Thermate + steel having the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al?

[Senenmut]

so i was browsing 911blogger and came upon this post by prof jones:


"Next we return to the mysterious melted steel from WTC7. Now however, the filmmakers inform us that their is nothing special about it: "it was attacked by a liquid slag... a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen." The hypothesis is that the sulfur in the gypsum board was responsible as the fire burned in the rubble pile. However, the description of this slag seems to match thermate by products almost to a T: Molten iron, sulfur, and oxygen. Therefore, I believe more study is necessary to determine the cause. Until an experiment is performed to compare the effects of each cause, this remains an open question.

I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel.OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.) We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject.

Meanwhile, for BBC to neglect our experimental replication of the observed corrosion, using thermite + sulfur, is rather remarkable in itself, seeing that they filmed one of our experiments, as I distinctly recall."

so the question is, will the end result of thermate acting on steel look the same under an electron microscope as the fema bpat report appendix C sample 1?

 

[T.A.M.]

No the question is whether to believe a single word that *********** snake oil salesmen utters.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

... came upon this post by prof jones:

...?

Prof Jones is insane.

One small sample of steel suffered corrosion. Wow, 8 years of constant delusions and repeated nonsense by Prof Thermite Jones; fired for being stupid on 911.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No the question is whether to believe a single word that *********** snake oil salesmen utters.

Agreed. There is no reason to believe Jones's unsupported word. If he's really done this experiment, why hasn't he published the results in the Journal of 9/11 Studies? Let's face it, they're hardly going to reject the paper; they'd publish his laundry list if he claimed it proved 9/11 was an inside job.

Dave

 

[ImANiceGuy]

It's utterly amazing how few replies this thread has produced, yet the "no planer", Calling All Boxcutters, thread is overflowing with replies.

Professor Jones; the insane snake-oil salesman. I'm sure he's just talking ◊◊◊◊ and none of what he is saying is true...

But wait, didn't they find that one piece of strangely corroded steel at WTC7? Was it the only one of it's kind in existence, or the only one that was examined?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Professor Jones; the insane snake-oil salesman. I'm sure he's just talking ◊◊◊◊ and none of what he is saying is true...

We've got his unsupported word that he performed an experiment that he hasn't bothered to publish even on his own website, against peer-reviewed published work by at least three authors. The burden of proof lies on Jones, and he's done nothing to take it up.

Dave

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well, NiceGuy, it's hard for us to comment on Jones's thinking when he keeps flip-flopping between one theory and another like a bloody metronome.

Jones started with an initial theory that something resembling conventional explosives rbought down the towers. When the problems that theory created became insurmountable, he made up magic thermite. A substance which conveniently couldn't be tested for against the background of the materials of the building itself. And then the problems with the thermite theory became insurmountable so he tried to meld the two claiming that the thermite was part of an exotic fusing system for conventional explosives. All this did, however was reintroduce all the original problems that initially pushed him towards magic thermite.

And now he's talking about the effects of the thermite on the steel again. Why does this matter if that was just the fuse on the bombs? Shouldn't he be searching for conventional blast damage?

Jones is continually bouncing back and forth between two scientifically untenable theories, meticulously avoiding one theory that does explain all of the phenomena observed on 9/11:

Airplanes and fire did it.

Jones wants 9/11 to have been an inside job. He needs 9/11 to have been an inside job. Because to admit to the other possibility means admitting to the world and himself that he destroyed his career and reputation for nothing.

It's so sad, that writing this post, putting it out in words on the screen... I actually feel sorry for the poor bastard for the first time ever.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

sorry sorry sorry.....I come off too strongly in my op.

I meant more to draw attention to the fact that most debunkers would choose the "no-plane" thread over this, far more interesting thread, regarding an unusual find at WTC7.

I'm in a diffferent thread with it though, peace.

 

[T.A.M.]

It's utterly amazing how few replies this thread has produced, yet the "no planer", Calling All Boxcutters, thread is overflowing with replies.

Professor Jones; the insane snake-oil salesman. I'm sure he's just talking ◊◊◊◊ and none of what he is saying is true...

