracy, but for your fantasy it takes infinite time, never to break your failed claims. If you spent anytime at all researching 911, you would not be falling for the big lies you post.
 
Java Man said:
How is your calculation for the amount of acid required coming along?
Click to expand...

How's that complete narrative coming along?

(BTW, this is a strawman, as none of us claimed it was battery acid that caused the corrosion. We compared it to a simmilar attack.)
 
Clayton Moore said:
Have the debunkers here explained 9/11 smoldering molten steel?


NEW YORK, Dec. 19, 2001
WTC Fires All But Defeated
After More Than 3 Months, Main Fires Put Out At World Trade Center

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml
Click to expand...

Nowhere in that link does it say anything about melted steel. It talks about steel being burned. But, we know that steel doesn't burn per se.


Clayton Moore said:
9/11 - Ground Zero Molten Metal Confirmed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XA0Rv1Ng8
Click to expand...

Yes, I am certain that there were large areas of molten METAL. Aluminum would have been found in abundance in the WTC piles.

So would tin.

Both melt at less than 1800 deg. F.
 
jaydeehess said:
How does that in any way shape or form address my post in which I stated
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with "2) the corrorsion took place during the time when the steel was in the fire and or rubble fire AND in contact with a material with a moderate to high sulphur content such as gypsum board, pvc piping or several other candidates."

You see you have to go through a set of equations that show the reactions that lead to free sulfur or sulfuric acid in that rubble and in sufficient amounts to do that damage.

So the amount of acid is a relevant value. Because it's the amount of material you'll need to produce such damage. Or gypsum or pvc piping or whatever you want to call it.
 
Java Man said:
It has everything to do with "2) the corrorsion took place during the time when the steel was in the fire and or rubble fire AND in contact with a material with a moderate to high sulphur content such as gypsum board, pvc piping or several other candidates."
Click to expand...

It also took place while the material was held in a temperature range too low to be produced by thermite or thermate, over time periods too long for a thermitic reaction to be sustained. Since neither thermite nor thermate could possibly have caused the corrosion, acidic corrosion - where only the amount of acid needed is questionable - is necessarily a better explanation.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom