Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
beachnut said:
all the steel?

NOT

My fireplace gets to 800C and makes steel glow; i.e. molten. Seems you have way too much to learn and have failed for over 7 years to get 911 straight. Now you well into Bigfoot like delusionville.
Click to expand...

Coal fuelled open fires will warp and burn out fire grates.
 
professor smartpants said:
perhaps some of you can post some of your testing experience, your analyzation trials, both in the field and in the lab or controlled environments,
Stress tests, Bending Testings, heat and Cold Testing, Crash tests, Hardness tests, Metallographic tests, Test to Failure, Life Cycle testing as well as all NDT's that you have been engaged in and are familiar with.
Click to expand...
I'm a metallurgist with more than 10 years experience in the aerospace industry. I'm extremely familiar with all that I have bolded. My main task is the planning, managing of materials testing to generate material property data and analysing the results. These are then added to the companies material database.

I've written test plans for allsorts of different materials and components (even writing test procedure on occasion).

This should be fun!
 
professor smartpants said:
Perhaps you missed it but I made my qualifications known, 2 degrees, technical school graduate, additiional classes in forensic metallography, materials sciences instructor. I recently retired by was employed at the Nat'l Inst. of S & T for a little over 20 years. Spent time in R & D, technical specification and writing, testing and analysis, destructive as well as NDT programs. Numerous other achievements and activities as you can imagine as well as numerous and continued participation in the 3 wtc buildings as well as the Pentagon crash. I also worked in conjuncture with the NTSB and did my fellowship with the ASTM.
Click to expand...
Haha brilliant. A materials science instructor who talks about steel molecules! None of your posts show any of the language associated with what you claim. Start getting scientific real quick because I am more than qualified to sound you out. Don't slip up.
 
Christopher7 said:
Source?

For large power supplies in commercial applications nickel-cadmium batteries are used because they are far superior to acid-lead batteries.
http://www.railway-technology.com/contractors/electrification/saft2/
Click to expand...
No, the NiCd loose charge in a month, the lead acid is perfect for UPS. You lost on molten steel, and now on UPS batteries. Go fish.

UPS not electric trains. Good job messing this up just like your work on 911. How did you mess this up? Google?

http://www.tripplite.com/EN/products/selectors/battery/index.cfm?gclid=CN3-3pPvvpkCFRwpawod8RH85A

http://www.apcupsbattery.com/newsite/apcupsbatteryfinder.htm

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/l...0761499.pdf?arnumber=761499&authDecision=-203

http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-top.pag?docid=8835795

We engineers have looked to replace the lead acid battery, but it is a good choice for reasons that you could have researched but instead you have trains running of NiCd related to UPSs found in the WTC. 7 years you could have become an engineer and stopped having these pesky 911Truth delusions as your failed conclusions.

Why use lead acid? http://www.mpoweruk.com/leadacid.htm

The reason lead acid is used for UPS is related to the shortcomings of lead acid and the streets of lead acid. Engineering trade-offs that escape you since forgot to research this before you made your failed conclusion. Just like your failed conclusions on 911; no extensive research, lack of knowledge and the lack of sound judgment. What happen to the glowing/molten steel failed idea related to thermite?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
I just replaced all my UPS batteries they were past useful life. Catching Chris7 lack of knowledge was easy. There must have been tons of lead in the WTC.
Click to expand...

Along with almost every other metallic element.
Question
Why are Chris7 and the 'professor' so far into denial?

Their 'thermite' and 'molten steel' claims have been refuted by almost every other poster, tradespeople, witnesses and qualified participants who have presented not only expert opinion but also technical evidence.
 
Christopher7 said:
Instead of attacking the arguer, deal with the situation at hand.
Click to expand...
Ok lets rock and roll.

FEMA Chapter C

Christopher7 said:
The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Christopher7 said:
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
Click to expand...
Correct. However, you bolded the word liquefied. You do not understand the context in which this word is used nor do you understand the scale at which this occurs. We have been over this atleast 10 times already but you refuse to understand or read anything that gives you an explanation.

You jump at the word liquefied because you think it's evidence, but it's not, you are misinterpreting the word. This liquid would not even be a cup full. Understand scale, understand that this eutectic is nano-metres (nm 1×10−9 m) in scale. Not mm not cm not metres. It's teensy-weensy tiny, tiny, tiny.

Go here and have a look http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

What is the scale in the pictures? Wow, tons of eutectic - nope! Notice how much oxide layer there is. Way more than the eutectic. It's all about scale - you think in big numbers, tons of liquefied eutectic steel but it doesn't work like that.

Christopher7 said:
Do you have another verifiable explanation for the melted beams?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any melted beams or any evidence of melted beams. You cling to melted beams without any evidence - you can quote all you like but you need to verify your claims. That means doing some work which you currently are not prepared to do.
 
