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: 11
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
The three of you are absolutely clueless.

You wander thru technical literature that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND, pulling out words at random, making wild-ass baseless assertions that these (to you) Voodoo incantations like "eutectic reaction" prove your "inside jobity-job".

Sorry. You are simply, utterly wrong.

1. There is NO "molten steel" in Barnett, et al. The fact that you think there is simply reflects the fact that you can't stop reading what you WANT it to say long enough to read what it DOES say.

2. There IS a "molten eutectic", one that DOES melt below 1000°C. It took just a bit of looking to find it.

3. Here is the kicker, gang. Are you paying attention?

That sub-1000°C eutectic is NOT molten steel. It is not steel of any sort. (No matter how you may want to read that into Barnett et al. For THREE very specific reasons:

1. As I've already told you, no steel, of any composition, will melt below about 1147°C. And A36 will not melt below 1470°C.

2. There is no such thing as a A36 "eutectic". It does not exist.

3. There is NO SUCH THING as a "steel" eutectic. Of any grade steel. Period. It does not exist either.

I was wondering if you'd put together the two huge clues I gave to you in my last post. I guess I needn't have been hopeful that you would be that observant. You're too busy "schooling" me, I guess...


Read point #1 in my last post: "Steel is DEFINED as iron with a carbon content between 0.2 & about 2.1%. (Higher carbon content defines as being a cast iron.)"

Here is the phase diagram that I posted for you before, but now including A36 (~0.3% C):



Observe from this diagram that the eutectic of iron carbide occurs at a mixture of 4.3% Carbon / 95.7%Fe.

At 4.3% Carbon, this is NOT STEEL. It is a cast iron.

Even the mentally challenged should be able to conclude that there is no such thing as a steel eutectic. The eutectic of iron-carbide is a cast iron.

So, what "molten eutectic" were they talking about?

EXACTLY the one that I told you. Or, more properly, that Barnett et al told both of us. But you were too stubborn to read. FeO / FeS. Only, to my surprise, it CAN melt down to 940°C at about 54% FeS / 46% FeO.

Here is its phase diagram.



THIS is what melted. An iron oxide / iron sulfide mixture.

Guess what?
Iron oxide is not steel.
Iron sulfide is not steel.
Steel did not melt.

[End Part 1]

[edit on 26-12-2009 by thomk]




posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
[Part 2]
Now, with all the above in mind, let's re-read Barnett et al, shall we?
With comments in bold...

The summary: "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 severe corrosion. THEN (i.e. "subsequently") intergranular melting.]

The explanatory details: "A liquid eutectic mixture [of FeO / FeS] containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid [the FeO / FeS liquid] penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel [the steel must be a SOLID in order to have grain boundaries], severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture [of FeO / FeS] 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.

"When steel cools below the eutectic temperature [the 940°C eutectic temp of the FeO / FeS. NOT the 1460°C eutectic temp of Iron-Carbide], the liquid of eutectic composition [FeO / FeS] transforms to two phases, iron oxide, FeO, and iron sulfide, FeS."

Is it clear yet?

Iron carbide (steel) oxidizes into FeO. And sulfidates into FeS. Now FeO will NOT melt at 1000°C. Neither will FeS. But a 54%/46% mixture of the two will melt at this low temp.

And while this FeO/FeS mixture was melted @ 1000°C, the steel immediately adjacent to it was happily sitting there as a solid. With over 490°C more temperature rise required before it STARTED to melt.

Is it clear yet?

Standard old garden variety hot corrosion was responsible for 99% of the material lost in these pieces.

This "severe corrosion" phenomenon was extremely rare. It is described in FEMA403 app C as "the severe erosion found in several beams..." Well, in WTC7, there were approximately 1400 columns and about 8000 floor girders, beams and diagonal brace beams. In the towers, there were approximately 11,000 3-story columns each.

"Several beams". Ou of a total of over 30,000. Wow...

___

BTW, it is not lost on the observant that the ENTIRE reason that truthers latched onto this technically fascinating, yet irrelevant to the collapse mechanism, bit of arcana was their belief that it supports the "pools of molten steel" and "rivers of molten steel" nonsense.

Conspiracy sites are NOT loaded with YouTube videos of a fireman saying that he saw "severe corrosion on SEVERAL beams. And if I could have sliced out some samples, polished them & examined them under a high power microscope, I betcha I would have seen 10 to 20 MICRON wide RIVERS of flowing, uh, well, uh, iron-oxide & iron-sulfides eutectics..."

"Rivers of molten, uh, rusted steel residue, I tell ya! 10, 20 microns wide. Stretching 100 microns into the surface... It was like hell come down to earth...!"

Your latching onto THIS study to support your "molten steel" claims is one more giant FAIL. In a long, unbroken string of FAIL, stretching back the better part of a decade.

Is it clear yet?

[edit on 26-12-2009 by thomk]

[edit on 26-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
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.


Possible? I suppose.
Affordable? No.

On a 1 to 10 "Ludicrous Scale": 9.9


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
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?


False premise. It was not designed like that. We have the construction drawings & history.


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
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.


No.
OK, I'm done "thinking about it". A wasted 2 seconds of my life that I'll never get back.
NYC building codes are in the public domain. Why don't you go & look for the sections on "Planning for future demolition". Get back to us with what you find.


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


How do you keep "confidential" the plans - AND EXECUTION - by which an ARMY of union workers puts up a building?


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
According to the theory ...


There IS NO "theory". There is merely wild, crazed, baseless speculation.


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
[... wild speculation snipped ...]

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.


All 3 of those buildings collapsed in the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE. The fact that you don't understand why, after it has been explained clearly 100s of times by professionals (like me), means that you've chosen to limit your information sources to abject amateurs.

Bad choice.


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
The only other explanation is advanced weaponry.






[edit on 26-12-2009 by thomk]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
1. There is NO "molten steel" in Barnett, et al. The fact that you think there is simply reflects the fact that you can't stop reading what you WANT it to say long enough to read what it DOES say.

2. There IS a "molten eutectic", one that DOES melt below 1000°C. It took just a bit of looking to find it.

3. Here is the kicker, gang. Are you paying attention?

That sub-1000°C eutectic is NOT molten steel. It is not steel of any sort. (No matter how you may want to read that into Barnett et al. For THREE very specific reasons:

1. As I've already told you, no steel, of any composition, will melt below about 1147°C. And A36 will not melt below 1470°C.

2. There is no such thing as a A36 "eutectic". It does not exist.

3. There is NO SUCH THING as a "steel" eutectic. Of any grade steel. Period. It does not exist either.


So are you denying that the steel was involved in a liquid eutectic reaction, including the iron in the steel, and that its integrity was compromised by it?

Because that is exactly what appendix C states.



Read point #1 in my last post: "Steel is DEFINED as iron with a carbon content between 0.2 & about 2.1%. (Higher carbon content defines as being a cast iron.)"

Here is the phase diagram that I posted for you before, but now including A36 (~0.3% C):

...

Observe from this diagram that the eutectic of iron carbide occurs at a mixture of 4.3% Carbon / 95.7%Fe.

At 4.3% Carbon, this is NOT STEEL. It is a cast iron.

Even the mentally challenged should be able to conclude that there is no such thing as a steel eutectic. The eutectic of iron-carbide is a cast iron.


You are desperately trying to build an argument out of semantics that don't change at all the type of "corrosion" that compromised the steel.



EXACTLY the one that I told you. Or, more properly, that Barnett et al told both of us. But you were too stubborn to read. FeO / FeS. Only, to my surprise, it CAN melt down to 940°C at about 54% FeS / 46% FeO.


What a shocker. And if you look at the report, the sulfur reacted with the iron that was present in the steel itself. So does that mean you are no longer so skeptical of appendix C?



THIS is what melted. An iron oxide / iron sulfide mixture.


Yes, and again, it had penetrated into the grain boundaries of the steel and reacted with the iron that was present in the steel itself.


Guess what?
Iron oxide is not steel.
Iron sulfide is not steel.
Steel did not melt.


Guess what? You are playing semantic games that change nothing about what happened to the steel itself. I am going to continue to say the steel melted because the iron in the steel DID melt, and the difference between iron and steel, especially when you are talking about the iron IN the same sample of steel, is not a big freaking difference. Steel IS iron by and large, with only relatively minor additions of other elements that do not drastically change its physical properties. For example, the difference between iron and steel is nowhere near the difference between iron and aluminum or steel and lead and you know it. If you melt the iron in steel, but you still have carbon, etc., what in the hell does it even matter anymore? Your argument is totally pointless.

You are basing your entire "argument" on saying the iron (in the steel) melted, but not the carbon as well therefore technically the steel did not melt. I understand. But so what? It is a semantic issue. The steel samples? Still "corroded" to all hell, penetrated by the sulfur and the iron within it melted in a eutectic reaction.

[edit on 26-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Is it clear yet?

Iron carbide (steel) oxidizes into FeO. And sulfidates into FeS. Now FeO will NOT melt at 1000°C. Neither will FeS. But a 54%/46% mixture of the two will melt at this low temp.

And while this FeO/FeS mixture was melted @ 1000°C, the steel immediately adjacent to it was happily sitting there as a solid. With over 490°C more temperature rise required before it STARTED to melt.



Does appendix C not say that the sulfur penetrated "preferentially" into the grain boundaries of the steel? Yes, it does.

And what do you think the effect of that was? Because according to FEMA, it's what made this "corrosion" consisting of a liquid eutectic so severe in the first place. It literally ate into the steel. That is what penetrating the grain boundaries means.

Is it clear yet?



Standard old garden variety hot corrosion was responsible for 99% of the material lost in these pieces.


And what specific reaction do you mean by "hot corrosion"?


This "severe corrosion" phenomenon was extremely rare. It is described in FEMA403 app C as "the severe erosion found in several beams..." Well, in WTC7, there were approximately 1400 columns and about 8000 floor girders, beams and diagonal brace beams. In the towers, there were approximately 11,000 3-story columns each.


Yeah, and I don't think I need to remind you how little of the debris from any of those buildings was actually saved for analysis. But if you do need reminding then I would be more than happy.

Do you know how many samples total FEMA saved from the buildings? You want to talk about how many members were in each building, but I notice you completely neglect how many FEMA actually looked at.



BTW, it is not lost on the observant that the ENTIRE reason that truthers latched onto this technically fascinating, yet irrelevant to the collapse mechanism, bit of arcana was their belief that it supports the "pools of molten steel" and "rivers of molten steel" nonsense.


Actually you are wrong. It supports the idea that an incendiary was involved in compromising the structure of the building. Which neither adds nor takes away from the testimonies of firefighters and whoever else of molten steel running under the debris piles.

Is it clear yet? The only thing clear to me is how desperately you will save face.

You were just claiming you doubted appendix C simply because you did not want to entertain it. Now -- oh! -- to your surprise, it could actually happen. You just argue on a technicality that the steel itself did not melt, even though the iron present in it did, reacting with the sulfur that penetrated into it to form a eutectic reaction. By god, that changes everything.


Admit it: you learned something new about 9/11 this week. And not only from "truthers," but from the FEMA report. See what happens when you step outside of JREF? Amazing things happen.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


bsbray:

There is something very important you are overlooking in thomk's response, and ours. Hot corrosion is a little different mechanism than a thermite reaction. Yes molten metal contact is also called a hot corrosion attack with condensed metals. However, thermite is not regarded as a corrosive, but more of an incendiary that can melt through steel, rather than corrode it.

Thermite uses its high temperature to cut through steel. It literally MELTS the steel with the high temperatures of well over 3,000F. It has to be hotter than the melting point of steel. Now, another that is often overlooked, the addition of sulfur to thermite has nothing to do with lowering the melting point of steel. It has everything to do with INCREASING the temperature of thermite. But now it is known as thermate. Thermate also has braium nitrate. That was not found in any of the samples. Both increase the temperature of the reaction.

In the eutectic liquid, we see neither any thermate-level high temps, nor do we see barium nitrate, nor do we see any high temperature cuts. What we do see is hot corrosion, which in this case, involves iron sulfides and iron oxides. This is not molten steel you would find from a thermite reaction.

I have posted this site before and it does a good job explaining all the semantics of hot corrosion and what it entails:

www.corrosionsource.com...


