Molten Steel

[Senenmut]

(My bold) But this is a bald-faced lie!

I provided you the data, the reports, the analysis, and gave a lengthy explanation of my own on how the instruments are fundamentally different. All of this, if you had the faintest bit of comprehension, shows quite the opposite of what you claim -- shows, in fact, that what you claim above is impossible.

Since you can't understand this, you have no place making such a proclamation at all. You could ask, but no, you'd rather lie about it.

This is just like your continuing confusion of Dr. Astaneh-Asl's comments. You're wrong. I told you you're wrong, and I told you how to check -- see his bio that I linked to before? It has his e-mail and office phone on it, for crying out loud! He'll set you straight in about thirty seconds flat, but first, you have to actually do something. I've told you this before. You won't. You find it easier to lie.

Now, obviously, I can't prevent you from lying. I have no ability to reach through teh Intarwebz and smack you like your mother should have. The best I can do is give you the information to educate yourself -- I've done that, and it had no effect. So the rest is up to you. Only you can choose to stop lying.

Since you've chosen the opposite, why should I bother? Give me one compelling reason to pay any attention to you at all, if you can. Clock's running.

im not lying. look on page 5 of that pdf file u linked about aviris. at about 1900 nm - 2500nm, it clearly states sensor saturation and there is a plateau there. then a page or two down they estimate the temps. so what is the big deal?? the paper plainly says sensor saturation???

im not confused with his comments. sounds like you are. did the nist analyze the sample he said looked like the dali painting or not?? he was speaking of connections looking like that. the sample # 2 from the fema bpat report was of a steel member without mention of connections plus they said they acquired it with their bpat members.

and i believe you are wrong saying since aviris showed temps of X degree and because of that there was no molten steel.

"Because AVIRIS measures reflected sunlight it cannot detect materials deeper than can be seen with the human eye. For most solid materials this optical penetration is measured in millimeters.
Images of the World Trade Center site show significant thermal hot spots on Sept. 16, 2001. By Sept. 23, 2001, most of the hot spots had cooled or the fires had been put out."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/imspec.html

so it cant tell what temps lie below more than a few millimeters.

 

[Christopher7]

What you have effective done is give a single data point i.e. core columns didn't go above 250°C, but you have left out the rest of the data, therefore you can't come to any conclusion based upon the "single data point" you have used.

That is not a "single data point" in a chain of data points, it is a statement of fact. 250°C is the highest temperature that can be verified for any core column.

 

[R.Mackey]

im not lying. look on page 5 of that pdf file u linked about aviris. at about 1900 nm - 2500nm, it clearly states sensor saturation and there is a plateau there. then a page or two down they estimate the temps. so what is the big deal?? the paper plainly says sensor saturation???

Yes, you are lying. AVIRIS does not only sense in 1.9 to 2.5 micron band. It goes all the way up to 0.5 micron, and those bands were not saturated. Therefore, the detector was not saturated. To saturate AVIRIS completely requires a temperature that cannot exist on the surface of the Earth.

This brand of lie is called the "hasty generalization" fallacy. The sensor is not saturated, and the temperature estimate -- which is quite well described in their papers -- is done through a curve-fitting of the unsaturated bands of the spectrometer.

What makes your lie even more ridiculous is your total ignorance of the subject, yet you would lecture us anyway. You are not a peer in this discussion. This has already been made very clear to you.

im not confused with his comments. sounds like you are. did the nist analyze the sample he said looked like the dali painting or not??

Either talk to him, or be a coward as well as a liar. As I said above, he will set you straight in record time. You misrepresent him very, very badly, and since I've already alerted you to this, you do so on purpose.

and i believe you are wrong saying since aviris showed temps of X degree and because of that there was no molten steel.

That's another lie -- I didn't say that at all. What I said is that there is no evidence for molten steel. Other people in this thread were throwing around claims of measurements that showed there were, but this is false. AVIRIS is the most accurate of all temperature measurements, and it came back much lower than the temperature required.

There's a subtlety here, one you obviously don't grasp. I'll try to make is simple for you: All measurements contradict molten steel. Therefore, there is no evidence of molten steel. Molten steel is, therefore, only unsupported speculation. Just like claims of existence of Bigfoot, or a teapot orbiting in space. You have no case. You are asking me to prove a negative. I don't have to.

"Because AVIRIS measures reflected sunlight it cannot detect materials deeper than can be seen with the human eye. For most solid materials this optical penetration is measured in millimeters.
Images of the World Trade Center site show significant thermal hot spots on Sept. 16, 2001. By Sept. 23, 2001, most of the hot spots had cooled or the fires had been put out."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/imspec.html

so it cant tell what temps lie below more than a few millimeters.

This is true for any and all thermal measurements, apart from walking on the Pile and probing it directly. No more comprehensive tests were possible, and, naturally, none were carried out.

I'm still waiting for a reason to take you seriously. Your last post certainly did not contain one.