Christopher7 said:
Greening offers a lot of speculation but no scientific conformation that fires in the debris piles could be responsible for the intergranular melting of the WTC steel.
Click to expand...

Can you say irony kids?

You claim he is speculative, but so are you.
 
Egil said:
Can you say irony kids?

You claim he is speculative, but so are you.
Click to expand...
Greening does not answer the question of how a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) resulted in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

Thermi[a]te can do this.
 
Christopher7 said:
Greening offers a lot of speculation but no scientific conformation that fires in the debris piles could be responsible for the intergranular melting of the WTC steel.
Click to expand...
You didn't read the paper did you? I can tell you didn't because you have replied with talk about debris fires and intergranular melting when the paper is talking about sources of Sulphur which is what you asked for.

You are trying to move the goalposts. There is plenty of explanation regarding the liquation and sulphidation observed in the metallographic analysis of the samples - nowhere in that report are the words inter-granular or liquation used. The introduction gives information about the papers that do.

Why does C7 not read anything properly?
 
Toke said:
They have a higher energy detensity than lead batteries, they are also more expensive.
Weigth is not a problem with ups systems.

Try find a Ni-Cad ups instead of a railroad engine.
Click to expand...
When reliability is paramount, nickel cadmium batteries are used.

Find a source for the claim that there were acid-lead batteries on the 82nd floor.
 
Christopher7 said:
Greening does not answer the question of how a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) resulted in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

Thermi[a]te can do this.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of Acid Rain?

I've just provided a counter to your assertion that therm*te was the source, disprove this theory.
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
You didn't read the paper did you? I can tell you didn't because you have replied with talk about debris fires and intergranular melting when the paper is talking about sources of Sulphur which is what you asked for.

You are trying to move the goalposts. There is plenty of explanation regarding the liquation and sulphidation observed in the metallographic analysis of the samples - nowhere in that report are the words inter-granular or liquation used. The introduction gives information about the papers that do.
Click to expand...
FEMA C pg 1
[FONT=&quot]Evidence of severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting was readily visible in the near surface microstructure.

[/FONT]Please show where Greening explains how this occurred or don't claim that he has.
 
Christopher7 said:
When reliability is paramount, nickel cadmium batteries are used.
Click to expand...
False, in fact the opposite is true. Lead-acid batteries are the most common batteries used when a reliable, immobile backup power source is needed.
Find a source for the claim that there were acid-lead batteries on the 82nd floor.
Click to expand...
There was a UPS room there, therefore there were lead-acid batteries there, as no one uses anything else for UPS.

I don't have an original source handy but this took 5 seconds to google:

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
 
Christopher7 said:
When reliability is paramount, nickel cadmium batteries are used.

Find a source for the claim that there were acid-lead batteries on the 82nd floor.
Click to expand...


http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

Enrico,

modifications were made in 1991 to reinforce the 81st floor of WTC 2 in an area occupied by the United Parcel Service.

Modifications were made in 1999 to floor 81 in an area of the floor occupied by Fuji Bank to accommodate the weight of an uninterruptible power supply.

Both of these modifications are documented in the section of the NIST WTC Investigation Report known as NCSTAR 1-1C (go to http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf).

What is perhaps confusing is that both modifications were made to areas where there are two-way trusses (the corners of the building) and the acronyms (UPS for "United Parcel Service" and "uninterruptible power supply") are the same.

However, these modifications were made eight years apart for two different tenants, so there is no link between them.

I hope this answers your question.

Thank you,

Michael Newman Spokesman, NIST WTC Investigation
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
When reliability is paramount, nickel cadmium batteries are used.

Find a source for the claim that there were acid-lead batteries on the 82nd floor.
Click to expand...


Based on the tenant list, there were lots of UPS systems in use at WTC. The size ranged from person PC protection (10#s of lead) to floor-sized units with tons of lead-acid batteries. I knew IT managers in some of those floors.

I've never seen a Ni-Cad-based UPS for sale, and I have purchased a bunch of them.
 
Christopher7 said:
FEMA C pg 1
[FONT=&quot]Evidence of severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting was readily visible in the near surface microstructure.
Click to expand...
You are getting very mixed up - first you ask for sources of sulphur. I provide you with a paper that goes into great depth. Page 1 of the report that I provided does not say that, you are quoting from another source.
Christopher7 said:
[/FONT]Please show where Greening explains how this occurred or don't claim that he has.
Click to expand...
I never claimed that Greening had, I referenced Greening's paper to reply to your question requesting sources for sulphur. Instead of reading the paper you've got all mixed up with regard to why the paper was referenced in the first place!

You need to take more care in reading rather than just jumping from one subject to the next. Incidentally there is absolutely nothing strange about the sulphidation or intergranular attack. If you don't believe me then you can always ask Professor Smartpants seeing as he's claims to be an expert in such fields.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom