Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[Jonnyclueless]

Why doesn't jones just publish a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal showing that thermite was used in the destruction of the WTC?

Wouldn't that put an end to the debate?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Why doesn't jones just publish a peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal showing that thermite was used in the destruction of the WTC?

Wouldn't that put an end to the debate?

Actually, it would start a real debate with real experts in materials engineering rather than just idiots who think they know something on the internet.

 

[BenBurch]

Actually, it would start a real debate with real experts in materials engineering rather than just idiots who think they know something on the internet.

And he cannot afford that.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I think Jones' point was that it was rather pure iron instead of merely molten steel, i.e. it didn't contain any of the elements you'd associate with structural steel - carbon, chromium, vanadium, what do I know - and the location of the manganese was (in the microstructure) not in the iron grains but in the potassium-sulfur-fluoride-etc-rich grains. Manganese would be a part of structural steel, most steels in fact, but can also be part of a thermate mix in the form of potassium permanganate.

What? Where does Jones discuss manganese in separate "grains"? Jones himself discusses "iron... along with uncommon chemical elements
in abundance such as fluorine and manganese". He not only discusses such in different layers, his electron microprobe data shows the manganese distributed among the iron. Not in some different layer!

That is yet another attempt to rescue the thermate proposal with phenomena that is expected.

 

[Minadin]

Apparently he doesn't... Steel is simply an alloy of iron with 0.2%-0.4% carbon added by weight... The carbon is added to increase the material strength. In all it is still essentially iron... there's not much to separate between the two in the first place



True, seems I backfired here just a bit... There are structural fires which do however reach 1800 oF (1,000 oC). And according to NIST there were isolate pockets in the trade centers which briefly reached this temperature. So your original claim doesn't stand to much....

The real question, and I assume the point you were trying to make, is that there would be no benefit whatsoever from thermally protecting (fireproofing) the primary structure of any steel building if normal fires couldn't damage it. Because, that's what we have the overwhelming majority of the time. 'Normal' fires.

Even so, there is absolutely no point in trying to argue with this guy, as you will not convince him of anything from a rational standpoint. I corrected him on this in this very thread back in post #108 way back on page 3 and it was completely ignored, just as have been most of the salient posts made by numerous intelligent and knowledgeable posters since.

There's a difference between refuting a point, falsifying an hypothesis, and mere handwaving.

 

[Dabljuh]

He Wibbles About The Light And Dark Patches And Some Of Their Chemical Make Up, But I Couldn't Work Out What The Point Was. He Clearly Doesn't Understand That A Eutectic Structure Contains Two Phases.

rofl

 

[Dabljuh]

The real question, and I assume the point you were trying to make, is that there would be no benefit whatsoever from thermally protecting (fireproofing) the primary structure of any steel building if normal fires couldn't damage it. Because, that's what we have the overwhelming majority of the time. 'Normal' fires.

Um, no. Fires can damage steel to the point of breakage, that was established, not by you. It was also established that the fire alone couldn't have brought down the towers, due to their redundancy, if anything they only managed so due to initial destruction of this very redundancy by the impact of the plane.

The real point here is that someone is arguing 'normal' fires could melt steel, not just reduce its tensile strength, but melt it. And Grizzly also fallaciously concluded that it might if there was no fireproofing, which I corrected. You're not on the same page.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Um, no. Fires can damage steel to the point of breakage, that was established, not by you. It was also established that the fire alone couldn't have brought down the towers, due to their redundancy, if anything they only managed so due to initial destruction of this very redundancy by the impact of the plane.

And Grizzly also fallaciously concluded that it might if there was no fireproofing, which I corrected. You're not on the same page.

Holy jesus christ you sure are full of strawmen this morning...

It was also established that the fire alone couldn't have brought down the towers

True when you're talking only about fire, since mechanical sprinkler systems aren't typically expected to either be destroyed or immediately overwhelmed by an ignition of several floors simultaneously... Typically, your fire proofing isn't getting dislodged by a 100-ton projectile ramming into the stucture at 500 mph. But like good 'ol truther fashion you miserably fail in the architecture & engineering department, and separate the plane and fire into two separate elements.

The floor trusses were protected with spray-on fire proofing, the core was protected by gypsum wall-board.

The real point here is that someone is arguing 'normal' fires could melt steel, not just reduce its tensile strength, but melt it.

Strawman, you are fallaciously assuming that a lone set of 'sparks', 'molten metal', or whatever composition, for which no physical sample was taken, is steel. This was observed only during the last few minutes before the tower collapsed and wan not observed in the other tower at all despite suffering similar damage.

I never argued that the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. Don't put words in my mouth.

And Grizzly also fallaciously concluded that it might if there was no fireproofing, which I corrected. You're not on the same page.

Strawman
Erm, no.... try again.

You claimed that temperatures of 1800 oF were improbable for steel.

Finally, the notion of an office fire heating a steel beam [or column] to 1000°C is fairly improbable in the first place. And it's extremely improbable given the sheer amount.

The overall point at issue is that if steel were so difficult to heat as you claim, then fire proofing, which slows the thermal temperature increases, would be a waste of time and money. Afterall what would be the point if steel were that difficult to heat? Steel loses strength long before that, by 600 oC it loses 50% of it's integrity, by 1000 oC, 90%.

At no point have I, NIST, or anyone else claimed that fire melted the steel, or 'that it might'. You're making conclusions based on the fact that I disagree with you over the anomaly in the south tower.... I can't take you seriously if you continue to make such assumptions about my positions without merit.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

It was also established that the fire alone couldn't have brought down the towers

True when you're talking only about fire, since mechanical sprinkler systems aren't typically expected to either be destroyed or immediately overwhelmed by an ignition of several floors simultaneously... Typically, your fire proofing isn't getting dislodged by a 100-ton projectile ramming into the stucture at 500 mph. But like good 'ol truther fashion you miserably fail in the architecture & engineering department, and separate the plane and fire into two separate elements.

The floor trusses were protected with spray-on fire proofing, the core was protected by gypsum wall-board.

Hey Grizzly: This post isn't disagreement, not on my part as I do not hold the engineering qualifications necessary to properly judge the merits of the debate I'm about to mention. However, I wanted to point out that there is open dispute between NIST and the University of Edinburgh researchers over whether fire alone could have caused the collapse, or whether the fireproofing did indeed need to be dislodged and/or whether the impact damage was also necessary:
http://cruachan.televisual.co.uk/as...ATABASE=e2&LABEL=emap2&RECORD=194310&SEARCH=1

We don't believe that NIST has satisfactorily demonstrated that the loss of fire proofing was the deciding factor in the collapse, " said Arup associate director Dr Barbara Lane.

We have carried out computer simulations which show that the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact." Lane said the difference of opinion was significant because clients had begun to demand that designs had NIST-compliant fire protection (NCE 30 June)...

... Lane commended NIST's modelling exercise and agreed with most of its recommendations.

"But they have not taken proper account of the thermal expansion of the structural elements, especially the floors.
"As a result, there is too much emphasis on passive fire protection in NIST's recommendations and not enough on the benefits of good design." Dave Parker, Gaithersburg

And I believe this is the paper that forms the basis of this dispute (or was written as the result of it; best I can tell, the paper came before the events in the above linked story, but I'm open to correction if I'm wrong about that):
"How did the WTC Towers Collapse: A New Theory"

Key quotes:

It is clear that the thermally expanding truss floor system initially pushes the column out (while it is sufficiently stiff in membrane behaviour). As the membrane stiffness reduces (through either geometric or material effects), the outward movement of the column is arrested and the stored strain energy in the column makes it recoil with an increasing rate of inward displacement pushing the softened floor system back in... ​

... The floor meanwhile has been pushed beyond its original position and deflections therefore increase to the extent that the membrane compression now changes to membrane tension, adding further to the destabilising force on the column, potentially triggering the instability and progressive collapse​

and

The chief conclusions are:
1. The analysis presented points to a compelling fire induced collapse mechanism rather unique to the type of structure that the WTC Twin-Towers represented
2. This analysis also shows that the collapse is initiated principally by a stability mechanism as a result of geometry changes in the structure caused by thermal expansion effects
3. Furthermore it is quite possible that the geometric changes required to precipitate collapse could result from very low temperatures not high enough to induce significant reduction in the material properties
4. It can therefore be provisionally concluded that these buildings could have collapsed as a result of a major fire event...​

Our poster Architect, too, has noted that the Arup firm also thinks along the above lines.

Who's right? I don't know. A few of the engineering folks here said that the Edinburgh stance makes sense. Then again, that hasn't compelled anyone to discard the NIST line when arguing points here. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that there is actually disagreement from a respected engineering university on the exact point of whether fire alone could cause the World Trade Center collapse.

 

[Dabljuh]

At no point have I, NIST, or anyone else claimed that fire melted the steel

That's a lie. ElMondoHummus did just argue exactly that. He argued the fire melted the steel. And I believe you referred to a bit in my interaction with him, where he argued it would melt, I responded that he should stop with the drugs, and then you argued that if I were right, fireproofing were a waste. Which is alternatively a non sequitur or a strawman by itself.

Regarding the rest of your post, yeah, you're pretty much in the middle of the napalm field.

Get your head straight and figure out what you're actually wanting to argue. Here it is in a nutshell:

The ability of an office fire to weaken steel is perfectly established - but so is the inability of an office fire to melt steel. Even if EMH's theory with structural steel melting at 1000°C were correct, which it isn't, it wouldn't account neither for the sheer quantity of liquid material given the difficulty of an office fire heating steel above 600-800°C and combined with the estimated small number of fires to have reached this temperature range, nor would it reach the observed temperature: Judging purely from the thermal color on the video, the substance - regardless of it being steel, iron, thermate products - has a temperature at least high enough to melt steel, (in excess of 1350°C) hence it cannot possibly stem from the office fire itself. Also, the substance's observed behaviour as it cools is consistent with an eutectic thermate product.

 

[Minadin]

If you're talking about the glowing material that was seen 'dripping' from that one corner, are you certain that steel, iron, and therm(*)te products are the only possible substances that could explain it? If so, how have you determined this?

Have you considered that it might also be explained by molten glass, lead, or aluminum, or that the color might have deviated from the pure colors for those various materials at a given temperature due to impurities such as plastic, paint, or carpet that it might have picked up along the way?


You still have not explained adequately why it is that you believe that we have an entire segment of the building industry dedicated to thermally protecting primary steel structure, or why the WTC was so very different from other steel buildings in this regard. It doesn't really matter what terminology one layperson is using, if your overall goal is to get at the truth of the matter. Laypeople will also incorrectly refer to wide flange steel shapes as "I-beams" and the like. It doesn't actually change the facts when their terminology is incorrect.

If your goal, on the other hand, is simply to goad people into a heated emotional response, or try to score some 'point' in an internet debate, well, then it might almost seem worthwhile, I guess.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

That's a lie. ElMondoHummus did just argue exactly that. He argued the fire melted the steel.

This is what I get for getting so hung up on one part of the argument that I don't pay attention to what I'm saying and miss what the conspiracy peddler responds with. I opened the door up to Dabljuh running in the wrong direction with my statements when I said this:

There was no thermite effect found on the recovered steel. There should be melting well beyond the minute amount noted by observers that's been attributed to eutectic effects in the fires; there should be very obvious macroscopic effects on most if not all of the vertical load bearing components. There was not.

Did I mean to say that the steel melted? Well, sure looks that way. I was referring to the "swiss cheese" holes, but in retrospect, I had hoped people understood that I was falsifying the possibility of thermate effects my noting that holes supposedly created by thermate melting the steel away was in reality caused by eutectic corrosion. But no, I had to say it that way, and look where it got me...

