It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sulfidated and evaporated steel

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
For every floor, consider the carpet, and or floor tile, add in the fabric, foam, plastic and wood of the cubicles. Add in the plastic of the computers and the miles of cables, add in the file cabinets, drawers full of paper.


There's no evidence of much of this remaining intact after the collapses.


So what?

How would that affect it’s ability to burn as a fuel?




posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So what?

How would that affect it’s ability to burn as a fuel?


Let me rephrase that: most of those materials were destroyed.

I shouldn't come across sounding as if there were big piles of those materials, only turned to dust, at Ground Zero. There weren't. Only a lot of steel, and towards the basement, concrete.

For the concrete and gypsum and all sorts of other materials all throughout the above-ground floors of the buildings, you can look to the fine powder spread throughout the air in Manhattan that day. You won't find carpet and foam and etc. laying on top of the steel at Ground Zero in any photos.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
That's what I was referring to. It's right there in the quote of what you posted, a mere three lines below the subheading. I'm surprised you missed it.


I didn't miss it; I just didn't know whether you were saying that to me or Howard.


As for my posting style, it's not exactly a recent development.


Alright? That wasn't what I was asking, but post however you like.


HowardRoark may be wrong, just as you, me and anyone else can be wrong, but you have presented no proof that he is lying.


I have presented you authorities from both sides of the 9/11 debate, neither of whom assert information rashly. Both offer that hydrocarbon fires burning in the open atmosphere at sea level, without pressurized or pre-heated air, with fuels such as were present at the WTC on 9/11, do not exceed 825 degrees Celsius. Hoffman says higher temperatures in those circumstances would be impossible; Eager says the same.

Those are the only two sources I can even find online that relate here. I'm confident that if you research this you'll find the same, as I'm sure there's some common scientific reference from which both Hoffman and Eager are getting their information here. Besides this, the only references are to flashovers in the WTC by NIST, which you'll find last only but briefly despite their higher temperatures.

And btw, you can go to town with me calling Howard a liar, because I'm pretty sure that he does present information that he knows is deceiving. In fact, I know he's done it before, unless he's senile, because I have debated points with him just to see him turn around in another thread and misconstrue the same argument so as to make it appear contradictory of itself, in a manner which could only be intentional or else indicative of a memory disoder.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So what?

How would that affect it’s ability to burn as a fuel?


Let me rephrase that: most of those materials were destroyed.



In what way were they destroyed so that they couldn't burn?



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
In what way were they destroyed so that they couldn't burn?


I would imagine something to do with this:



And this:

external image

Ie, they did not land in the footprint, which would sort of hinder their ability to fuel fires there. That being the reason that's most obvious to me, I would also suspect destroyed materials in general to be poorer fuel than, say, an intact couch, or carpet, but landing largely outside of the footprints would be problem enough anyway, just as hydrocarbon fires not reaching over 825 C without special atosmpheric and/or other conditions.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
You have to be very careful using adiabatic flame temperatures in relation to an event such as this. Thermodynamics uses assumptions such as reversibility, 100% transfer, adiabatic processes, in the full knowledge that these conditions are impossible to achieve. They exist in a theoretical sense in order to allow comparison between differing values or processes.
An adiabatic process is one without heat loss which means that, in this case, all of the surroundings, air, walls, outside, have to be at the same temperature in order to prevent heat transfer and thus heat loss to these surroundings. There would also be required a stoichiometric source of oxygen also at the same temperature to avoid loss. Stoichiometric means that there is exactly the correct amount of oxygen available in exactly the right places at the right times and no more. As you can see it is impossible that these conditions would exist, neither the stoichiometric nor the adiabatic.
The figure of 825 C is used and generally accepted as being the maximum temperature achievable in a hydrocarbon fire in atmospheric conditions. Again this is a perfect figure and uses a stoichiometric combustion.
In the towers, non atmospheric conditions, there would be thermodynamic conditions, most notably the non-stoichiometric oxygen supply, which would render this figure unachievable. However there are conditions regarding the structural containment which would apply mechanisms to affect the heat energy and transfer in such a way as to allow higher than those atmospheric combustion temperatures to be achieved. These phenomenon such as flashover have been detailed already in this thread.
Thus the temperatures reached in the towers can be looked on as being dependent upon the fire temperature range for a base range and upon pertaining conditions for variations therefrom.
We know that flame tips in hydrocarbon fires are just above 300 C (from memory) because the tips go out, stop reacting, and we know the temp that this happens. So when we see flames licking out of windows they are not necessarily very hot in a relative sense, but they give an indication of the nature of the fire.
When we see black smoke we know that the fire temperature is below stoichiometric. Unburnt fuel = not enough oxygen.
We can deduce other things from the behaviour of the flames.
The hot bits are the near ceiling temperatures in enclosed spaces.
The maximum temperature reported by Nist from their tests, not the computer model, was a gas products temperature at a point near the ceiling of 1000 - 1100 C (from memery). Note that this was not a steel, concrete or other object temperature.
It is also highly unlikely given the photographic and other evidence, showing isolated fires with limited oxygen supplies, that these temperature conditions were widespread throughout the towers.
Within the debris pile~~? No chance and I don't care if that sounds unscientific.
Gordon.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Pinning Down A Liar


