Molten Steel

[TheRedWorm]

You don't plan to respond substantively to either my or Jackanory's posts, do you, C7?

 

[Jackanory]

You clearly don't know how logorithims work or how sound level is measured and perceived.

This is High School math and science.

And young Christopher7 (almost 8) is avoiding the questions again. Typical!

 

[Christopher7]

You came here with speculation and hearsay! My questions are directed to your own comments made throughout this thread!My questions are simply asking you to verify what you came here to discuss!

Wrong. I came here with numerous very credible witness statements that establish the presence of molten steel beyond a reasonable doubt and I was met with a lot of denial, diversion defamation and doubletalk from Gravy's playbook.

mañana

 

[Jackanory]

Wrong. I came here with numerous very credible witness statements that establish the presence of molten steel beyond a reasonable doubt and I was met with a lot of denial, diversion defamation and doubletalk from Gravy's playbook.

mañana

NO! You came here like many others with 'witness statements' about an issue that has little or no relevence to the collapse. Had you bothered to do any research at all you would have established that your own arguement confirms this? Molten steel - so what. What does that prove about a collapse?

Answer my questions and you will figure it out!

 

[JimBenArm]

Wrong. I came here with numerous very credible witness statements that establish the presence of molten steel beyond a reasonable doubt and I was met with a lot of denial, diversion defamation and doubletalk from Gravy's playbook.

mañana

Derision. Ridicule. You left those out, too. You've been met with lots of that as well, for some reason. Can't quite put my finger on it...

 

[ozeco41]

Is it possible that the energy balance of the debris pile was such that it could have kept molten steel molten, and yet did not have enough energy to melt any other steel? Certainly. Is it likely?

You can easily balance a nickel on edge on a hard, flat surface. It's not only possible, nearly anyone can do it.
So when you're flipping a coin, do you call "edge"?

Consider also that you're claiming that the thermite was used to bring down the building. That would mean that the liquid iron started near the top of the building, where the collapse started. It had to fall a thousand feet or so through the chaos of the collapse. Many solid objects did not come through that process in one piece, but your idea seems to be that the liquid iron would stay together, or close enough that it would run together.

If your "towers brought down by thermite" speculation is correct, there wouldn't be one big pool to start with, but a number of smaller pools, on each of the targeted steel members. The higher the ratio of surface area to volume, the more quickly things cool.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the collapse started with globs of molten iron on the target steel members, what kept the molten steel from splattering all over the place and rapidly cooling as the towers collapsed?

A neat summary of the "quantum leap" gap between molten steel "up there" and, weeks later, "molten steel down there".

And that is not the only quantum leap of fantasy. Even "up there" in the impacts zone there are several additional quantum leaps of fantasy to overcome. There is the logistic challenge of getting alleged thermite/thermate created bits of molten steel from the supposed multiple column cuts of a fantasy demolition to one corner of the impact zone so it can fall in a single cascade.

Think of all the preheated channelling needed to bring each bit of molten steel from where it has been cut out of its own column across the impacted floors. A sophisticated trick.

And it all had to be put in place after the aircraft collision and whilst the fires were raging. If erected before the crash it would have all been destroyed. So it was post crash.

If the suicide pilots were brave men the team of asbestos suited volunteers who rigged the molten steel channelling must really be the unsung "heroes" for real bravery.

As a more serious question for me as a first post newbie somewhat daunhted by the amount of WTC and 9/11 material on this forum.

Has the well established, known to all blacksmiths, phenomenon of the self sustaining exothermic burning of iron/steel been considered? dismissed? as a source of the hot steel in the basement areas?

And the possible source of the oxygen necessary for that reaction?

The reaction will readily self melt iron/steel readily once started.

 

[ozeco41]

Molten steel - so what. What does that prove about a collapse?...

Correct.

The molten/very hot steel in the rubble is an interesting phenomenon in its own right but however it occurred even if ever it occured it has no supportable relationship to causes of the collapse.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Correct.

The molten/very hot steel in the rubble is an interesting phenomenon in its own right but however it occurred even if ever it occured it has no supportable relationship to causes of the collapse.

Welcome ozeco41.