And then I said this:

You're arguing a solidified eutectic - which is what the nanostructure shows: a granular structure indicative of a solidified eutectic - its not simply welding products that came in contact with gypsum - a solidified eutectic of mostly iron, sulfur, manganese, fluorine, potassium could somehow have ocurred due to office fires? You're arguing that NIST or anyone else has never before 2001 investigated a fire where computer screens were burned to explain the surprising appearance of 1,3-DPP? In a quantity that dwarfed all others?

Are you completely off your socks?

What in God's name does "solidified eutectic" have to do with anything? it wasn't solid while it was being formed!!! The whole point of pointing out eutectic reactions is to explain some of the evaporation noted on the steel! The sulfur is liberated from the various sources in the fire, and the temperatures leads to sulfurs and cholrides to react with the exposed steel forming a liquified euctetic. Read Barnett, Biederman, et. al.'s work to discover the details behind this. That's your eutectic reaction.

Now this is bad.
You're seriously arguing office fires melted the steel because sulfur was "liberated"?

Yes, I was arguing that sulfur was liberated. So why did i get hung up on that part and not notice the "office fires melted the steel" part??

You seriously think it wasn't? I await your attempt at falsification.

Falsification of the sulfur being liberated. Which I thought was clearly stated by my next post:

All right. Source that. Since you say that every office fire so far has not had notable sulfur liberation, show me where you're getting that from. Show me a citation, such as a report listing the products of an office fire found after combustion where sulfur is diminishing low to nonexistent.

But no, I screwed up by not paying close enough attention to what was being said. Was I referring to the steel, or the eutectic mix? The eutectic mix, of course, but looking back, I can see how some would misinterpret it. Mea culpa. Anyway, it's time for a clarification: A eutectic mix is a liquefied mix of multiple compounds. In the steel-sulfur (and chloride, maybe?) mix, the liquefication is not of steel, but of the "mix". Like Mackey noted in a previous thread: When the mix reaches its eutectic temperature, think of ice (water ice) mixed with alcohol. It's a slurry. The mix itself for all practical purposes can be considered liquified, but one component - the ice - is not because the mix has not reached the melting point of ice yet.

Similarly, in a mix at its eutectic point, the mix of course is liquified, but said mix contains components that are not themselves liquid. The iron was not. It couldn't have been, it was not hot enough for that to melt - but the mix was. So why is that important? Because I got hung up on what Dabljuh said:

You're arguing a solidified eutectic - which is what the nanostructure shows: a granular structure indicative of a solidified eutectic - its not simply welding products that came in contact with gypsum - a solidified eutectic of mostly iron, sulfur, manganese, fluorine, potassium could somehow have ocurred due to office fires?

Instead of recognizing it what it was really for - nonsense - I chose to respond by noting that the eutectic was once not solid, so why wouldn't it interact with other elements. Such as sulfur. But ooops... that did not help clarify the misperception.

So there it is. I never meant to say "steel melted", but when you don't pay attention to what you write, this is what you get. Bottom line: The eutectic mix was liquid at a point, why would it not lend itself to reactions with sulfur? And no, the steel did not melt. That I did not state that clearly from the onset is my fault, but I'm saying it now. The steel did not melt. It was the eutectic mix of iron oxide, and sulfur (and chlorides, according to some posters (Crazy Chainsaw, was that you??), but not according to Biederman, Sisson, et. al.) that was liquid.

Clear now?

 

[Dabljuh]

If you're talking about the glowing material that was seen 'dripping' from that one corner, are you certain that steel, iron, and therm(*)te products are the only possible substances that could explain it? If so, how have you determined this?

By being able to rule everything else out.

Understand that the important, the hard question is not "What is it?" but "How did it get so hot?" Interestingly the thermate hypothesis answers both, thus has the most explanative value and is logically the best working hypothesis.