Originally posted by bsbray11
And btw, you can go to town with me calling Howard a liar, because I'm pretty sure that he does present information that he knows is deceiving. In fact, I know he's done it before, unless he's senile, because I have debated points with him just to see him turn around in another thread and misconstrue the same argument so as to make it appear contradictory of itself, in a manner which could only be intentional or else indicative of a memory disoder.

If this is true, then these other threads you're talking about can be used to prove that he's a liar. Without such proof, however, this sort of claim calls your own credibility into question.

So by all means, let's see the links to these threads. If you are telling the truth, then the proof is right here on ATS for everyone to see. Since you're the one making these serious charges, it shouldn't be at all difficult for you to find the relevant posts and link them for us. Indeed, the burden is on you to do so.

All you need to do is share the information you have used as a foundation for accusing a fellow ATSer of lying.

The reason to "go to town" on these accusations of yours is because this sort of finger-pointing and ad hominem attack on fellow members is precisely the sort of technique used by those who cannot support their claims with facts. So instead they attack the credibility of those who disagree with them.

This sort of behavior degrades what could be meaningful discussion on important topics into mud-slinging contests that have no legitimate place on ATS outside the Slug-Fest forum.

It also serves to obscure the truth, which is unforgivable.

I would like to be assured that this is not what you are doing.

Going To Town

You posted a statement to this thread that you apparently expect me and other ATSers to believe is true.

You claimed that HowardRoark was lying about the ordinary temperature range of a fire:


Originally posted by bsbray11

]Originally posted by HowardRoark
1000 C is well within the ordinary temperature range of a fire.

This is a lie and you know it.

You have also claimed, as I quoted above, that HowardRoark "does present information that he knows is deceiving".

I consider this issue off-topic to the discussion, but you brought it up and it is a serious matter. You are the one accusing a fellow member of lying and repeatedly maligning him in this thread.

You are persisting in making claims that a fellow ATSer is a liar.

Therefore, I am challenging you to prove it.

The way I see it, you are now faced with three choices. You can:

1. Substantiate your accusation that HowardRoark was lying when he made the claim you disputed as "a lie", otherwise demonstrate that he posts "information that he knows is deceiving" as you stated above, or

2. Withdraw these claims and apologize for making them, or

3. Fail to prove your allegations, and forfeit your own credibility in doing so.

I would like to know which of these it's going to be, because if a member I am discussing something as serious as 9-11 with is posting any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate, I consider that an extremely important fact to be aware of.

Both you and HowardRoark cannot be telling the truth about this. So far, HowardRoark has provided credible sources to corroborate his statements, and you have not.

Given that, which of you should I believe?

What proof can you offer that you're not the one who is lying?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Irritated And Dividing My Posts Up With Cutesy Mini-Titles As I Rant

I just spent, I don't know, maybe an hour or so, probably more, sitting here digging through old posts throughout the 9/11 forum trying to find the posts I was thinking of. Posts that I know exist but have no idea where to find. Then it hit me: you're a tedious ass, and you can believe what you want. I'm not going to be losing credibility here with anyone but those who are already loyal to the official word anyway. Not that my credibility is yours to judge for anyone other than yourself, and not that I think I would really care if I lost credibility with many others regardless.


I'm Pretty Sure, Technically, Some Of These Words Should Be In Lower Case

I have to admit that I love how the topic has shifted from me having to provide sources for the 825 C thing to this new load of bs. Fair enough for the 825 C thing; that was perfectly reasonable. The sources there were pretty slim but Hoffman and Eager are both sources for this figure (or less, actually), and both fairly reliable ones imo, and represent both sides of the argument, and now even Gordon Ross has thrown in some further information for you. I can't find anymore online personally, but I think you have enough information by this point, especially from Gordon's post, to do some personal investigating and confirm, if you wish, that I was right with this figure and that Howard was being misleading when he stated 1000 C. Ok? And if you want any further info that's what you can do, because I think I've given you enough and it's not my job to baby feed you down to the last conclusive bite when you're trying to make up your mind on something.

