Merged So there was melted steel

[Montag451]

"planes + fire" could not produce steel melting temperatures.

MM

And your qualifications to assertion that are............

We wait with baited breath

 

[Robrob]

"planes + fire" could not produce steel melting temperatures.

MM

Of course "planes + fire" could easily have produced temperatures between 500-600 F, the temperature where steel softens enough to lose the majority of its structural integrity.

 

[NoahFence]

You have granted NOTHING.

MM

Perhaps you should read the OP again.

 

[NoahFence]

Well apparently you guys are reporting every little hurt, and since the Moderators are actually doing their job today, at least as far ruling against 9/11 truth supporters, I believe it would be wise for me to not reply further.

MM

Uh... not quite. You believe it's wise not to comment further because you haven't the slighted idea what you're talking about, and you're just now realizing that you prove that with every post.

How does molten steel prove controlled demo?

The molten steel is there. You and your kind have been granted that.

 

[Scott Sommers]

The authors of that paper ARE EXPERTS.

They have been found.

We know what they think.

It is your masked (nun's habit), non-experts, making unsupported declarations based on their wishful thinking that I have a problem with.

MM

I usually stay out these arguments because I have no technical knowledge of thermite, but I was attracted by this point.

Why do you think the authors of the Jones Thermite paper were experts on thermite? They have many degrees, but so do I, and I don't feel qualified to comment on this topic.

The whole idea of arguing over expertise is very strange. It's typically apparent that an academic expert is an expert. This can be easily verified by their research publication history. So why do you think the research publication history of these people quaifies them as experts on energetic materials? Have they published anything on thermite since they released these papers? Do they have an ongoing thermite research program directed at energetic materials?

If that were so, they would have no trouble at all getting this paper published in one of the many other journals they have published with. That this discussion is happening points to the serious issues that Jones and his crew have had establishing themselves as experts in relevant fields.

 

[twinstead]

So why do you think the research publication history of these people quaifies them as experts on energetic materials? Have they published anything on thermite since they released these papers? Do they have an ongoing thermite research program directed at energetic materials?

MM could not care less

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Since we're granting you there was molten steel , rivers, lakes and streams of it, what does that prove?

You have granted NOTHING.

...the hell? It was granted in the very first post of this thread. Where have you been?

 

[A W Smith]

MM abandons thread, Fails to support his molten steel=conspiracy

Since thermite can create a steel-melting temperature, therefore, if sufficient, fresh, unspent thermitic material continues to be introduced, then steel-melting temperatures can theoretically be maintained indefinitely.

MM

1) Define sufficient, % by weight of therm*te to % by weight of steel.
2) Who's "theory"? Citation please.
3) Answer my previous post,

 

[Scott Sommers]

MM could not care less

Is this true? I talk with many Truthers who really do believe that Steve Jones and his 'paper' are real because they simply lack the education to understand he is not an expert. Loads of Americans who graduated from high school and did not attend university would be impressed with Jones and his PhD.

MM, does it really not matter to you if Steve Jones has no expertise that matters? If you believe he is an expert on thermite, what makes you think this?

 

[ozeco41]

MM could not care less

Correct. The aim of a troll is to prevent reasoned discussion which is directed towards answering relevant questions.

One of the common ploys to achieve this goal of zero progress is that they construct derails and side tracks or focus on detail which either leads no where or leads no where in an efficient short time frame.

In the context of 9/11 discussion the primary reason for any interest in "thermXte" is that a truther, S Jones (et al) put it forward as a possible material used for CD. He put forward a paper claiming that residuals of thermXte (or the material itself) were present on ground zero. Hanging on that claim is a big implication that, if it was there it means CD was used or at least contemplated. Exactly what they imply is rarely made clear because vague inferences are another stock standard truther ploy.....but leave that aspect for now. (Identification, analysis and rebuttal of standard truther or troll tactics could be an interesting topic in its own right....but not here or now. )

There is a secondary reason for interest in whether or not thermXte was present. That is the purely scientific one isolated from and with no suggestion that CD was involved. We can set that aside also at this stage - the interest is a valid one but it is questionable as to whether it belongs in this forum of 9/11 conspiracy topics.

So for those of us who are interested in the genuine 9/11 question of "Was there CD or not?" there are two main paths of logic we can take to dispense with the concerns about whether or not there was thermXte on site. Remember that our only interest in thermXte is "was it used for CD?"

The truthers want us down the red herring derail paths of discussing whether or not there was CD >>> (OR at a lower level) whether Jones et al's paper found CD (or going even lower) whether or not Jones paper was "peer reviewed". And, yes, I have not covered all the levels or all the options. Nor will I discuss the adequacy or otherwise of "academic peer review" as a quality assurance process. That also is another topic.

