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.

 

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Do you mean the Dr. James Quintiere who wrote the book "9/11 Was An Inside Job: Blowing The Lid Off Of A Politically Corrupted Investigation"? That Dr. James Quintiere?
Ooops. Only one problem. There AIN'T no such book.


Hmm, does my post say anything about such a book? No.

Have I even heard of such a book? No.


Do you mean the Dr. James Quintiere who wrote the book "9/11 Was An Inside Job: Bombs In The Buildings"? That Dr. James Quintiere?
Ooops. Problem 2. There AIN'T no such book.


Does my post say anything about such a book? No.

Have I even heard of such a book? No.


Perhaps instead you mean the Dr. James Quintiere who wrote the book "A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers"? Fire Safety Journal Vol. 37, No. 7
Yep, there IS one of those: cat.inist.fr...

Do you catch that? The same Dr. Quintiere, whose reputation insufferable bozos drag into the mud by association every time they quote mine him and FALSELY imply that he is a truther.


Sorry, you are ranting off on a tangent here.

I was simply pointing out that even NIST's own former CHIEF of the FIRE SCIENCE Division does NOT agree with you that NIST's report was "top notch" or whatever other nonsense you said about it. The report was total trash and not even NIST's own engineers are in agreement about it.



I guess we both find it humorous. For different reasons.


Yes, especially since you can't even stay on topic when you are trying to refute what I was pointing out. For someone who was just lecturing me on asserting you believe things which you do not, the pot sure was calling the kettle black, wasn't it?




posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thomk
You ASK me what I think. Don't tell me what you (mistakenly) think I think.
In exchange, I won't call you "kid" anymore. Deal?


You know, I don't really care what you call me.

OK, kid. Suit yourself.



Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thomk
BTW, neither did NIST "only consider fire & nothing else".


Then what else did they investigate and how?


What they considered was:
1. impact
2. deflagration of fuel
3. physical damage from impact
4. load shifting from damage
5. elastic & plastic deformations from new loads

and up to this point, no collapse. They continued considering:

6. fire
7. creep
8. changing loads due to creep
9. sagging of trusses
10. photographic evidence of creep (bowing of external columns)
11. failure modes (trusses, buckling of columns, bolts & connectors)


Originally posted by bsbray11
They didn't check for residues, for either explosives or thermite, they went into their investigation with the ASSUMPTION that only the plane impacts and fires were the relevant factors. So what exactly DID they do to investigate anything else?


The NIST engineers didn't check for explosive or thermite residues because they aren't morons. They see a plane fly into the side of a building & explode, they see 1 & 2 hour raging, unfought fires, and then they see both buildings collapse, and BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MORONS, they figure that "maybe, just maybe, those two events are connected".

They are not such idiots as to think, well maybe those two events had nothing to do with each other. Maybe Godzilla stepped on the buildings. Or maybe ray guns from space vaporized the columns. Or maybe someone put in "silent explosives" that nobody on the planet has ever heard about. Or maybe someone, for the first time in history, has figured out how to use thermite ... whatever ... the 20 reasons why it cannot be thermite, except in conspiratorial kids' minds.

And, btw, they ignored the possibility that someone figured out a way to cut / dustify / whatever the columns to make the towers collapse at the "speed of stupid" (note please that there is no such thing as "the speed of gravity") and THEN ... [hold it, this is the BEST part] ... get ALL the columns to reassemble themselves in the rubble heap leaving precisely ZERO evidence that they were ever cut / dustified / whatever.

Because there were ZERO cut / dustified / whatever columns in the rubble heap. They were fractured and broken at their MANUFACTURED ENDS.

BTW, the 50 or so trained bomb / explosives sniffing dogs that worked the scene "checked for explosives residue". Their report to their handlers: "No residues".


Originally posted by bsbray11
You know FEMA established there was indeed melted steel in appendix C of their report, right?

Originally posted by thomk
Would you care to wager $1,000 on that?