Introduction to High Temperature Corrosion

High temperature corrosion is a form of corrosion that does not require the presence of a liquid electrolyte. Sometimes, this type of damage is called "dry corrosion" or "scaling". The term oxidation is ambivalent since it can either refer to the formation of oxides or to the mechanism of oxidation of a metal, i.e. its change to a higher valence than the metallic state. Strictly speaking, high temperature oxidation is only one type of high temperature corrosion. In fact, oxidation is the most important high temperature corrosion reaction.

In most corrosive high temperature environments, oxidation often participates in the high temperature corrosion reactions, regardless of the predominant mode of corrosion. Alloys often rely upon the oxidation reaction to develop a protective scale to resist corrosion attack such as sulfidation, carburization and other forms of high temperature attack. In general, the names of the corrosion mechanisms are determined by the most abundant dominant corrosion products. For example:
Oxidation implies oxides,
Sulfidation implies sulfides,
Sulfidation/oxidation implies sulfides plus oxides, and
Carburization implies carbides.

High temperature corrosion is a widespread problem in various industries such as:
power generation (nuclear and fossil fuel)
aerospace and gas turbine
heat treating
mineral and metallurgical processing
chemical processing
refining and petrochemical
automotive
pulp and paper
waste incineration


Corrosive high temp environments:
www.corrosionsource.com...


High-temperature corrosion occurs due to the interaction at high temperatures of gases, liquids or even solids with materials. Both oxidizing and reducing conditions can be responsible for the attack. The environments that are likely to produce corrosion at elevated temperatures are:

Corrosive gases Air, oxygen: The reaction between air and a material is normally called oxidation and is quite often observed as a separate discipline in regard to corrosion science. In most industrial cases where metal is in contact with air, the oxidation processes are not as much determined by plain oxidation by oxygen but one has to consider all possible contaminants of the air which can have disastrous consequences for the oxidation resistance.

Steam: Steam in contact with steel can effect the carbon level of the steel can also oxidize the iron.

Carbon, carbon oxides and methane: Compounds of carbon like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane can change the carbon level in the steel and subsequently influence the mechanical properties of the metal.

Sulfur containing Gases: Even in small amounts, sulfur in various forms can accelerate corrosion at high temperatures.

Hydrogen: Hydrogen gas is a reducing agent and in contact with steel at high temperatures can result in decarburization and the subsequent formation of hydrogen carbons; C(Fe) + 2H2 CH4

Nitrogen: Nitrogen plays in most cases no role in oxidation phenomena as it is overshadowed to the large effect of oxygen and most nitrides are only formed at high temperatures. However, active nitrogen produced from ammonia can form nitrides below 540oC.

Combustion gases: The gas mixture arising from combustion of fuels contains for a large part carbon oxides and water vapor together with nitrogen. In situations with incomplete combustion hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and several hydrocarbons are present as well as oxygen. Most fuels contain sulfur compounds so that sulfur oxides and even hydrogen sulfide will be present in the combustion gases resulting in more severe corrosive conditions.

Chlorine and hydrogen chloride: Dry chlorine and hydrogen chloride do not cause major problems as far as corrosion is concerned however, accidental or deliberate increases of the moisture in the gas result in rapid localized attack.

Ash: Vanadium pentoxide and sodium sulfate present in fuel ash can attack stainless steels due to the formation of a molten oxide phase that fluxes the protective oxide scale.

Molten salts: Molten salts generally act as fluxes, removing possible protective scales of corrosion products. Combined with the high temperature and the high ionic conductivity of molten salts this will result in high corrosion rates.

Molten metals: Contact between molten metals and condensed metals frequently results in severe corrosion attack, which in some cases can be due to temperature differences or concentration gradients in the system used.


[edit on 12/26/2009 by GenRadek]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
The three of you are absolutely clueless.


Please tell me what it is that I have gotten wrong so far. I never claimed to be any kind of expert on any of this so if I have made some error in reading English and paying attention to words like "reaction" where you apparently read 'compound,' then by all means correct me. Calling me clueless and then not even addressing anything I said seems a little odd. If I did not know better, I would say it was simply a baseless personal attack.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
All 3 of those buildings collapsed in the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE. The fact that you don't understand why, after it has been explained clearly 100s of times by professionals (like me), means that you've chosen to limit your information sources to abject amateurs.


The only way possible? Can you please justify, explain, or even make that seem remotely believable.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by thomk
The three of you are absolutely clueless.