I Dropped My Bottle Cap And I Have A Five Page Paper Due Tomorrow

At any rate, that stands at two sources, and maybe even a third if your honor would be gracious enough to entertain what Gordon is saying here, seeing as how he has provided a good bit of info from which you could further research things if you truly cared as much as you put on here with all of this tedious drama that makes me want to shoot myself in the face. That's infinitely more than Howard has offered for his figure, as well, you have to admit. But you can believe Howard's assertion that 1000 C sustained hydrocarbon fires would be normal in the WTC situation if it makes you happy.

I Love You

I am so tempted right now to ask you if you're new to the biz, and tell you that I mean "biz" differently than Lumos, and then put you on ignore. Oh the agony you would go through! What "biz" am I referring to? On what basis do I call Howard a liar? Is Lumos cheating on his partner with Gordon? Stop the thread! We have to get to the REAL bottom of things!


Maybe


Well I give up.

Tell me when we get back on topic.

I now have at least two credible sources for sustained hydrocarbon fires burning in open atmosphere at no higher than 825 C absolute max without special circumstances not present at the WTC, whereas Howard asserted 1000 C and offered not a single source. What are you going to do with this information? I don't even remember why it matters now, but I'm sure it's much more on subject than wherever you're going, Majic. Now excuse me while I go shoot myself for the amount of time I've just wasted trying to make you happy.

[edit on 15-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   
well, if it's any consolation, bsbray11, that was HILARIOUS!
and if it's further consolation, i've been avoiding doing the work i need to get done, because i'm having a hard time keeping away from, 'the biz'.

gordon, thanks, man.

here's tae us.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Quibbles And Bits


Originally posted by bsbray11
Not that my credibility is yours to judge for anyone other than yourself, and not that I think I would really care if I lost credibility with many others regardless.

Your disinterest in being credible is apparent from your posts, in particular your habit of making claims without evidence and insulting other members instead of being honest with them.

It is disappointing, but you have chosen option 3: Fail to prove your allegations, and forfeit your own credibility in doing so.

I wanted to make sure I had not misjudged you, which is why I asked you to provide some sort of evidence to explain why you are hurling insults and accusations at other members.

You have, through your own actions, removed all reasonable doubt from my mind about your character.

Consequently, I will give your opinions all the respect and consideration they deserve.

The Questions Three

If someone who does care about the truth and is willing to post honestly about the topic has any information to add regarding Lumos' original three questions, it may help to answer them.

The summary of my opinions based on the evidence I've seen so far is:

1. How could steel evaporate from fires?

It's not clear that steel actually evaporated.

Other sources capable of corroborating this claim are necessary.

2. What caused sulfidation?

According to Dr. Barnett, et al and Dr. Biederman, et al, "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."

It is not clear where the sulfur and other materials necessary for sulfidation of the steel came from, but since sulfur is found in most organic substances (including diesel and jet fuel), there are many reasonable possibilities.

More information would be helpful.

3. Why weren't these highly intriguing questions not investigated any further?

Although some sources refer to additional studies, the status of further investigation of these questions is not clear.

Accept No Substitutes

As in all cases, more information from credible sources may help answer this and other questions.

If anyone can offer some, I look forward to seeing it.

All I'm asking for is the truth.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Losing patience does not equate to losing credibility in my book. You keep demanding additional sources when most likely the mention of evaporation was just a singular slip in this regard. In case of a concerted coverup, which is well established by the 9/11 C-ommission's, FEMA's and NIST's report as well as destruction and confiscation of evidence, would you expect the government agencies exclusively in charge of the investigation to thoroughly examine this highly indicting issue any further? I think we're lucky it's been mentioned once...

So the only things worth asking here are how to ascertain evaporation and how are chances to mistake evaporation for eutectic mixtures?



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Singular Slip


Originally posted by Lumos
Losing patience does not equate to losing credibility in my book. You keep demanding additional sources when most likely the mention of evaporation was just a singular slip in this regard.

That's the problem. A single sentence isn't much to go on.

Anything which might corroborate evaporation -- anything -- would be better than what is being offered so far, which is nothing.

Assumptions and facts are not the same thing, and I refuse to substitute one for the other.

Dishonorable Mention


Originally posted by Lumos
In case of a concerted coverup, which is well established by the 9/11 C-ommission's, FEMA's and NIST's report as well as destruction and confiscation of evidence, would you expect the government agencies exclusively in charge of the investigation to thoroughly examine this highly indicting issue any further? I think we're lucky it's been mentioned once.

That's another subject that I'm actually more interested in: evidence of coverups on the part of U.S. government officials and agencies -- and others who may well be guilty of collusion with mass murderers.

For whatever it may be worth, I am extremely suspicious of several aspects of the government's behavior both prior to, during and subsequent to 9-11. Frankly, I think that's where the real meat of the truth about 9-11 lies, but I've seen little that actually exposes the true conspirators and their actions.