THIS is the basis of the wager, kid:

Were there, as truthers love to say, "pools of molten steel below the towers".
Were there "rivers of molten steel running down the channels".

THAT is what I'm willing to wager $1000 with you.

Not, was there a tiny little spot on the surface of two highly abnormal specimens that MIGHT HAVE formed a few teardrop sized rivulets of something in the rubble heap.

You let me know if you want to go THAT bet. I am not concerned with your pulling isolated aberrant events out of the big picture. (Just like you quote mine.)

I am interested in the big picture.

Now, let's get to the FEMA report that you are so fond of, and to the question "did FEMA prove that there was "melted steel" under the GZ rubble.

First thing: The intro. "Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2."

1. "TWO samples." These were aberrant pieces. They did not reflect the condition of the rest of the steel.
2. Do you know how to tell if an "I beam" or a box beam "melted" in the rubble pile under GZ? Here's a hint. "If you can recognize the piece as an I beam or a box beam, then it did NOT melt." If it melts, it turns into a PUDDLE. When it cools, it looks like a solidified PUDDLE. Not like whatever it was before it became a PUDDLE.

Look at Figure C2 & C9, in FEMA403 AppC.

Does they look like:
a) sections taken thru extruded beams that are highly corroded on their surfaces,
OR
b) solidified puddles?

Those are your ONLY two option.

[End Part 1]


[edit on 24-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
[Part 2]

Now, as to the properties of A36 structural steel:
Here's its chemical composition. You only need to worry about the carbon content: less than 0.29% for large sections.
Chemical composition of A36 steel


Here is a phase diagram for carbon & steel.
A36 is way over to the left of this diagram, to the left of 0.3% C
Phase diagram of mild carbon steels

Now, way at the top of this diagram is a small letter "L" that looks like an "I". That stands for "Liquid". In order to REALLY melt any carbon alloy, you have to get it above the top line on that chart.

You'll also notice that there are two eutectics on this diagram. A true eutectic at ~4.2% C (shown by the *), and a "tau phase eutectic" down around 0.8% C (shown by the †).

For A36 steel, start at the bottom around 0.3% C and run your finger upwards. You begin to get liquid (∂ + L) phases at about 1460°C, and it completely melts at 1520°C.

THERE is your target, kid. 1520°C or hotter, to melt structural steel.

Now let's see what Barnett et al said:
The beam CORRODED. Meaning that the iron in the beam left the metal matrix of the beam's structure the same way that ALL corrosion occurs, chemical breaking of bonds. In this case, it formed a 3 metal composition with oxygen & sulphur, that, upon cooling formed FeO and FeS.

According to Barnett, these iron oxides and iron sulfides can melt at temps "approaching (i.e., below) 1000°C". (I am frankly skeptical of this claim. That is a massive depression of iron's MP of 1540°C. But it's their field and I'll provisionally allow it.)

What Barnett et al claim is NOT that the steel melted. They say that explicitly.

They claim that the steel CORRODED. And that, after the steel corroded, the corrosion products (FeO & FeS) melted. And they melted at temperatures that were way too low to melt the steel.

"The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel."

If you want to win your $1,000, it will be simple. When steel form "molten pools" and "rivers of molten steel", it eventually cools. Into giant puddles of solidified, once molten, contaminated steel. Usually fairly flat on the top, and weirdly shaped on the bottom to match whatever it sat upon that did not melt.

You show me then 10, 50, 100, 500 or 1000 ton puddles of solidified steel that they had to cut up to truck out of there. THEN I'll believe "pools or rivers of molten steel" beneath the towers.

There weren't any of these giant solidified puddles of once-molten steel. So your arrogant punk claiming "molten steel" was wrong.

And the sneering engineer, Dr. John Gross, was right.

Why don't you tell me again how you "love how red in the face & guilty he acts".

Choke on it, kid.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thomk
Do you know how to identify high temp molten iron in air? Steven Jones doesn't.[


I beg to differ. Jones even tested NIST's theory of molten aluminum


And Jones screwed the pooch on that one. Just exactly like he's screwed the pooch on every single one of his other "revelations".