Correct, molten metal and very hot steel in the rubble can be explained by conditions in the post-collapse rubble pile. The whole problem with the conspiracy peddling "community" (really, disparate group of individuals converging on one lunacy, but I digress) is that they present only one real piece of pre-collapse evidence for molten metal - the infamous "molten waterfall" video - and do not distinguish that from observations of post-collapse effect (i.e. Astaneh-Asl's remarks). The "waterfall" has been discussed ad-nauseum here; suffice to say it doesn't point to being molten steel. And the post collapse conditions have also been discussed ad-nauseum in the forum, but truthers refuse to separate them out, and insist that they're indicative of incendiaries use. When the reality is that they simply do not want to learn enough about the situation to understand why that's not the case.

Anyway, you're absolutely correct there.

 

[Sunstealer]

Yes it does.

You could have looked this up but you would rather deny than do a little research. Steel melts at 1500 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C.

“Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.”
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JLobdillThermiteChemistryWTC.pdf

Lol - you didn't do what I asked and describe the mechanism - all you did was quote, out of context as usual.

FFS - I'm a metallurgist, it's my damn job to understand these things. Thermate does not lower the melting point of steel, because there is no possible mechanism that it can use, the reaction of thermate is too fast. Secondly I've read that paper a few weeks ago and whilst the chemistry calculations are good the statement about the sulphur lowing the melting point is incorrect.

If you knew what thermate was you'd understand the reason for the addition of Sulphur. The addition helps lower the ignition temperature but also increases the thermal affect, i.e. makes it burn hotter. It does not reduce the melting point of steel.

If you had bothered to actually read the paper you link to (although you wouldn't be able to understand it) then you would have read these two statements.

One must also consider time scales for phase transformations in an environment where temperature gradients are severe and heat is conducted rapidly.

However, if the thermate contained only 2% S by weight (as specified for Thermate-TH3)12, that would not be enough to even produce a eutectic mixture using all the Fe produced in the thermate reaction, let alone all the added Fe from the cut column. It is not likely that the amount
of sulfur used would have produced a product close to the eutectic mixture; however any substantial amount of sulfur will usefully lower the melting point of the attacked steel by sulfidation.

The black part is correct - there just isn't enough Sulphur (~2% in thermate) to produce the eutectic on any scale, certainly not enough to produce it on the scale you think or indeed the scale required to cause enough damage to the steel. Thermite/mate acts by heat, there is no need to lower the temperature of steel by waiting months for diffusion to occur prior to using the heat when the heat is 1000°C greater than the melting temperature anyway. It's stupid to suggest it.

The red part is incorrect because diffusion is a time dependent phenomenon. If you look at f-i-c-k-s laws of diffusion you will see that you need temperature and (sulphur) species concentration to affect diffusion rates. If you are talking minutes with regard to thermate then you are never going to get the depth of penetration due to the lack of concentration and limited time. Even if you managed a tiny penetration the effect would be negligible because the over riding factor is heat which is 1000+degrees over the melting point of the material to be melted. There's no point.

Incidentally that paper is obviously written by an undergraduate. The language, the statements and the layout indicate this. He obviously had help with the Stoichiometric mass balance but as I said before the actual chemistry and thermal calculations are good if you bear in mind that he assumes (quite rightly) a 100% efficient reaction and 100% thermal efficiency in melting the steel. He's effectively given a maximum theoretical limit to the amount of steel melted and acknowledges that this is impossible in the real world but it's a billion times more than I've seen any other truther do.

If you wish to prove me wrong then the experiment is very easy to do and I'll give you an outline.

1. Get some Aluminium powder, Iron oxide powder, sulphur powder, magnesium ribbon and some steel.

2. Mix thermate and add 2% by weight of Sulphur powder.

3. Place on the steel, put in the magnesium strip, light and stand back.

4. Cut out the edges of the steel still remaining.

5. Mount, section, grind, polish and etch (in 4% nital solution) the section.

6. Look for eutectic under a microscope.

7. Take pics and embarrass Sunstealer and make him grovel and apologise profusely on JREF.

This will take less than 2 days to do and cost less than $50 if you can find a nice metallographer to do the sectioning work. Go ahead there is nothing stopping you.

Lastly - when we examine the parts that contained the eutectic then we see from the shape and type of wastage observed on the individual part that it does not conform to similar samples that have been melted with thermite/mate. This is obvious.