 

[Senenmut]

Suppose the photo was taken on Sept. 20. The most you could say is that the damage happened before Sept. 20. Other than that, you cannot tell how quickly it might have happened from looking at a photo. I gave you links to learn more about this. R.Mackey told you where to find Astaneh's contact info.

one could narrow down the time frame from sisson's experiments with his eutectics. how much steel has corroded/erroded from the beam in x amout of time (5-8 days). then one could say that x amout of steel corrodes in x amout of time and subtract that from the 5/8ths of an inch and one could come up with how much corrosion that went on inside the towers. since that steel that dr astaneh saw only 8 days later showed signs of an attack then that would be a good starting point. but then again avaris flew over and showed temps of 710C in "hot spots" . i think spot A was kinda over there where column 79 is. and by logic, by day 8, they sure as hell wouldnt be pulling beams out of the middle or bottom of the pile so one could assume that it was from the top. so sisson would have about 5 - 8 days of office material fire to produce a36 steel with the same characteristics. dr astaneh also said:
"For example, valuable information could come from analysis of the blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html

now wouldnt you like to know when he saw this steel!!!! what timeframe. hell, an inch to paper thin. has sisson done that yet? ill try emailing him. ill let ya know if i get a reply.

 

[Senenmut]

Yes, you are lying. AVIRIS does not only sense in 1.9 to 2.5 micron band. It goes all the way up to 0.5 micron, and those bands were not saturated. Therefore, the detector was not saturated. To saturate AVIRIS completely requires a temperature that cannot exist on the surface of the Earth.

This brand of lie is called the "hasty generalization" fallacy. The sensor is not saturated, and the temperature estimate -- which is quite well described in their papers -- is done through a curve-fitting of the unsaturated bands of the spectrometer.

What makes your lie even more ridiculous is your total ignorance of the subject, yet you would lecture us anyway. You are not a peer in this discussion. This has already been made very clear to you.



Either talk to him, or be a coward as well as a liar. As I said above, he will set you straight in record time. You misrepresent him very, very badly, and since I've already alerted you to this, you do so on purpose.



That's another lie -- I didn't say that at all. What I said is that there is no evidence for molten steel. Other people in this thread were throwing around claims of measurements that showed there were, but this is false. AVIRIS is the most accurate of all temperature measurements, and it came back much lower than the temperature required.

There's a subtlety here, one you obviously don't grasp. I'll try to make is simple for you: All measurements contradict molten steel. Therefore, there is no evidence of molten steel. Molten steel is, therefore, only unsupported speculation. Just like claims of existence of Bigfoot, or a teapot orbiting in space. You have no case. You are asking me to prove a negative. I don't have to.

This is true for any and all thermal measurements, apart from walking on the Pile and probing it directly. No more comprehensive tests were possible, and, naturally, none were carried out.

I'm still waiting for a reason to take you seriously. Your last post certainly did not contain one.

man, just look at page 5 of the aviris data u linked and look at the graph that says specta of hot areas at the wtc disaster site. i cant find a pic or i would post it. at the 1900-2500nm mark the curve plateau's and it says sensor saturation. IM NOT LYING!!!! that is what it says. just look at it.

why would aviris data be a good why to determine if there was no molten steel if it only "sees" a couple of millimeters.

 

[R.Mackey]

Now you're not even attempting to address my posts. I explained both of your cognitive problems in detail.

If this is truly the extent of your comprehension, then you have no place in this discussion at all.

 

[funk de fino]

You have the truth about your lying on ignore.

#1516 C7?

Retract your lie

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here's a good example of how Christopher7 likes to lie to support his case.

oxidize: to form an oxide coating

Let's take a look at lies by omission in action, shall we, children?

From the free online dictionary:

ox·i·dize (

k

s

-d

z

)
v. ox·i·dized, ox·i·diz·ing, ox·i·diz·es
v.tr. 1. To combine with oxygen; make into an oxide.
2. To increase the positive charge or valence of (an element) by removing electrons.
3. To coat with oxide.

Three definitions, only one of which appears to support Chris's position, but somehow Chris seems to have failed to see the other two.

From Mirriam-Webster:

ox·i·dize Pronunciation: \ˈäk-sə-ˌdīz\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): ox·i·dized; ox·i·diz·ing Date: 1806 transitive verb 1 : to combine with oxygen 2 : to dehydrogenate especially by the action of oxygen 3 : to change (a compound) by increasing the proportion of the electronegative part or change (an element or ion) from a lower to a higher positive valence : remove one or more electrons from (an atom, ion, or molecule)

Three definitions, none of which backs up Chris.

From dictionary.com:

ox⋅i⋅dize

   /ˈɒk

sɪˌdaɪz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ok-si-dahyz] Show IPA verb, -dized, -diz⋅ing. Chemistry
–verb (used with object)
1.to convert (an element) into an oxide; combine with oxygen.
2.to cover with a coating of oxide or rust.
3.to take away hydrogen, as by the action of oxygen; add oxygen or any nonmetal.
4.to remove electrons from (an atom or molecule), thereby increasing the valence. Compare reduce (def. 12).

Four definitions, only one of which backs up Chris.

Chris, I challenge you to produce a source which contains the definition "oxidize: to form an oxide coating" and doesn't contain any definition of a meaning equivalent to "to convert (an element) into an oxide; combine with oxygen". Failure to do so will constitute an admission of deliberate lying by omission.