When are you kids going to get it thru your head that your "lead scientist" is a flake? He's dove into 10 different areas (structural mechanics, mechanical engineering, building design, building failure modes, thermite, no thermate, no thermite, no nanothermite, no superthermite, no superthermite with conventional explosives (winding back up at "explosives", when the whole reason for the wild goose chase was to get rid of "explosives" in the first place), iron microspheres, chemical forensics, etc), ALL of which he is a complete, abject amateur. And he has gloriously screwed the pooch in every single one.

Don't you realize that there is a specific reason that Jones preaches to college crowds & truther conventions & will not appear in front of a review panel of real engineers, metallurgists, explosives experts, etc. Don't you realize that there is a specific reason that he can't get his work published in any respected scientific or engineering journals?

Don't you realize that there are standard X-ray diffraction tests that he & Harrit & Ferrar could have employed to test for thermite compounds. And since those tests give you all the prereaction and post reaction thermite compounds, they are definitive for thermite? Standard tests that cost about $160/sample. Results in 2 weeks. Rather than making up his own test, that only gives the elements. And is therefore NOT definitive. They screwed the pooch again.

And he screwed the pooch with his aluminum and burning organics too. If he'd gotten his temperatures up higher, up around 1000°C which is typical for an office fire, then there are additives that WILL get complex aluminum mixtures to glow orange-red.

The ultimate answer to this, of course, is "whatever it was, it was a tiny, local effect and it doesn't play into the collapse of the towers. As proven by the fact that the collapse was global, not occurring at that point. And this effect was not seen at all in the other tower, and it collapsed too."

Wanna play some more, kid? But quote mining truther sites, and parroting truther nonsense better not be your A game...



[edit on 24-12-2009 by thomk]

[edit on 24-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
double post. deleted

[edit on 24-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.
 

Mod note: No more name-calling or personal commentary. No kidding. -- Majic




[edit on 12/24/2009 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thomk
BTW, neither did NIST "only consider fire & nothing else".

Then what else did they investigate and how?


What they considered was:
1. impact
2. deflagration of fuel
3. physical damage from impact
4. load shifting from damage
5. elastic & plastic deformations from new loads

and up to this point, no collapse. They continued considering:

6. fire
7. creep
8. changing loads due to creep
9. sagging of trusses
10. photographic evidence of creep (bowing of external columns)
11. failure modes (trusses, buckling of columns, bolts & connectors)


In other words, they only considered the effects of the fire and plane impacts.

You went to all the trouble to type that out and apparently it never occurred to you that you are just supporting my own argument.




The NIST engineers didn't check for explosive or thermite residues because they aren't morons.


Gee, what a brilliant rebuttal. How many years experience of engineering did it take you to come up with that again?



Or maybe someone put in "silent explosives" that nobody on the planet has ever heard about.


There are innumerable witness testimonies and even direct recordings of explosions coming from the buildings. There are testimonies of explosions all throughout those buildings from before the plane impacts, all during the fires, and during the "collapses." Pretending any of that is "silent" is about the definition of denial/just plain asinine. Just like believing that they all must be in a clear sequence just prior to the global collapses for them to do any damage, which is also total nonsense and not based on any science at all.

Now I don't want to hear your baseless assertions that each of them was an exploding bottle of a janitor's cleaner or an electrical transformer blowing up, because the point is that explosions were heard. Period. You can't claim they weren't. All you can claim is that they were something else. And go ahead. But it still does not change the fact that there were explosions. Learn to deal with it sooner rather than later, it will save us all trouble.


BTW, the 50 or so trained bomb / explosives sniffing dogs that worked the scene "checked for explosives residue". Their report to their handlers: "No residues".


What types of explosives are those dogs trained to sniff out? Do you know?

(Hint: Not even I believe C4 or TNT was used.)


THIS is the basis of the wager, kid:

Were there, as truthers love to say, "pools of molten steel below the towers".
Were there "rivers of molten steel running down the channels".