Don't forget that I do failure investigations (I think the Americans call it forensic metallurgy) all the time as part of my job and I've been trained to look at components and material just like the part which showed extreme corrosion (note corrosion, not melting). These parts have not been melted. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

I would also ask you to refrain from saying silly things like - "if I'd do some research" or quoting the MP of steel or quoting something such as the quote above because you plainly do not understand the concept of sulphidation, diffusion, oxidation, high temperature corrosion, liquation - just bear in mind that it took 3 years of studying to get my degree (which included a huge amount on steel) plus I have 10+ years industrial experience. So I've been doing "research" for far, far longer and at a much higher level than you can imagine.

 

[Sunstealer]

Yes, Debris pile fires would be in the 300-400[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range. Thermite burns at 2500[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C. That leaves 1000[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C of cooling before the steel would solidify. The smoldering fires in the debris pile would slow the cooling. The data to calculate how long these smoldering fires and the insulating effect of the pulverized debris could keep the molten steel molten is not available to the public if it exists at all.

Data? What are you on about? Are you claiming that the science of thermodynamics is not available to the public? How do they manage to teach it at universities then?

What you really mean is - I (C7) do not have the knowledge, education and intellect to do an engineering degree, nor do I have the ability to search for how such calculations can be done and then have someone help me with them.

I've already told you how to do it experimentally using a furnace but you can't be bothered to show that your claim is possible. You are far too afraid that when you actually do the experiment that you will find that it doesn't support your delusions. Anyone with any steel and furnace experience will easily know roughly how long it takes for items to cool down. Go and ring up a heat treatment firm and ask them for furnace cool times.

Hell I've taken ceramics samples out of 1400°C temperature and handled them with bare hands inside a minute! It'a bit like the space shuttle tiles.

You have zero experience of high temperatures.
You have zero experience of steel and metallurgy.
You have zero experience of cooling rates.
You have zero experience of furnaces.

Support your (my bold) claim! Why do you refuse to support your claim? It's baseless otherwise. You've already shown in a youtube video (where else!) that slag from a blast furnace, which will be at a higher temperature than 1500°C when it leaves the furnace, actually cools in a matter of hours to form some solid.

Incidentally your guestimate of 3-400°C is wrong because IR data of the pile (which is on many truther sites) shows temperatures above this. Why do you continue to be so wrong on so many issues? Are you doing it deliberately?

 

[Sunstealer]

Hogwash. There is no president or scientific evidence that sulfur from wallboard can be freed in a high temperature environment. They use wallboard for fireproofing!
There is no president or scientific evidence that sulfur from any source in a building could cause intergranular melting.

You have been shown atleast three times that there is plenty of sources for Sulphur. Stop lying!

For the fourth time here is a paper concerning exactly that. It shows exactly the sources of Sulphur and the amounts present. Stop spouting the same old rubbish and read this. http://www.scribd.com/doc/11542599/911-Sulfur-and-World-Trade-Center

Also another poster has pointed out that the piles were cooled with sea water which has Sulphur in it.

Stop repeating nonsense and learn. The information has been provided. Acknowledge the information and please don't post another quote as an argument.


Incidentally please stop using intergranular melting out of context - sulphur does not cause this. Grain boundaries will always have a lower melting temperature than the grains. Sulphur diffusing into the steels surface will do so preferentially along grain boundaries helping to lower this temperature for thermodynamic and energy reasons.

Please describe the mechanism by which Sulphidation occurs, how and why it is preferential along grain boundaries. Also state how this relates to "hot-shortness" and why it's bad. I'd like to see even a rudimentary effort. 30 lines would do - infact you could plagiarise it as there are thousands of easy to understand articles out there. Until you do you cannot make such claims because you do not understand what you are talking about!

 

[tsig]

Maybe you are, I'm not.

Dum-da-dum-dum.

Molten steel was found in the basements. Other than that, I don't know. You're the one talking about mid air.

At one point the steel was solid then it was liquid.
When did the steel melt?
If it didn't melt when the buildings fell why did they fall?


If steel was found in the basements why is that crane picking up liquid steel from the top of the pile?