Please tell me what it is that I have gotten wrong so far.


Just about every important point.


Originally posted by Lillydale
I never claimed to be any kind of expert on any of this


You did not have to "say it". It is patently obvious.

It is also patently obvious that, if you don't like the answers that knowledgeable people give you, you choose to respond rudely & obnoxiously.


Originally posted by Lillydale
... then by all means correct me. Calling me clueless and then not even addressing anything I said seems a little odd. If I did not know better, I would say it was simply a baseless personal attack.


Calling you "clueless" about this material is a statement of blatantly obvious fact.

My not responding is not a "personal attack". It's choosing to not waste my time on a rude, obnoxious and uninformed _________ [fill in your own Mod-acceptable pejorative here].


Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by thomk
All 3 of those buildings collapsed in the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE. The fact that you don't understand why, after it has been explained clearly 100s of times by professionals (like me), means that you've chosen to limit your information sources to abject amateurs.


The only way possible? Can you please justify, explain, or even make that seem remotely believable.


Yeah, I can explain it. I've explained it, in detail, 50+ times.

And, no, I won't bother explaining it to you. You have earned the right to be ignored.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thomk
 


After doing some basic sleuthing, I discovered something shocking! Thermite burns at temps well over 2500C! However, none of the steel samples that were used in the investigation which show evidence of hot corrosion and eutectic mixtures show temps ever reaching above 2000C. Adding sulfur to thermite = thermate which burns even hotter. That too was never shown. What was shown was that the eutectic mixture formed well below the melting point of steel.

So I guess in the CT world, there is some brand-spankin new thermite created! It burns at temps much much much lower than the melting point of steel, but it can magically melt it anyways because suflur is in it BUT the sulfur doesnt increase the temps!
Alert the chemists!
Well chalk up another new toy: cool-burning sulfur laden thermite. That will look good with the magic thin-layered nano-thermites and the silent explosives that are powerful enough to launch 100s of tons of steel but not so much as make a "pop" heard over the collapse sound!

I think Q has been creating some new gadgets, and went a little crazy



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Just about every important point.


The only points I made were that "reaction" is not the same as "compound" and I listed the definition of eutectic for you. Please tell me which of those two points I got wrong. Your post seems angry, argumentative, and defensive, but also completely void of anything substantive.

If you cannot tell me what I got wrong or why, then telling me I am wrong and then pouting because I asked seems pretty logical, eh?



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thomk
Calling you "clueless" about this material is a statement of blatantly obvious fact.


No, it is a baseless attack since I never professed any knowledge about this nor did I ever once try to make any point to be called clueless about. I read the word "reaction" where you did not and I posted a dictionary definition. If you want to attack anyone, I would suggest you start with Merriam Webster or the King of England.


My not responding is not a "personal attack". It's choosing to not waste my time on a rude, obnoxious and uninformed _________ [fill in your own Mod-acceptable pejorative here].


Ah, the genius at work. Your "not responding" is not a personal attack? It was actually your response that was the personal attack. If you had not responded, there would be nothing to call an attack. I see now that you really like to call people names and insult their intelligence when you yourself seem to be having a great deal of trouble with the meaning of simple words.

Please look up "response" while you are getting the difference between a compound and a reaction straightened out.

You respond to me like an angry child with nothing to say and then begin your explanation of your 'non response' to me about your actual response and I am clueless?


Either tell me what I got wrong like an adult or stop just insulting me with NOTHING BEHIND IT. I do not even think you know which posts of mine you think you have an issue with. Pull some of my quotes, really make me look stupid. If you can do it with some facts, then you are on top. If you have to waste another post with nothing but personal attacks, then we will all see just what you really have to show.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Measuring Clue Resistance


Originally posted by thomk
The three of you are absolutely clueless.

Clueless would be making a comment like this after repeated warnings, notices at the top and bottom of every page in the forum (the bottom one even flashes) and in-thread notices like these.

The parts of your post that don't involve insults are still open for discussion, but any additional comments of this kind are not.

Instead of yet another warning, a post ban has been applied. We can discuss what comes next via U2U.

Meanwhile, for those who have heeded the clues, stayed on topic and avoided pointless personal commentary, thanks. Please keep doing that.