Dave

 

[Senenmut]

Now you're not even attempting to address my posts. I explained both of your cognitive problems in detail.

If this is truly the extent of your comprehension, then you have no place in this discussion at all.

get back with me when u read page 5 and tell me if it says sensor saturation or not. its a simple yes or no answer. im addressing you calling me a liar.

 

[BigAl]

No, silly. I'm saying that the oxidation is a very thin surface layer and minute in volume.

So what? How does that make you right and everyone with familiarity with molten aluminum wrong for the purposes of discussing what it was that flowed out of the tower?

 

[BigAl]

You acknowledge that his experiment showed that organic materials don't mix with molten aluminum at a little above 660°C.

FWIW: When heated, organic materials don't become molten, they carbonize [burn]. duh?

Why do you fixate on organics? There was a huge amount of inorganic material swept up in the impact of the 757 and it all affects what the molten metal looks and acts like.

 

[GlennB]

FWIW: When heated, organic materials don't become molten, they carbonize [burn]. duh?

FWIW: Sugar and plastic are both organic materials. They both melt when heated. Duh ?

 

[BigAl]

So what?

The question still remains, "Where is the scientific evidence that organic materials can mix with molten aluminum."

You've been given two good descriptions of how contaminated aluminum is probable and consistent with everything we know about WTC.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4497829#post4497829
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4497764#post4497764​

Both these descriptions come from people familiar with foundry operations and what they say sounds reasonable to me with my tangential familiarity with molten metal and with everyone else here with any actual relevant knowledge.

You appear to not actually know anything relevant to the discussion. That's what an education at Google U. gets you. Demand your money back.

 

[GlennB]

the strongest core columns were towards the perimeter

Source?

Well duh. The diagram provided indicates the relative sizes. Can get precise details if you like, but why do you cry "source" whenever you encounter an inconvenient fact ?

One side of some of the core columns would be exposed to the fires.

Rubbish. Monumental rubbish. The floors were open plan. Once the planes had crashed through the outer wall do you seriously think that some gypsum partition wall would stop the debris ripping the core areas to shreds? Thus fully exposing many of the columns to fire? What on earth goes on in your head?

 

[tfk]

chris

You are confusing normal corrosion that takes place over a long time with the
"high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation." that corroded the beams noted in FEMA C.

I'm curious. In your own words, what do you think that NIST is saying here?

tom

 

[tfk]

chris,

That is not a "single data point" in a chain of data points, it is a statement of fact. 250°C is the highest temperature that can be verified for any core column.

I'm curious again.

Which number are you interested in?

a. The highest temp that can be verified.
b. The highest temp that actually occurred.

This is not a facile or trivial question.

tom

 

[Christopher7]

chris,
I'm curious again.

Which number are you interested in?

a. The highest temp that can be verified.
b. The highest temp that actually occurred.

This is not a facile or trivial question.

tom

The evidence says a. and b. are the same.
SEAoNY *saved samples that were "relative to the fire and structural response of the WTC buildings".

As I recall, NIST said the samples were sufficient to do the analysis.

The highest temperature of a core column was 250°C

This is the evidence*.

Higher temperatures are speculative, not science.

Given the short duration of the fires,
the fact that columns are vertical and will heat up slower than the trusses,
the fact that only one or two sides of the core columns were exposed to the fires,
the fact that steel dissipates heat quickly,
the fact that the jet fuel started everything burning at the same time and the fires near the core would be oxygen starved,
speculation of temperatures higher that the saved samples that were relative to the fire and structural response is not justified.

Bottom line:
The evidence* says the core columns did not exceed 250°C.

 

[Gravy]

Rubbish. Monumental rubbish. The floors were open plan. Once the planes had crashed through the outer wall do you seriously think that some gypsum partition wall would stop the debris ripping the core areas to shreds? Thus fully exposing many of the columns to fire? What on earth goes on in your head?

Now you're just talking crazy. Anyone with half a brain knows that airliners traveling at high speed can't defeat SuperGypsum Airliner-Deflecto-Wallboard.

 

[RedIbis]

Bottom line:
The evidence* says the core columns did not exceed 250°C.

They really don't like this one. Put on your slicker and galoshes because you're about to get hit with a tsunami of semantics.

 

[funk de fino]

The evidence says a. and b. are the same.
SEAoNY *saved samples that were "relative to the fire and structural response of the WTC buildings".

As I recall, NIST said the samples were sufficient to do the analysis.

The highest temperature of a core column was 250°C

This is the evidence*.

Higher temperatures are speculative, not science.

Given the short duration of the fires,
the fact that columns are vertical and will heat up slower than the trusses,
the fact that only one or two sides of the core columns were exposed to the fires,
the fact that steel dissipates heat quickly,
the fact that the jet fuel started everything burning at the same time and the fires near the core would be oxygen starved,
speculation of temperatures higher that the saved samples that were relative to the fire and structural response is not justified.

Bottom line:
The evidence* says the core columns did not exceed 250°C.

You get funnier by the day