Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gravy said:
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.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg
Click to expand...
You are both ignoring these facts:
The majority of the core was elevator shafts and air ducts.
There is very little to burn in hallways and washrooms.
The available fuel [office contents] was spread out resulting in less fuel per sq. ft. of floor space.

Given the limited amount of fuel in the core area, the limited areas where there was any fuel at all, and the fact that fires in the core area would be oxygen starved, there is no justification for speculating that the core columns exceeded 250°C

coreareafloorplan.jpg
 
well words like "limited amount" and "very little" are not really QUANTITATIVE, now are they? So your entire post is really useless in terms of the science, and therefore the temperature in question.

TAM:)
 
Senenmut said:
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.
Click to expand...
No. If erosion happened in the piles, such an experiment cannot determine how much may also have occurred in the buildings. Anyway, you're starting with a conclusion: that erosion happened in the towers. Dr. Astaneh, speaking extemporaneously, said he thought one piece from WTC 7 experienced erosion while in place. To my knowledge it was not definitely determined that the piece came from WTC 7, and no tests were done on it to determine when the erosion may have happened. Dr. Astaneh made another comment, "Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin," that may have referred to steel he that he believed, or assumed, came from the Towers' fire floors. Again, I'm not aware of any definitive determination of the as-built location of that steel or of when it experienced the erosion. You could clarify this by contacting Dr. Astaneh. Will you?

Subsequent tests of A36 steel showed that grain boundary penetration by liquid slag could occur in an oven when a variety of contaminants was added. Those tests were meant to approximate fire conditions in WTC 7, not in the towers or piles. However, the steel tested was not under load, so the tests didn't indicate if it would have yielded at the 900C-1100C temperatures used, without the addition of contaminants. If the steel would have yielded at a lower temperature, the addition of contaminants at a higher temperature is irrelevant.

The one eroded column from the towers, for which its as-built location could be roughly determined, was found to have come from the 53rd floor or below and to have been eroded while in the pile.

Researchers do not seem terribly concerned that extreme erosion to structural steel can happen in a few hours in a "normal" fire, or many fire protection engineers and metallurgists would be studying this phenomenon. Remember, there is a large body of scientific literature and experience regarding structural steel that's been exposed to fire.

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.
Click to expand...
No. First, you don't know where the eroded steel came from. It is essential to know that if you want to determine if it contributed to a building collapse.

Second, suppose elaborate experiments were conducted to try to simulate conditions in the piles, but none showed the same degree of erosion to A36 steel in "5 - 8 days." What can you conclude? Is such erosion impossible in that time frame, or did you not properly simulate the conditions that existed in the piles?

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.
Click to expand...
Again, a quote made soon after the events, about steel that wasn't analyzed, for a non-scientific publication that's edited. You can resolve this by asking Dr. Astaneh to clarify if he definitively identified such eroded steel as coming from the Twin Tower fire floors. When can we expect you to do so?
 
Last edited:
Much of the available fuel was blown out of the building.
Some of it fell down the elevator shafts and air ducts.
The jet fuel set everything that was left on fire at the same time.
The jet fuel burned off in about 15 minutes.
Office fires burn for 20 to 30 minutes.
The fires that remained after 30 minutes were past their peak burning temperatures.
NISTIR 7213 test results:
Ventilated room fire temperatures were 900-1000°C.
Those temperatures were maintained for about 7 minutes and died down to less than 100°C 25 minutes after ignition.

There is NO justification for assuming or speculating that core columns got any hotter than the sample columns collected by SEAoNY.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You miss the point again - as usual. What about other columns or parts of the structure? Just looking at one part is cherry picking a single data point.
 
Christopher7 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Again you are summing up the obvious that íf you do not subject, for example, glass and aluminum to the same heat, but only keep the aluminum around melting point and not the glass as well then you will get pieces of glassy chunks clustering in it as opposed of molten glass, oils and other material dispersing itself through the aluminum. This is a rather obvious sum-up, but it doesn't pertain to the issue since it does not in any way constitute a counter-argument.

These organic compounds are created in trace amounts and released, not combined.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't even bother to read a single note on this issue that I've repeatedly clarified and added workable links for. The dioxin wasn't the argument, but the CONTAINED organic material within; chlorine compound.