THAT is what I'm willing to wager $1000 with you.


Why are you so obsessed with putting words in my mouth, grandpa?

If you can't stick to what I say, without inventing your own straw man fantasies to "debunk," there is no use even trying to talk to you.

You said you couldn't find in appendix C where they talked about any molten steel. Well, you were obviously wrong, and have reading comprehension difficulties, because it was all there in black and white and I posted it for you to see. Now suddenly you are claiming you were responding to something I never said. Yeah, right.
You are making me lose faith in all mechanical engineers.



1. "TWO samples." These were aberrant pieces. They did not reflect the condition of the rest of the steel.


That is conjecture on your part. Most of the steel was not analyzed at all. You should know this by now.


2. Do you know how to tell if an "I beam" or a box beam "melted" in the rubble pile under GZ? Here's a hint. "If you can recognize the piece as an I beam or a box beam, then it did NOT melt." If it melts, it turns into a PUDDLE. When it cools, it looks like a solidified PUDDLE. Not like whatever it was before it became a PUDDLE.


All that proves is that not all the steel melted. I could have told you that myself. Are you trying to make it a point to NOT debunk anything at all here?


Look at Figure C2 & C9, in FEMA403 AppC.

Does they look like:
a) sections taken thru extruded beams that are highly corroded on their surfaces,
OR
b) solidified puddles?

Those are your ONLY two option.


The structural integrity of that steel was compromised. Relevance to the collapses ends there. If they had completely melted, it would not have made much more difference (if any) by that point. There is no use attacking claims I never made gramps.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
THERE is your target, kid. 1520°C or hotter, to melt structural steel.


The FEMA report said that the steel melted below its normal melting point, at around 1000 C, which is about the very definition of a eutectic reaction. The word "eutectic" comes from Greek and means "easily melted."


Now let's see what Barnett et al said:
The beam CORRODED. Meaning that the iron in the beam left the metal matrix of the beam's structure the same way that ALL corrosion occurs, chemical breaking of bonds. In this case, it formed a 3 metal composition with oxygen & sulphur, that, upon cooling formed FeO and FeS.


Yes, and it was a liquid eutectic mixture, meaning (a) the iron was melted (as they state repeatedly in appendix C) and (b) it was a eutectic reaction. That is what they (FEMA) said. Who are you arguing with again, me, or FEMA? Are you SURE you can READ what the report actually says, or do I need to post it again and bold the words again?


According to Barnett, these iron oxides and iron sulfides can melt at temps "approaching (i.e., below) 1000°C". (I am frankly skeptical of this claim. That is a massive depression of iron's MP of 1540°C. But it's their field and I'll provisionally allow it.)


You'll "provisionally allow it"?
I promise, you're the only one here that takes yourself so seriously. I guess there are only so many ways to kill time when you're bored, huh?


What Barnett et al claim is NOT that the steel melted. They say that explicitly.

They claim that the steel CORRODED. And that, after the steel corroded, the corrosion products (FeO & FeS) melted. And they melted at temperatures that were way too low to melt the steel.


And the corrosion was caused by a eutectic mixture. I already explained that eutectic means "easily melted" from the Greek. That is exactly what it is SUPPOSED to do: cause the steel to melt at temperatures lower than normal. Claiming that the steel itself didn't melt is just a semantic game and has no bearing whatsoever on what the "corrosion" did to the samples. There was melting. Of the samples. According to FEMA. Period.


"The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel."

If you want to win your $1,000, it will be simple. When steel form "molten pools" and "rivers of molten steel", it eventually cools.


According to the original conditions I should already have my $1000. Now you are just going back and saying I have to prove something that I never suggested in the first place. I will give you $1000 if you can find where I EVER claimed anything about "rivers of molten steel." Do you know what a "straw man" fallacy is?


And the sneering engineer, Dr. John Gross, was right.


About there being no molten steel? Nope. Maybe he was right that he'd never personally seen any evidence of it, but I would say that rather comes from neglect on his part, since FEMA even documented it.