But wait, didn't they find that one piece of strangely corroded steel at WTC7? Was it the only one of it's kind in existence, or the only one that was examined?

yes, and imagine, NIST and others who were in on the big NWO plot DIDN'T TAKE IT AND HIDE IT. No, they let it be full examined and the results published for public and investigoogler consumption. Boy that was a big slip up in the plan, don't you think? Now with Stevie Jones and his crack truther team, they have uncovered the whole damn plot...doh!!!!

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Thermate + steel having the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al?

How is that possible? Thermate reacts at far too high a temperature to leave behind a eutectic formation; it would've rendered the steel itself molten, not merely created iron oxide/iron sulfide species encapsulating unmolten iron. Has Jones not read Biederman, Sisson, and Barnett's work?

 

[ImANiceGuy]

elmondohummus - When you say "thermite reacts at too high a temperature to leave a eutectic formation", could you please briefly elaborate for the laypeople.

I read the author's analysis you mentioned previously....is there more than this: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

From Wikipedia.org; Eutectic system:

The resulting solid macrostructure from a eutectic reaction depends on a few factors. The most important factor is how the two solid solutions nucleate and grow. The most common structure is a lamellar structure, but other possible structures include rodlike, globular, and acicular.[4]

This would relate to your reply, right? Can you explain how it fits in?

 

[Senenmut]

How is that possible? Thermate reacts at far too high a temperature to leave behind a eutectic formation;

and what happens when that thermate reaction cools?

it would've rendered the steel itself molten, not merely created iron oxide/iron sulfide species encapsulating unmolten iron. Has Jones not read Biederman, Sisson, and Barnett's work?

what happens when molten steel cools. you know, the phases the steel goes through.......

encapsulating unmolten iron?? im not sure i understand you there.

 

[The Almond]

so i was browsing 911blogger and came upon this post by prof jones:


"Next we return to the mysterious melted steel from WTC7. Now however, the filmmakers inform us that their is nothing special about it: "it was attacked by a liquid slag... a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen." The hypothesis is that the sulfur in the gypsum board was responsible as the fire burned in the rubble pile.

This is cute. Jones completely glosses over the extremely well understood phenomenon of heat decomposition of gypsum. At high temperatures (those well achievable in a building fire), gypsum wallboard will go from gypsum, to anhydrite and finally to CaO and SO_x. The sulfates/ites are extremely corrosive to steel and a variety of other materials.

However, the description of this slag seems to match thermate by products almost to a T: Molten iron, sulfur, and oxygen. Therefore, I believe more study is necessary to determine the cause. Until an experiment is performed to compare the effects of each cause, this remains an open question.

But first, we would need proof that thermate was present before the fire started. Why does Jones not understand this?

I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it!

And how much did it raise the temperature of the steel, Jones? How many experiments will it take to prove that thermite does nothing to steel?

Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel.OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.)

Sulfates are the primary culprit in atmospheric corrosion of steel. Yes, having nitrates and sulfates in the atmosphere, in addition to causing acid rain, will also degrade steel over time. Gypsum decomposes to release sulfates in the presence of fire. Interested parties should read:
"The atmospheric corrosion of unprotected carbon steel"
in Materials and Corrosion, Vol 32, Issue 6

We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject.

Meanwhile, for BBC to neglect our experimental replication of the observed corrosion, using thermite + sulfur, is rather remarkable in itself, seeing that they filmed one of our experiments, as I distinctly recall."

This is so sad. Jones's willful ignorance is pitiful.

It's utterly amazing how few replies this thread has produced, yet the "no planer", Calling All Boxcutters, thread is overflowing with replies.

It's not surprising. Both groups are equally insane, but Jones deals in esoterics. He dresses up his conclusions with enough pseudo-science to fool the average truther, and even most debunkers don't have the requisite education to point out his errors. I guess, the no-planers provide crazy that's accessible for everyone, while Jones requires some special knowledge of materials science.