Have you considered that it might also be explained by molten glass, lead, or aluminum, or (paint)

-Aluminium has a low emissivity and would have to be near 2300°C to glow as bright as that (which looks like iron or steel around or above 1300°C).
-Glass has a melting point around 1700°C* - of course it becomes plastic earlier. It has a high emissivity, but the white-yellowish color nevertheless indicates temperatures in excess of 1300°C, something an office fire simply can't dream of.
-Paint doesn't glow and it certainly doesn't change from a bright yellow-white to visible orange to pale.
-Radium and other radioactive materials don't change in color either.

The only thing that's left that I'm not so much incapable of falsifying, but simply unwilling, is fireflies. Are you arguing this is a bunch of fireflies?

The only explanation I can't falsify (because it's perfectly consistent with the observation) is that it's a molten thermate product - an eutectic composing mostly of iron, with a melting point around 1000°C. The thermate hypothesis would also explain how it got to be this hot in the first place, and such is, by a far and wide margin, the most probable explanation for the observed phenomenon. The fact that at least a molten-then-solidified item was later identified as a thermate product by Prof. Jones also corroborates with the theory that thermate was in use on the WTC on the day of 9/11.

*I'm getting vastly different figures on the melting point of glass. The point is that it actually *could* be glass, but then we should be wondering why on earth it did get 1300°C+ hot.

 

[phunk]

The only explanation I can't falsify (because it's perfectly consistent with the observation) is that it's a molten thermate product - an eutectic composing mostly of iron, with a melting point around 1000°C.

Well let me help you falsify that. You claim that the material in the video is over 1300°C, so it can't be something with a melting point of 1000°C, or it would be liquid.

 

[Dabljuh]

Well let me help you falsify that. You claim that the material in the video is over 1300°C, so it can't be something with a melting point of 1000°C, or it would be liquid.

I'm sorry, what?

 

[phunk]

I'm sorry I didn't read all of the posts, didn't notice the converstation switched from being about the material shown lifted out of the debris pile (not molten) to the material falling from the corner of the tower.

The location where the material is seen "pouring" from the tower is the exact location of a room full of lead-acid UPS batteries. How is thermite a better explanation than molten lead?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

By being able to rule everything else out.

Understand that the important, the hard question is not "What is it?" but "How did it get so hot?" Interestingly the thermate hypothesis answers both, thus has the most explanative value and is logically the best working hypothesis.

Then answer this:

- Why are there no signs of melting of the supporting steel structure of the building face?

- Why wasn't the aluminum cladding on parts of the exterior face affected?

This molten hot steel is in direct contact with the structure and the temperature of this liquid is presumed by you to be at or near the melting point of steel. So explain to us why the above is not showing.

 

[Dabljuh]

The location where the material is seen "pouring" from the tower is the exact location of a room full of lead-acid UPS batteries. How is thermite a better explanation than molten lead?

How would lead, glass, steel, Alien goo, a liquid metal terminator from the future, get 1300°C hot?

(Without a doubt, Krista Loken would achieve that temperature with me in the room due to friction, but neither one of us was anywhere near the WTC that day)

Lead specifically would have molten and rinsed away long before reaching a temperature that would make it glow.

Why are there no signs of melting of the supporting steel structure of the building face?

Why would there be signs of that?

Why wasn't the aluminum cladding on parts of the exterior face affected?

Why would it be? Would you be able to tell the difference if it was?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

As my last post asks...

This molten hot steel is in direct contact with the structure and the temperature of this liquid is presumed by you to be at or near the melting point of steel. So explain to us why the above is not showing.

if this material is as hot as you say it was, then the aluminum cladding at least would have shown visible signs of effects from this molten material.m Can you explain the absence of this?

 

[Dabljuh]

As my last post asks...

if this material is as hot as you say it was, then the aluminum cladding at least would have shown visible signs of effects from this molten material.m Can you explain the absence of this?

What visible effects are you talking about? Do you propose the aluminium exterior of the building would have liquified immediately upon contact with molten iron/metal/terminator goo?