Why don't you tell me again how you "love how red in the face & guilty he acts".


Sure. When he is asked the question, he turns red in the face and starts fidgeting and becomes irate. I don't care for your opinion of why this is so, I am simply making observations.




Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thomk
Do you know how to identify high temp molten iron in air? Steven Jones doesn't.

I beg to differ. Jones even tested NIST's theory of molten aluminum


And Jones screwed the pooch on that one. Just exactly like he's screwed the pooch on every single one of his other "revelations".

When are you kids going to get it thru your head that your "lead scientist" is a flake?


Sorry but you are going off topic with your ranting again.

I don't care what you personally think of Jones. The fact is he actually tested your garbage and it didn't hold up. When are YOU going to realize that NIST just made that "molten aluminum and burning organics" crap up without a single reference or any data in their report whatsoever? Ever? Nah, I don't think you will.

I appreciate the fact that you devoted your next several paragraphs to foaming at the mouth about how stupid and unqualified Jones is, but I think if you look up his actual credentials you will see you are talking about someone who is totally out of your league. When was the last time the Department of Energy gave you a grant to lead research into experimental nuclear physics at a government lab? Yeah, that's what I thought.


Wanna play some more, kid? But quote mining truther sites, and parroting truther nonsense better not be your A game...


This isn't JREF, gramps. Maybe you've noticed?


The only one quote mining is YOU. Telling me that FEMA never mentioned molten material in their report after I gave you a direct link to it and had to point it out to you in bold letters...


[edit on 24-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Do you mean the Dr. James Quintiere who wrote the book "9/11 Was An Inside Job: Blowing The Lid Off Of A Politically Corrupted Investigation"? That Dr. James Quintiere?
Ooops. Only one problem. There AIN'T no such book.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hmm, does my post say anything about such a book? No.
Have I even heard of such a book? No.


Please try to read my post with comprehension. Read for dry humor & irony.


Originally posted by thomk
Do you mean the Dr. James Quintiere who wrote the book "9/11 Was An Inside Job: Bombs In The Buildings"? That Dr. James Quintiere?
Ooops. Problem 2. There AIN'T no such book.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Does my post say anything about such a book? No.

Have I even heard of such a book? No.


... comprehension, dry humor & irony.


Originally posted by thomk
Perhaps instead you mean the Dr. James Quintiere who wrote the book "A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers"? Fire Safety Journal Vol. 37, No. 7
Yep, there IS one of those: cat.inist.fr...

Do you catch that? The same Dr. Quintiere, whose reputation insufferable bozos drag into the mud by association every time they quote mine him and FALSELY imply that he is a truther.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry, you are ranting off on a tangent here.

I was simply pointing out that even NIST's own former CHIEF of the FIRE SCIENCE Division does NOT agree with you that NIST's report was "top notch" or whatever other nonsense you said about it. The report was total trash and not even NIST's own engineers are in agreement about it.


... comprehension, dry humor & irony.

Dr. Q believes completely that the towers came down due to impact, fire, deformation & collapse due to fire related heating.

Specifically, he feels that NIST underestimated the fuel loads and, therefore, the intensity & duration of the fires. Plus he argues that the building would likely have collapsed even if the spray-on flame insulation was NOT removed by the collision debris. His main argument with NIST is that he feels that the weakest link in the chain was the thin wall, light weight cross trusses, not the columns.

He does not, nor ever has, subscribed to the theory that they were brought down by a controlled demolition. He finds those theories to be "irresponsible".

As stated in this quote:

"Conspiracy theorists have dominated the web pages and received strong recognition in the media. Yet responsible criticism has been minimal."

Now, go back & read the names of the three "books" that I listed at the beginning of this, and the previous, post. The names that you glossed over and didn't read carefully.
___

[Referring to Dr. Gross' "interrogation" about molten steel by the young truther, since it has been proven that there were no "pools or rivers of molten steel"...]