BUT (in this context of the relevance of thermXte discussion) we can take two broad paths of logic. We can go the way the truthers/trolls want us to go - down the path of "was there thermXte" and experience shows that discussion down this path will not progress. (Despite one notable exception which may show progress - courtesy of Chrismohr)

OR we can take the simple alternate of relying on the total lack of evidence in any form and the lack of any reasoned explanation of how CD could have been accomplished - whether we limit that to the thermXte related options or include the lot.

Reality is that any reasoned conclusion is "There was no CD" and rigorous proof of that has been and could again be spelled out in detail.

AND, since there was no CD there was no use of thermXte in CD.

So why keep feeding the ego's of the trolls?

The only reason thermXte as an agent of CD is being considered is because we have fallen for the truther's/troll's trick of "There was thermXte there and it was used for CD ---- prove me wrong"

False transfer of burden of proof AND a requirement to prove a negative.

 

[Travis]

Here is a step by step primer for how this should be done.

1. Provide evidence of melted steel (unnecessary in this thread)
2. Provide evidence that only thermite could have created the molten steel
   1. Demonstrate what physical conditions would allow molten steel
   2. You will need to show that the physical conditions present could not have produced molten steel
3. Provide evidence that thermite was there
   1. Physical evidence would be best
   2. Eyewitness accounts would also be nice
4. Show how thermite could have taken down the towers
   1. Provide collaborating evidence for this activity
   2. Digging up demolition precedent would be nice too
5. Explain how it is that no one saw the thermite doing this

 

[Robrob]

Since thermite can create a steel-melting temperature, therefore, if sufficient, fresh, unspent thermitic material continues to be introduced, then steel-melting temperatures can theoretically be maintained indefinitely.

Simple question: how much "fresh, unspent thermitic material" would it take to keep a 10' pool of molten steel in a molten liquid state for two months?

 

[ozeco41]

Simple question: how much "fresh, unspent thermitic material" would it take to keep a 10' pool of molten steel in a molten liquid state for two months?

It's even more basic than that. Try:

"How could heat from a thermite source be applied to a pool of steel to keep the pool molten?"

There is no viable answer to that question - and it comes logically before the question of "how much" thermXte.

just another reason why all this discussion of thermXte is nonsense....

...unless your interest is purely scientific and totally unrelated to any possible CD at WTC on 9/11.

The logic is much easier down the "other" path. Since there was no CD it follows that thermXte was not used in CD. And the proof that way is a lot simpler than arguing about Jones and his silly paper etc etc .........

 

[Travis]

I believe R Mackey actually crunched the numbers once and estimated you would need to start off with around 30,000 tons of thermite to have any still reacting six weeks later.

 

[Oystein]

Here is a step by step primer for how this should be done.

1. Provide evidence of melted steel (unnecessary in this thread)
2. Provide evidence that only thermite ...

Wait wait wait - you have already established a prejudice here: That the truthers, who claim molten steel = malicios intent claim that thermite is the only explanation.

Also, before you ask for evidence for individual steps of the theory, I think you ought to ask for the full theory first. So I suggest a different step-by-step approach to tackle the OP.

Truthers, ask thyselves:

• Do you believe the steel that was found liquid weeks after the collapses was A melted before or during the collapse and stayed molten all the time, or B was sollid after the collapse and melted later in the debris pile?
• If you answered A, your theory must explain how the heat that is lost to the molten steel due to basic thermodynamic processes is replenished: How much heat is lost, what energy source replenished it, how was that applied, with what degree of efficiency, etc.
• If you answered A, and there is an energy source that replenished the heat lost to the molten steel, why was that energy source not observed at work? (This assumes that ordinary debris pile fires would be insufficient))
• If you answered B: What energy source melted the steel in the debris pile? How did that energy source survive the collapses and subsequent fires? Why wasn't it triggered and spent at collapse time? How was it triggered weeks later? Why has no one observed it at work?

That's for starters.



ETA: Much more difficult, but necessary, is of course an answer to the question why all non-nefarious means of melting steel are excluded, including those no-one has thought of yet. That's proving a negative. The burden of proof is on those who have already ruled out such non-nefarious means.

 

[oody]

Since thermite can create a steel-melting temperature, therefore, if sufficient, fresh, unspent thermitic material continues to be introduced, then steel-melting temperatures can theoretically be maintained indefinitely.

So your theory is that there was something similar to a pellet stove underneath the WTC?

 

[DGM]

Since thermite can create a steel-melting temperature, therefore, if sufficient, fresh, unspent thermitic material continues to be introduced, then steel-melting temperatures can theoretically be maintained indefinitely.

MM

I don't know why you guys are playing with 9/11 "truth". You seem to have discovered the solution to the worlds energy needs.

 

[A W Smith]

So your theory is that there was something similar to a pellet stove underneath the WTC?