That's not what this topic is about, but if you can point me to an ATS thread which discusses the government coverup angle -- and offers more in the way of facts than innuendo and insults which are, to borrow a term, tedious -- I would be keenly interested in checking it out.

Sadly, such threads seem to comprise a very tiny minority these days.

I'm hoping that will change.

Eutectic Evaporation


Originally posted by Lumos
So the only things worth asking here are how to ascertain evaporation and how are chances to mistake evaporation for eutectic mixtures?

The way to ascertain evaporation is to examine evidence of evaporation. So far, the evidence seems to amount to a single statement that has not even been corroborated by the person who made it.

As for mistaking evaporation for eutectic mixtures, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. In other words, you could have both, especially over a timeframe of several weeks.

It seems plausible to me that the appearance of steel members eroded by what Dr. Barnett referred to as "hot corrosion" could be mistaken for steel that had undergone partial evaporation. It may have just been a fateful and unfortunate choice of words.

In either case, parts of the steel would seem to be missing, and the samples pictured showed signs of significant deformation and melting, if not actual evaporation.

Unless the analysis Dr. Barnett reported was falsified, however, he gave no indication that any of the steel he examined had been exposed to temperatures above 1000C. And if the report was falsified, we should bear in mind that this is the same guy the evaporation claim is based on.

Meanwhile, if it is determined that none of the steel Dr. Barnett and others examined showed signs of evaporation, that still doesn't mean explosives weren't involved in the felling of WTC 1, 2 and 7. It does, however, mean that these steel samples don't prove that explosives were used.

The only way I can see to resolve the issue is to get more information from credible sources.

If credible sources are not available, that would seem to be a conspiracy in itself.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
George Vander-Voort carried on some work on this topic, and in part said that:


The reaction that results in the formation of this eutectic lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel to about 940C or lower depending on Silicon and Carbon effects at the reaction interfaces
www.abmbrasil.com.br...


So he appears to be talking of lower temperatures, not higher. Although to be honest much of that file is beyond me, so maybe there are some significant points I'm missing. Take a look at the original, but keep in mind you'll need Powerpoint or a compatible viewer. And it's intended as a visual companion to a talk he does on this topic, so we're missing a lot of detail...



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Pinning Down A Liar

The reason to "go to town" on these accusations of yours is because this sort of finger-pointing and ad hominem attack on fellow members is precisely the sort of technique used by those who cannot support their claims with facts. So instead they attack the credibility of those who disagree with them.


Just my 2 cents. Bsbray DID show 2 sources from 2 different views that the information by Howard Roark was untrue. Now, if Roark intentionally was untruthful is a different story.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Forfeiting My Credibility To His Highness By Refusing To Dig Through Thousands Of Posts For His Petty ****

Have fun. I totally make up everything I say anyway. It's so obvious. I mean, two sources versus Howard's none. But of course you moved beyond that and just focused on me calling Howard a liar so that doesn't matter anymore.

So I guess you've thrown out everything that's been posted here regarding hydrocarbons and their max temperatures in open atmospheres, right? Because I was obviously making that up, you know?

1000 C Back From The Dead, And This Time Somehow Transferred In Full Directly To The Steel


According to Dr. Barnett, et al and Dr. Biederman, et al, "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."


How likely do you think it was that any steel was heated to 1000 C in either building before collapse?

This having nothing to do with your apparent feelings that maybe the report was edited to leave out evidence for 1000 C heating to the steel, btw, as *incredibly* likely as that would be with all of us sneaky, immoral bastards lurking around.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Now, if Roark intentionally was untruthful is a different story.


No, but see, that's all that matters now. It's the only thing that's relevant here anymore, because I'm a sleazebag and can't be trused ever since I called Howard a liar. The stuff that's actually relevant doesn't matter now.

Screw digging for that, too, man, because that is some time-consuming stuff.

I remember the most recent thread where he made the argument in question out to be contradictory of itself was a thread where someone, probably WCIP, was bringing up the exceptionally large chunk of steel ejected some 600 feet outwards. I think this was all on the first page of the thread, btw, but I could be wrong. On that thread I remember it being brought up that the towers ejected most of their debris outwards while the center of gravity was in the footprints. Someone misconstrued this as meaning the debris was both ejected and fell straight down into the footprint, which is obviously not what the argument is, and is contradictory. Howard posted agreeing, further trying to construe the argument as contradictory of itself, whereas he's definitely been exposed to the argument before. That struck me as off and that's why I remember it. I'm thinking the earlier posts were around the WTC Challenge thread, which is pretty massive in itself, or some threads around that same era. Some here may remember what I'm talking about, if they've been around long enough to see both of Howard's approaches to this one, but yeah, Majic can kiss my behind on this one if he thinks I'm going to spend any more time than I already have digging for that crap. I have nothing to prove to myself, and I know what was posted. He can believe what he wants.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join