Originally posted by thomk
I guess we both find it humorous. For different reasons.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yes, especially since you can't even stay on topic when you are trying to refute what I was pointing out. For someone who was just lecturing me on asserting you believe things which you do not, the pot sure was calling the kettle black, wasn't it?


I find that interview hilarious, every time someone points it out to me...

If you go back and read - WITH comprehension - you will find out that my comments were exactly on topic.

BTW, inflicting erroneous opinions on others and wandering off topic are not contrapositives. There is no kettle here, no pot. Just poor reading comprehension.

And an understandable lack of appreciation for the (admittedly) rare & acquired taste for "engineering humor".

Tom

[edit on 24-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Love to stay & chat.

Can't.

You may want to look up "eutectic". You've got no clue what it means. In engineering English, anyway.

You may also want to look up the MINIMAL melting temp of steel.

Then think a little more...


Tom



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
##ATTENTION ALL 9/11 POSTERS##

Knock off the "kid"/"grandpa" stuff. ANY personal commentary is subject to warning and removal. Focus on the topic.

THIS IS A MODERATOR ADVISORY. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST. STAY ON TOPIC.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Love to stay & chat.

Can't.

You may want to look up "eutectic". You've got no clue what it means. In engineering English, anyway.

You may also want to look up the MINIMAL melting temp of steel.

Then think a little more...


Tom


1. Of, relating to, or formed at the lowest possible temperature of solidification for any mixture of specified constituents. Used especially of an alloy whose melting point is lower than that of any other alloy composed of the same constituents in different proportions.
2. Exhibiting the constitution or properties of such a solid.

Does it mean something different in Engineering English?



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk

Originally posted by thomk
Do you mean the Dr. James Quintiere who wrote the book "9/11 Was An Inside Job: Blowing The Lid Off Of A Politically Corrupted Investigation"? That Dr. James Quintiere?
Ooops. Only one problem. There AIN'T no such book.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hmm, does my post say anything about such a book? No.
Have I even heard of such a book? No.


Please try to read my post with comprehension. Read for dry humor & irony.


I see neither. I only see a logical fallacy. If you want to talk about something off-topic, at least post it in a separate post.


Dr. Q believes completely that the towers came down due to impact, fire, deformation & collapse due to fire related heating.


Yes, and he also believes NIST did NOT do a "top notch" job investigating the Twin Tower collapses. Which contradicts your own opinion. And the same man is a former chief of NIST's Fire Science Division.

This is about the third time I've had to explain this. Maybe this time you will read the words for what they say and not try to fallaciously extrapolate arguments that aren't there.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Love to stay & chat.

Can't.

You may want to look up "eutectic". You've got no clue what it means. In engineering English, anyway.


This is what's called "hit and run."

You just tell me I'm wrong, don't bother to explain why, and off you go.

When you come back you can spend a little more time reviewing what I said in the post you are referring to. Not only do I know what eutectic means, more to the point, FEMA knows what it means and they put it in their own report, appendix C.


You may also want to look up the MINIMAL melting temp of steel.


So in other words, YOU don't understand what eutectic means.

Lillydale posted some definitions above. You should find those helpful.


1. Of, relating to, or formed at the lowest possible temperature of solidification for any mixture of specified constituents.


Like I said, FEMA even used the term themselves:


Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.


wtc.nist.gov...


I have a feeling if I said the exact same thing myself, you would be barraging me with attacks in classic JREF style. Yet when FEMA says it, you "provisionally" accept it?



Btw, this is the only "truther" website I've linked to: FEMA.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Here's a few questions for the engineers and architects:

1. Would it have been possible to design the Twin Towers in the 60's to permit for the most effecient and least riskiest demolition of the structures in the future? Maybe such a demolition was planned to have been used for catastrophic emergencies.

2. Could a building be designed in the 60's to be demolished in the future in the most effecient manner and still retain its integrity during its lifetime?

3. Did the City of New York and more importantly, the insurance carriers, require the original plans to have such a demolition provision due to the potential of major catastrophe? Think about it - for them to allow you to build that high, twice, there had to be some plan in case of potential collapse.