 

[Sunstealer]

Is it possible that the energy balance of the debris pile was such that it could have kept molten steel molten, and yet did not have enough energy to melt any other steel? Certainly. Is it likely?

Neither of us can say.

And this just about sums C7 and his ridiculous claims up.

He can't say, but he screams that it did at the top of his voice.

C7 - word of advice: If you can't say, then it's best not to loudly claim that it definitely did - it just makes you look preposterous.

Why don't you ask one of your truther buddies to do some thermodynamic calculations to show a proof of concept? This will mean you will have to make some assumptions but that's OK, assumptions, aslong as you state what they are, are perfectly fine.

Consider also that you're claiming that the thermite was used to bring down the building. That would mean that the liquid iron started near the top of the building

How many times do I have to answer the same question?

And this just about sums C7 and his ridiculous claims up.

He claims that thermite was the cause of liquid steel but massively sidesteps the question because he knows that by answering it he will be shown that his idea is nonsense. He won't allow himself to be pinned down by answering directly, with conviction, whilst noting that everybody realises that if thermite was part of the demolition process then by definition it was in the buildings above ground! Watch him slither and slime, twist and turn as he tries to avoid the consequences of saying where themite must have been used.

I don't know where or how the thermite was used..

O RLY? So why the hell are you claiming that it is the only thing that could be used? Don't yell "Dude, thermite melts steel" at me. If you have no idea how or why thermite was used then you CANNOT claim that it was used!

This is a meaningless subjective diversion.

No, it's not a meaningless sub-diversion. It's asking direct, important questions to ascertain whether thermite is a possibility.

You have a direct and readily accessible record of claiming "denial tactic" or diversion when you cannot or will not answer relevant questions. This makes you dishonest.

We all know that if it were even possible for thermite to cut vertical steel columns that the relatively small amount of liquid produced would solidify very quickyl, would be caught up and dispersed in the collapse and wouldn't spontaneously and magically gather up together and become liquid again.

You are going to have to admit that liquid steel produced from thermite would not remain liquid post collapse because the very collapse would ensure that the steel solidified. This basic piece of knowledge destroys your whole argument. So give it up.

 

[Sunstealer]

What's rocket surgery?

Man that did make me laugh - I'm now going to pinch that and use it at work all the time, it's a classic.

Is it Stundiable?

 

[Sunstealer]

Christopher7 oh Christopher7 - when do you become 8?

When he reaches the 8th grade I suspect.

 

[Sunstealer]

I deleted the rest of the post because it's a lot of stupid questions that call for speculation so you can make a lot of smartass retorts.

Translation from Christophernese to English:

I don't know.

You would think that any reasonable person would realise why the questions were important, but it shows that C7 hasn't the first clue. I expect his googling skills aren't that good, yet there are mountains of evidence to show how thermite works. You would expect someone shouting about thermite/mate all the time would at least take an hour or two to find out about the damn stuff and see what it's all about. Maybe the Chemistry is a bit too much. Maybe he thinks steel digger buckets are impervious to liquid steel, no use for refractory (look the word up C7) materials in C7's world.

C7 - how many diggers are used in the transport of liquid steel at steel works?

 

[GStan]

Man that did make me laugh - I'm now going to pinch that and use it at work all the time, it's a classic.

Is it Stundiable?

To be fair to Christopher, I think he was intentionally playing with the words to be funny. I have previously used the rocket science/brain surgery mixed metaphor as well.

Its also a band.
Its also part of [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134618/quotes]a quote[/url] from the movie Mystery, Alaska.

 

[phunk]

Man that did make me laugh - I'm now going to pinch that and use it at work all the time, it's a classic.

Is it Stundiable?

I assumed it was a joke, an intentional mixed metaphor. Rocket science + brain surgery.

 

[tsig]

I don't make any claim about what was used or where except for the molten steel falling from the 80th floor.

There's that mid air meltdown!

 

[tsig]

And young Christopher7 (almost 8) is avoiding the questions again. Typical!

That made me think of this:

Little boy kneels at the foot of the bed,
Droops on his little hands, little gold head.
Sssttt, whisper. Who dares?
Christopher Robin is saying his prayers:

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/m/melanie/christopher+robin+is+saying+his+prayers_20167485.html