You can not release a compound (such as chlorine) from aluminum unless it is a compound from within the given material.

Re-read the post you keep ignoring;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4502404&postcount=1463

Re-cap from the above:
"If these components would burn up when blended with the molten aluminum poured into the mold, they would be patently useless. They mix and bind.

If aluminum and organic materials can't mix then how can one extract aluminum from aluminum-organic matter? Or better, yet, how can the latter even exist? How could aluminum-organic chemicals exist??
*Extraction of Aluminum from Aluminum-Organic Matter in Relation to Titratable Acidity

I recommend you read the book "The Enviromental Chemistry of Aluminum", especially chapter 5 which is entitled; 'Enviromental Chemistry of Aluminum-Organic Complexes', and particulary the sub-section of 'Organic Bound Forms of Aluminum in Soil Solutions'.
If you'd prefer something a bit more advanced, I suggest you read; "Applied Organometallic Chemistry" Volume 17 Issue 5, Pages 268 - 276, article; "Materials, Nanoscience and Catalysis: Characterization of aluminum-organic-stabilized platinum-colloid networks with electron and photon spectroscopies".

But wait a minute, organometallic chemistry? Isn't that impossible?

Btw, as a test of your preferred scenario, what on earth stopped all of the aluminum alloys from becoming molten and pouring out while the steel was allegedly liquified and was pouring out??
Click to expand...

There you go.

Show where it says that molten aluminum can mix with molten glass or plastic, and under what conditions.
Click to expand...

There is no practical use in metal casting to blend glass and aluminum, however if you look at the simple aspect of liquified glass and liquified metals then there is no scientific reason to assume they would evenly seperate from each other forming clustered segments while heated, however the added glass would seperate and cluster if not molten (obviously) or if the aluminum and glass weren't subjected to the same kind of temperatures (since that is how various aluminum alloys could act at 660C when blended with molten metals at much higher temps) since it's established knowledge that there are organic materials mixable with aluminum and you've been given demonstrably clear and concise material on this from the scientific establishment.

Still, as I've repeatedly said, personally I do not think there would be much need for impurity-variables to explain the glow of the molten aluminum, since that is how aluminum looks at high liquid temps.

Has anyone done this? Is it possible? Why don't you try it?
Can't hurt
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone have done this and I think Jones experiment was the dumbest in the history of science since he though it would disprove or prove anything other than molten aluminum does not necessarily mix the same way with unheated solid materials.

I'd love to do it myself but unfortunately I do not see my supervisors agreeing to it, because they couldn't give a tiny rats arse about any 9/11 Truther bewilderment over metallurgy or organometallic chemistry.

Right now you've got zip-zilch to support the "organic material-can-mix-with-molten-aluminum" throry.
Click to expand...

No, because if it was impossible as a default position, which you and Jones seem to keep, then there wouldn't exist any possibilites for organometallic chemistry, there wouldn't be any aluminum-organic chemicals either.
Basically, you would not be able to add any such agents unto and into molten aluminum to give the aluminum certain qualities.

The only picture taken outside in daylight shows the moulten aluminum was silver.
Click to expand...

Again the "daylight" magic you are prescribing to is nonsense. You do not get red/yellow glowing aluminum sparkling away to look silver glow simply by reflecting light on it, ie daylight or lamps.

However, on the discussed picture, does this look silver to you?
images_pic-medium-21718-pouring_the_molten_aluminum.jpg


That does not look silvery, at all. The solidified aluminum in the mold does look silvery because it has hardened.

Compare that picture with another one (that I've already shown) taken outside (the right picture is from inside a foundry):
600_v_1000.jpg


Are you seriously trying to tell an industrial smith, who works with this sort of stuff for a living, that the difference in colour between these three pictures are caused by the amount of daylight?!? :eek:

Show a picture, from a verifiable source, of molten aluminum taked outside in daylight that glows orange to yellow as it is poured like the molten metal falling from the south tower.
Click to expand...

There were a whole lot of qualifications, because I've already shown you the above but you could then, with your unfalsifiable stance, claim it doesn't exactly look like poured from the south tower.
In general it is hard to find pictures of foundries pouring molten aluminum of high temperatures out in the open, but I have provided you with out-door picture as well as indoor ones of varying degrees of light shining unto the material, and it still looks red and yellow unless the aluminum is just around its melting point.