4. For obvious security reasons, would such information about the design be kept confidential?

According to the theory, the explosives would not necessarily be placed in the building at the time of construction, however, they would be placed at pre-determined locations originally designed into the buildings at a later date prior to the occurrence.

Maybe there is a chance expedient demolition was originally designed into the buildings to prevent enormous loss of life and property in case of a potential tip over collapse. Certainly, the original designers were thinking about how these two monsters would be demolished in the future when their time would eventually come.

Also, if they had airplane impacts on their minds during the original design, they must have been thinking about potential of collapse as well. It is just too much of a coincidence for both collapses to display such perfect symmetry and precision without original design playing a role. Difficult to believe two completely random events can bring about such identical results.

The only other explanation is advanced weaponry.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
It is just too much of a coincidence for both collapses to display such perfect symmetry and precision without original design playing a role.


What do you base the claim it was a coincidence they both collapsed that way on?

How did you expect them to collapse? Just think about the physics involved....

[edit on 25/12/09 by dereks]



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by thomk
Love to stay & chat.

Can't.

You may want to look up "eutectic". You've got no clue what it means. In engineering English, anyway.


This is what's called "hit and run."

You just tell me I'm wrong, don't bother to explain why, and off you go.




It's called "This is the Holiday season, and there is a real world out there."

The word "eutectic" defines an ALLOY. It means the mixture of the various components that melts (when heating) or solidifies (when cooling) at the lowest temperature.

If something is a true eutectic, then this will happen at ONE specific temperature, and it will be lowest temperature at which all constituent components melt or solidify.

For example, 63%/37% SnPb is the "eutectic" composition for tin-lead solder. If it is not a eutectic, then melting and solidifying happen at multiple temps for the various components of the alloy.

The fact that it solidifies at a single temperature makes it easier (not guaranteed, easier) to avoid faulty "cold solder joints".

Now, let me put this into simple, short, declarative sentences.

Regarding "melted steel" and the FEMA report.

1. "Steel" is DEFINED as iron with a carbon content between 0.2 & about 2.1%. (Higher carbon content defines as being a "cast iron".)

2. The structural steel used in all the columns of the towers was A36 plate & extrusion. It is a "mild carbon steel" with a carbon content of less than 0.3%.

3. Here is the phase diagram (again) for iron-carbon alloys. Note that the "steels" are shown on the left of this diagram,



4. The LOWEST temperature at which A36 BEGINS to melt is 1460°C. The LOWEST temp at which it completely melts is about 1520C.

5. The lowest temperature at which ANY (read again) ANY steel melts is about 1120°C (the "eutectic temp" for carbon steel).

6. The temperatures that Barnett et al report "approach 1000°C".

7. Barnett et al claims that there is an Iron-sulfur-oxide componsition that has a melting temperature somewhat below (i.e., "approaching") 1000°F. (I'm more skeptical now than before.)

8. According to Barnett, this iron-sulfur-oxide slag melted.

9. Steel will not melt until you get up to 1420°C.

10. Ergo, STEEL did not melt.

11. Steel corroded.

Are those sentences short enough for you?

Tom


PS. I was not off-base about being skeptical of a



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
It's called "This is the Holiday season, and there is a real world out there."

The word "eutectic" defines an ALLOY. It means the mixture of the various components that melts (when heating) or solidifies (when cooling) at the lowest temperature.



Since it is the holiday season I am sure you will want to be very charitable with all of this. Bsbray did specifically say "eutectic reaction". It would be intellectually dishonest to say that means an alloy. You are describing what is known as a eutectic compound or "a eutectic." Do you not see the difference made by the addition of the word "reaction?"

You do understand the difference between a "eutectic point" or "eutectic temperature" and a "eutectic compound" correct? A reaction is also different from a compound.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


It's funny how we end up having to educate all these so called 'experts' who come here trying to make their wild media educated claims.

It's just too funny. They can repeat what they read, but it doesn't take long to realise they really don't understand what they read.



posted on Dec, 25 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
The word "eutectic" defines an ALLOY. It means the mixture of the various components that melts (when heating) or solidifies (when cooling) at the lowest temperature.


Lillydale already pointed out that I was specifically referring to the reaction itself.


a simultaneous crystallization of a eutectic mixture is known as a eutectic reaction


en.wikipedia.org...

And again, this is terminology FEMA used, I didn't just pull it out of my own ass. So you are effectively arguing with FEMA about this, not with me.


If something is a true eutectic, then this will happen at ONE specific temperature, and it will be lowest temperature at which all constituent components melt or solidify.


Right, and at less than the melting point of either steel or iron, steel/iron WAS melted in the "liquid eutectic mixture" that formed on the steel according to FEMA.

You are really fighting tooth and nail to deny the obvious, aren't you? Word games, word games, and more word games, not least of which apparently being putting words in my mouth, so to speak, which you have done in almost every one of your posts so far. The steel was melted. In a eutectic reaction. The elements that made it up, including iron, were rendered to a liquid state. Below iron's normal melting point. Again, FEMA says all this.

We can go in circles like this for days or weeks and you will still just be denying the obvious, and even FEMA contradicts you. Ie the "official story."


1. "Steel" is DEFINED as iron with a carbon content between 0.2 & about 2.1%. (Higher carbon content defines as being a "cast iron".)

2. The structural steel used in all the columns of the towers was A36 plate & extrusion. It is a "mild carbon steel" with a carbon content of less than 0.3%.

3. Here is the phase diagram (again) for iron-carbon alloys. Note that the "steels" are shown on the left of this diagram


I find it interesting that you are numbering these statements, which don't change anything at all about the conclusions in appendix C of FEMA's report, and should have been obvious to all the engineers working on this chemical analysis already.


4. The LOWEST temperature at which A36 BEGINS to melt is 1460°C. The LOWEST temp at which it completely melts is about 1520C.

5. The lowest temperature at which ANY (read again) ANY steel melts is about 1120°C (the "eutectic temp" for carbon steel).

6. The temperatures that Barnett et al report "approach 1000°C".


Right, which is because of the eutectic reaction. FEMA understood this. You don't. What else can be said?

Those melting points are when the material is simply heated, nothing else. No chemical reactions, just heating. When you add in sulfur, and the other ingredients, suddenly that is NOT just heating anymore. That is a eutectic reaction. Which is what you are failing to understand. It LOWERS the melting point chemically, and FEMA even explains how this occurred because of the sulfur penetrating the grain boundaries of the steel.

What temperature does IRON melt at, thomk? Around 1500 C. Steel, iron, they have about the same melting point. The point is, the stuff was melted, and nowhere near the normal melting point. The iron in the steel was melted. And at temperatures below what would normally be required according to FEMA, because there was a eutectic reaction. They even explain how the sulfur was what made the reaction eutectic and how it split "preferentially" (as if designed) into the grain boundaries.


7. Barnett et al claims that there is an Iron-sulfur-oxide componsition that has a melting temperature somewhat below (i.e., "approaching") 1000°F. (I'm more skeptical now than before.)


And everyone cares even less than before. You're a mechanical engineer anyway. Your opinion doesn't mean any more than any of the rest of ours. You can't even understand how a material can be melted at a temperature below its usual melting point chemically, even though FEMA explains it in black and white. Just keep plugging your ears, man. It has worked so nearly a decade already, so why fix something that isn't broke, right?


8. According to Barnett, this iron-sulfur-oxide slag melted.

9. Steel will not melt until you get up to 1420°C.

10. Ergo, STEEL did not melt.

11. Steel corroded.


Too bad FEMA used derivations of the word "melt" repeatedly when describing the same phenomena. I know you're extremely biased, but you can at least read and I have posted the relevant passages more than once even though you at first denied they even existed. I think you are just allergic to learning anything new, especially from one of us stupid "truthers." That's your real problem.



PS. I was not off-base about being skeptical of a



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join