[edit on 12/26/2009 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
The WTC were designed like no other buildings in the world at that height. It was a dream of the designer and the architects had to make it happen. ( a few separate firms).

The 'building manager', not the construction manager, is basically stating the towers would be resilient enough which means if something large hit the building there would be time for evacuation. This was planned into the design. to withstand a 'lost' plane in bad weather that was travelling 300 mph less and was smaller than the planes that struck on 9/11.

One of the things that was asked for in the original design was to maximize available square footage. Rockefeller wanted to squeeze every last inch and the final design does. They did this with the column design they used. It is quite simply a core with floors that are attached to the outer floors. Therefore you have LOTS of open floor space.

I have always thought that is was a miracle that neither was knocked over on impact and for that the designers should be proud. That they stayed up for over an hour and a half is also a miracle. If not for miscommunication and the telling of employees to go back work there would have been a less loss of life that occurred.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 

Mod note: If this one-line post was not trolling, please explain via U2U. -- Majic


[edit on 12/26/2009 by Majic]



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Which neither adds nor takes away from the testimonies of firefighters and whoever else of molten steel running under the debris piles.


Except that there were no pools of molten steel.... if there were how were they removed?



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Except that there were no pools of molten steel.... if there were how were they removed?


They excavated the entire ground. Dirt, columns still attached to the foundation, ALL of it. They still have chunks of steel and concrete that are completely fused together, ie the "meteorite."

You say there wasn't any pools of molten steel as if you searched the entire site, every inch of its depth. But I know you didn't. Many of the people who DID, contradict you, saying they DID see molten metal running like lava. I have absolutely no reason to question the credibility of these people, who were not pushing any theory or agenda. Was it steel? I don't know what else it could have been, really, but no one can say for sure of course. Just because you have an arrogant attitude like you already know it all, doesn't mean you actually do.



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
There is something very important you are overlooking in thomk's response, and ours. Hot corrosion is a little different mechanism than a thermite reaction. Yes molten metal contact is also called a hot corrosion attack with condensed metals. However, thermite is not regarded as a corrosive, but more of an incendiary that can melt through steel, rather than corrode it.


This is also a semantic argument.

"Corrosion" has connotations of something undesirable that happens through weathering or some other "corrosive" attack. An incendiary is not called corrosion because incendiaries are almost always intentionally placed. Of course no one is going to stick thermite to something and then call the ensuing reaction a form of "corrosion," they are simply going to call it a thermite reaction or an incendiary reaction, which is natural. But when you are looking at some kind of "corrosion" from an unknown source, your argument is really weak if all you can summon up to support you are semantics, especially when a eutectic thermite reaction could very well cause the exact same physical reaction and you wouldn't know the better.



I have posted this site before and it does a good job explaining all the semantics of hot corrosion and what it entails:

www.corrosionsource.com...


Introduction to High Temperature Corrosion

High temperature corrosion is a form of corrosion that does not require the presence of a liquid electrolyte. Sometimes, this type of damage is called "dry corrosion" or "scaling".


First sentence in and I can already tell you that this link is irrelevant to what FEMA described in appendix C. In their own words, it was a liquid eutectic mixture on the steel that led to the "corrosion."



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thomk
 


I guess you are still looking for a specific reaction for what you describe as "garden variety hot corrosion"?

I also suppose you understand that the FeS you are talking about, that was the main proponent of the "corrosion" according to FEMA, was formed by sulfur reacting within the iron in the steel itself. You say the steel did not melt but the iron in it obviously did according to FEMA. What is steel without the iron in it?



Originally posted by esdad71
One of the things that was asked for in the original design was to maximize available square footage. Rockefeller wanted to squeeze every last inch and the final design does. They did this with the column design they used. It is quite simply a core with floors that are attached to the outer floors. Therefore you have LOTS of open floor space.


That didn't compromise the stability of the structure, though. The core structure itself didn't have all the open floor space you are talking about, it was more like a conventional steel-framed structure with box columns and beams. The open floor space outside of it may in itself have been easy to bust up, ie the trusses and concrete slabs, but on the other side of these were 100's of closely-meshed perimeter columns and spandrel plates. There was plenty of support. Are you still getting around at pancake theory, esdad?

[edit on 26-12-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join