 

[Macgyver1968]

It's utterly amazing how few replies this thread has produced, yet the "no planer", Calling All Boxcutters, thread is overflowing with replies.

Professor Jones; the insane snake-oil salesman. I'm sure he's just talking ◊◊◊◊ and none of what he is saying is true...

But wait, didn't they find that one piece of strangely corroded steel at WTC7? Was it the only one of it's kind in existence, or the only one that was examined?

Umm...the thread was only 4 hours old when you posted this....and started at 10:15pm EST. The other threads are days or weeks old. What exactly were you expecting?

 

[Edx]

Also that thread has basically turned into making fun of how stupid he is.

 

[TruthersLie]

so i was browsing 911blogger and came upon this post by prof jones:


"Next we return to the mysterious melted steel from WTC7. Now however, the filmmakers inform us that their is nothing special about it: "it was attacked by a liquid slag... a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen." The hypothesis is that the sulfur in the gypsum board was responsible as the fire burned in the rubble pile. However, the description of this slag seems to match thermate by products almost to a T: Molten iron, sulfur, and oxygen. Therefore, I believe more study is necessary to determine the cause. Until an experiment is performed to compare the effects of each cause, this remains an open question.

I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel.OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.) We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject.

Meanwhile, for BBC to neglect our experimental replication of the observed corrosion, using thermite + sulfur, is rather remarkable in itself, seeing that they filmed one of our experiments, as I distinctly recall."

so the question is, will the end result of thermate acting on steel look the same under an electron microscope as the fema bpat report appendix C sample 1?

I'm sorry.

My question is after all of the bullcrap from steven jones, why would you believe ANYTHING he says?

First it is thermite. But has no evidence
then high sulphur concentrations... it must be thermate. And can't forget the iron microspheres in the dust.
then it is nanothermite.
Then it is conventional CD with nanothermite triggers

and now we are back to thermate.

Can't he just choose a theory, do the science to see if he can PROVE IT, get it published in ANY peer reviewed engineering/physics journal and then move on?

Instead we get him performing craptacular science (the bentham "paper" is an excellent example with its 20 major methodological errors) and instead of fixing the testing issues and demonstrating that it is legitimate and accurate he jumps to another different theory.

Hey STEVEN. Stay on task. Finish up ONE theory, before you jump bandwagons to another.

 

[Macgyver1968]

I'm sorry.

First it is thermite. But has no evidence
then high sulphur concentrations... it must be thermate. And can't forget the iron microspheres in the dust.
then it is nanothermite.
Then it is conventional CD with nanothermite triggers

and now we are back to thermate.

Thermite...thermate...nanothermite.....and yet, no one has been able to show how any of them could be used to cut a piece of structural steel...in any amount of time...much less in the fractions of seconds required in a CD.

 

[Senenmut]

Quote:
Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel.

Yes, having nitrates and sulfates in the atmosphere, in addition to causing acid rain, will also degrade steel over time. Gypsum decomposes to release sulfates in the presence of fire. Interested parties should read:
"The atmospheric corrosion of unprotected carbon steel"
in Materials and Corrosion, Vol 32, Issue 6

so are ya saying that thermate reacting on steel can have the same corrosion effects seen on the fema bpat sample 1?

 

[twinstead]

Thermite...thermate...nanothermite.....and yet, no one has been able to show how any of them could be used to cut a piece of structural steel...in any amount of time...much less in the fractions of seconds required in a CD.

Yea, if somebody--ANYBODY--could actually demonstrate that any thermitic material could cut vertical beams of structural steel in an instant, it would go a long way towards changing my thinking that anybody who believes such things are morons.

just saying.

 

[newton3376]

Instead we get him performing craptacular science (the bentham "paper" is an excellent example with its 20 major methodological errors) and instead of fixing the testing issues and demonstrating that it is legitimate and accurate he jumps to another different theory.

Has anyone given a concise list of all 20 with a short description?

If you know all 20 could you list them? It would be nice to have all 20 listed instead of having to wade through those long threads to find all 20....I remember a few (like testing in open air instead of an inert environment, not providing a valid paint sample, etc)....