Yeah that's exactly what I was imagining he was trying to theorize, Only problem it would ignite all the fuel in his "hopper" at once. So no. Even MM's pellet stove wont work. I have something much simpler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puddling_(metallurgy)

The alternative to refining gray iron was known as 'wet puddling', also known as 'boiling' or 'pig boiling'. This was invented by a puddler named Joseph Hall at Tipton. He began adding scrap iron to the charge. Later he tried adding iron scale (in effect, rust). The result was spectacular in that the furnace boiled violently. This was a chemical reaction between the oxidised iron in the scale and the carbon dissolved in the pig iron. Again to his surprise, the resultant puddle ball produced good iron.

 

[BasqueArch]

.

Per OP, truthers would say that reports of molten steel indicate temperatures higher than can be attained by natural fires. That what kept steel molten (liquid) for weeks was the thermite found in the dust. Therefore CD and Conspiracy.

1 )We know that for the Harrit ignition test of the chip, the flame was about 2 x the diameter of the chip. Therefore the minimum density for the thermite in the dust to merely sustain combustion would be about one eighth of the dust by volume. IIRC, we see nowhere near this density in the dust collected by Harrit Jones, to merely sustain thermite combustion. One could speculate that the density was greater near the center of the collapse, but Jones Harrit does not provide data for distance/density of the samples to confirm. What then is the minimum density for thermite to melt steel.

2) We see in tests that where thermite density is 100% around a sample steel (History Channel, Myth Busters), this is still insufficient to melt steel or even make the steel glow with heat. The only means for thermite to melt steel is for it to be in a container that focuses the heat of the fired thermite through a hole or slit.

3) No such devices were found to keep acres of debris at high temperatures or of steel melted for weeks at steel melting temperatures. It takes large amounts of thermite in a focused container to produce tiny amounts of melted steel. Rivers of molten steel would require mountains of thermite focused containers.

Reports of molten steel are not the result of burning thermite.

 

[Oystein]

.

Per OP, truthers would say that reports of molten steel indicate temperatures higher than can be attained by natural fires. That what kept steel molten (liquid) for weeks was the thermite found in the dust. Therefore CD and Conspiracy.

1 )We know that for the Harrit ignition test of the chip, the flame was about 2 x the diameter of the chip. Therefore the minimum density for the thermite in the dust to merely sustain combustion would be about one eighth of the dust by volume. IIRC, we see nowhere near this density in the dust collected by Harrit Jones, to merely sustain thermite combustion. One could speculate that the density was greater near the center of the collapse, but Jones Harrit does not provide data for distance/density of the samples to confirm. What then is the minimum density for thermite to melt steel.

2) We see in tests that where thermite density is 100% around a sample steel (History Channel, Myth Busters), this is still insufficient to melt steel or even make the steel glow with heat. The only means for thermite to melt steel is for it to be in a container that focuses the heat of the fired thermite through a hole or slit.

3) No such devices were found to keep acres of debris at high temperatures or of steel melted for weeks at steel melting temperatures. It takes large amounts of thermite in a focused container to produce tiny amounts of melted steel. Rivers of molten steel would require mountains of thermite focused containers.

Reports of molten steel are not the result of burning thermite.

It can be easily calculated that the energy density of 100% thermite is enough to melt a small multiple of its mass in steel - something like 3 times it's own mass. As a first approximation, one of these 3 parts is needed to heat and melt the thermite reaction products themselves (iron and Al-oxide), and one part at least gets lost to the environment, radiation, spilling... So if applied expertly with devices as you describe them, one mass unit thermite can melt one mass unit of steel.

It is well known that less than one hour after thermite welding of steel rails, the steel has cooled enough to be strong enough for a train to run over it. So after 45 minutes or so, you will need another mass unit of thermite to melt it again - you'd need more than one mass unit to keep it molten for 45 minutes (on account of hot things losing more heat per time unit that not so hot things).

So, if ideally applied, you'd need at least one mass unit of thermite to keep one mass unit of steel molten for 30 minutes, or 50 mass units of thermite per day, 350 mass units per week.
Not only would you have to continually feed those mass units to the molten steel, you'd also have to remove the reaction products continually.
Now the problem with the Harrit-"thermite" is of course that, per Marc Basile's "confirmation" of Harrit's results, the red layer of unreacted, active thermitic material does not contain 100% thermite, but only 5% thermite. So instead of 350 mass units per week, they'd need 7000 mass units per week of the red material - in concentrated form of course. And that's assuming that the other 95% of the red layer (mostly organic matter) just goes away without taking away more heat. Now with the gray layer attached, the concentration of thermite drops further, and of course the red layer would first heat the gray layer (which is iron oxide) before it could melt any additional steel. Now Harrot reports that the dust contains only up to 1% of these thermitic chips. We are now at 1,400,000 mass units of Harrit's thermitic dust to keep one 1 unit of steel molten for 1 week - again assuming that the other 99% of the dust just vanishes magically when the thermite burns. In reality, of course it doesn't vanish magically, and it can be easily shown that the concentration of supposed thermite in the dust as per Basile's and Harrit's numbers is only enough to warm the dust by a few degrees - far far too little to even sustain the reaction.


I'd love to see ergo or MM to find what's wrong with my calculation.