I'm going to repeat this one more time Christopher;
The typical argument used against glaringly obvious photographic evidence of red and yellow aluminum in many variants. Not all were in dark rooms and besides this variable matters only slightly to the surface reflections of light bouncing off from the molten aluminum, it doesn't change the colour itself.
As I've already told you, I do not want to hear your repeated rejection that had there been more light on the aluminum it would'n't have had these colours, that's a general myth because while light increases the reflection and makes aluminum glow less dark and reflect light on its surface, like the hood of a blue car just waxed giving off blinding light yet still obviously of blue colour, it doesn't magically transform the obvious red and yellow glow into pure silver glow in any case scenario.

You do not get red glowing aluminum like in the above pictures to look all silvery just by turning on a bright light bulb or letting daylight hit the molt. Furthermore, the second picture in my previous post was taken outdoors and the melt is obviously not silver.
Are you going to retort with, well it was probably a cloudy day and that's the reason why aluminum looked reddish and not pure silvery colour?

I checked out the links and found nothing to support the hypothesis of organics mixing with molten aluminum. If you have something specific, post it.
Click to expand...

:confused: In the face of commonly accepted and established science, of organic material and agents blended and mixed in compounds with aluminum, molten and remaining as compounds after hardening, you simply deny it?

The one where the aluminum appears silver is outside. I was referring to the others of course.
Click to expand...

There was only one which showed aluminum as silvery, and that was the comparison segment between aluminum alloy at 580-650C and aluminum at 1000C. The other outdoor picture does not give a silvery colour because it is not the same temperature.
 
Gravy said:
If erosion happened in the piles, such an experiment cannot determine how much may also have occurred in the buildings. I'm not aware of any definitive determination of the as-built location of that steel or of when it experienced the erosion.
Click to expand...
NIST 1-3C pg 233
"Finally, as this piece was clearly in a prone position during the corrosive attack ."

The corrosion occurred in the debris pile.
 
Sunstealer said:
You miss the point again - as usual. What about other columns or parts of the structure? Just looking at one part is cherry picking a single data point.
Click to expand...
This is the JREF way of refusing to acknowledge the facts by shifting the subject. The term "cherry picking" is used to describe siting evidence to back up a point. It's just sophistry.

I'm not talking about a "single data point"
I'm stating a fact.

250°C is the highest temperature that can be verified for any core column.
 
Christopher7 said:
You are both ignoring these facts:
The majority of the core was elevator shafts and air ducts.
There is very little to burn in hallways and washrooms.
The available fuel [office contents] was spread out resulting in less fuel per sq. ft. of floor space.

Given the limited amount of fuel in the core area, the limited areas where there was any fuel at all, and the fact that fires in the core area would be oxygen starved, there is no justification for speculating that the core columns exceeded 250°C
Click to expand...

Oxygen starved with plentiful shafts and air ducts? There's a thing !!

Just thought I'd point out some more of your self-contradiction.

And, of course, you're ignoring the fact that office contents on the impact side would be slammed towards the core ...
 
Christopher7 said:
Please verify who took this photo, the metal being poured is aluminum, the temperature, and if it was taken outdoors in full daylight.
Click to expand...

Will you return that compliment when asked nicely? I'm thinking of the grappler photo, obviously.
 
Christopher7 said:
This is the JREF way of refusing to acknowledge the facts by shifting the subject. The term "cherry picking" is used to describe siting evidence to back up a point. It's just sophistry.

I'm not talking about a "single data point"
I'm stating a fact.

250°C is the highest temperature that can be verified for any core column.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand the sampling criteria for that data point, you shouldn't use it as evidence.

They weren't looking for the pieces that reached the highest temperature, they were looking for pieces that could be identified still. If the identifying marks can be destroyed by heat, and you only want identifiable pieces, then your sample will necessarily leave out the most heat-damaged parts.
 
GlennB said:
Oxygen starved with plentiful shafts and air ducts? There's a thing !!

Just thought I'd point out some more of your self-contradiction.

And, of course, you're ignoring the fact that office contents on the impact side would be slammed towards the core ...
Click to expand...
Chris doesn't even know how the tens of thousands of miles of electrical and communications cables got to their destinations in the buildings. After all these years of "study," you'd think he would have learned...something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom