Giving this one more go.... molten metal

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


I think you're actually looking at sunlight hitting the ground in between tall buildings in that last video. It's after one of the towers was just blown apart so dust is still really thick in the air and I think that's what gives it the visual quality that it has.




posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If you were as smart as you think you are, you'd reread that, this time for comprehension.

I'll help you out:
1- the steel experienced oxidation and sulfidation. The part that is missing from this passage is that it then bacame a eutectic mixture. IOW, it is no longer steel, but something else.

2- it then underwent intragranular melting. The part that is not in this passage that proves your lack of understanding is where they mention that this happened at around 1000C. Now you know at what temp steel melts at, and it is much higher.


The steel was included in the "eutectic mixture" genius. Therefore it melted too. And yes, there was molten, liquid iron resulting from this that FEMA documented.


How can you continue to claim that steel melted at around 1000C?


Because the iron in it WAS melted, and what do you call steel when the iron in it has melted? We've played these games before Joey and it's time you grow up and realize what these words mean. The structural integrity of that steel WAS compromised by the iron it melting. Yes, melting. That is the whole and only point to be made, and it has been made: the structural integrity of this steel, confirmed by FEMA, was compromised by melting.

If you somehow think the iron in the steel was NOT melted during the eutectic reaction, then explain why FEMA says it melted. The eutectic mixture did not melt because the mixture itself, as the report says, was a liquid. And it caused subsequent intergranular melting in the grains of the steel.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You didn't comment on this.

Please see the live link video below;

Live Video Link - Must See


Cheers-
Phil




[edit on 1-5-2010 by Phil Jayhan]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Phil Jayhan
 


You're right, because I have nothing to add to it.

I believe what the firefighters are saying.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You didn't comment on this.

Please see the live link video below;

Live Video Link - Must See


Yes, I dealt with that,

It was part of the video in which John Gross of NIST was accused of lying about "molten steel." I showed that Gross was not lying and that no evidence of molten steel was ever found.

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...

- A college student ("Jon") made a video of John Gross and claimed Gross "lied". The video shows quite clearly that John Gross of NIST addressed a specific claim that eyewitnesses saw "huge pools of molten steel under the towers." The college student then switches to various claims none of which show anyone or any video showing "pools of molten steel" and misrepresents the specific claim Gross was addressing. John Gross is vindicated in that NO evidence, NO testimony, NO video, and NO temperatures sufficient to melt steel were demonstrated in that deceptive video nor have ever been demonstrated since.

- No temperatures reaching the required 2,600 degree F. to melt steel have been reported or demonstrated.

- Temperatures well above the melting point of aluminum existed in the pile for a long time.

- There was around 4,000,000 kg of aluminum cladding from WTC 1 and 2. It would be expected that there would be molten aluminum but not molten steel at the reported temperatures in the pile.

- Molten aluminum at high temperatures and/or contaminated with impurities, as would be expected running through the debris in the pile, glows and looks like any other molten metal. It would not be readily apparent that it was molten aluminum and not molten steel. (This is also true about the metal dripping from WTC 2 before it collapsed. See:
www.debunking911.com...)

- It would not be unexpected for people to assume it was molten steel since aluminum is not associated with building construction and people would not have any reason to assume the cladding was aluminum. Many just said they saw molten metal.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I showed that Gross was not lying and that no evidence of molten steel was ever found.

Actually, no you haven't. You've theorized, against all available evidence, that the pools of molten metal could have been molten aluminum instead of steel. Just like you theorize about the ejection plumes and that they are "compressed air escaping out of select windows" when the towers are collapsing, also against all available evidence as well. Theorizing doesn't make the evidence go away or any less credible.



Originally posted by jthomas
John Gross is vindicated in that NO evidence, NO testimony, NO video, and NO temperatures sufficient to melt steel were demonstrated in that deceptive video nor have ever been demonstrated since.

That's false and you misunderstood what is actually going on in the videos. To make it more clear and since people don't actually listen to what is being said in the videos, I'll type it out for you so that it may be easier for you to understand.

The interviewer in the video says that eyewitnesses found pools of molten steel under the towers. This is what John Gross says in response:

"I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitness who has said so."

That is a blatant lie or gross incompetence as the two videos, plus my link, have shown dozens of eyewitnesses who did say so. Firefighters are sitting at a table in the very beginning talking about the pools of molten steel. Those eyewitnesses alone are in direct contradiction to what John Gross has just said about there being no eyewitnesses who said there was molten steel.



Originally posted by jthomas
- No temperatures reaching the required 2,600 degree F. to melt steel have been reported or demonstrated.

That doesn't matter in the least. I don't know of anyone that was going around specifically measuring temperatures. And don't bother bringing up the NASA images of the temps as those are only estimates taken from space of what's happening underground.

Just because the temps required to melt steel weren't "reported", doesn't mean all of the witnesses who testified to molten steel are lying or that it wasn't possible.



Originally posted by jthomas
There was around 4,000,000 kg of aluminum cladding from WTC 1 and 2. It would be expected that there would be molten aluminum

The only problem with this theory is that the aluminum cladding was on the outside of the buildings and the walls of the buildings fell outside of the buildings' footprints as the buildings were collapsing.

So, since this is your theory, can you demonstrate how the aluminum cladding that was on the outside of the buildings and that fell outside of the buildings' footprints, somehow ended up inside the buildings and into the basement levels past all that steel?



Originally posted by jthomas
Many just said they saw molten metal.

I'm not sure why you would say something so blatantly false unless you actually didn't watch the videos or read the link I posted. Most said they saw molten steel, not metal.

There are 3 basic types of evidence which can prove or disprove a claim:

1.) Any media in the form of audio, video, and still image.

2.) Eyewitness testimony.

3.) Physical/forensic evidence.


Now, let's take a look and see if we can fulfill all three types of evidence:

#1 - Images have been shown in the videos and on the first page, and other images and videos are reported to exist.

#2 - Dozens of eyewitnesses in both videos and the link I posted, all reported seeing molten steel.

#3 - FEMA has done an analysis on some of the steel samples and reported a "high temperature corrosion attack" on the steel with "subsequent intergranular melting".


Now, I'd like to see you, JThomas, use the table above to show that there is evidence of molten aluminum instead of steel.


On a final note, it was noted on the first page that even if the molten metal was aluminum instead of steel, to heat aluminum to be red-hot would exceed temperatures of 1000-degrees-C which is not only not possible in office fires, it would be even less possible buried under dozens of storeys of rubble with a lack of oxygen.

And on top of the problem of somehow getting the aluminum cladding from the outside of the towers to the basements past all that steel, the fires were nearly a quarter-mile up and would have been mostly extinguished by the collapses. One would then have to wonder how not only did fires get into the basements of the towers, how did it get so hot to melt and superheat aluminum to be red-hot with a lack of oxygen?

The best and most easiest answer would be explosives and incendiaries, which is what all available evidence has always suggested in the first place.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Uhh bsbray, you are forgetting one major thing here about that "eutectic mixture". What was the temperature of it? On practically every single report about the steel, debris, etc, I have not seen a single temperature indication ever approaching the melting point of steel. None. Not even for the eutectic mixture.

In fact the highest indicated temps were about 1800F. Now refresh my memory, what is the LOWEST possible temperature of thermite to do its job? Hint: it must be ABOVE the melting point of steel. But everywhere I look on the analysis of the steel, they only show temps below the melting point. So how can that be bsbray? You are constantly hammering away implying that this eutectic mixture somehow validates some sort of magic thermite was used, or is evidence of some magic thermites, because something managed to make a "melted-like" state. But you are ignoring the fact that the highest temp indicated of the eutectic mixture is well below the melting point of steel. You also ignore/handwave away/scoff at the more reasonabe possibility that the eutectic mix was created on the steel in the pile itself AFTER the collapses due to the corrosive environment it was in for weeks and months. A combination of corrosion, oxidation, sulfidation, acidic and elevated temperature attack on the steel could have just as easily created the eutectic "slag". And did you ever notice the really really thin layer of it? How can all that magic thermite just barely create a 50 micron thin layer of slag?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Oh BoneZ! You too have forgotten one important part of that FEMA report. What was the temperature of the slag?

Lets go to the source:

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.



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.



Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700–800 °C (1,290–1,470 °F).


www.fema.gov...

Now what is that melting point of steel? Oh about 2500F or 1371C.
Now what is the temperature of a thermitic reaction? 1400-2500C (Thats Celcius there).

Now there is the problem. If the max temps observed are all below the melting point of steel, and thermite has a temperature well ABOVE the melting point of steel, then how the hell can it be any sort of thermite that created a 50 micron layer of eutetic slag well below the melting point of steel? This is like trying forcefully to have 4+5=10. No matter how hard you try to argue and reason and huff and puff, 4+5 will always equal 9, never 10.

Unless this is some sort of new magical fairyland thermite that can magically melt steel below the actual melting point of steel?
A low temp burning thermite? Alert the press! Stop the presses! This is big news! Right there with the silent but deadly high-power demo charges!


[edit to add]


I would also go online and check that assumption that office fires cannot reach 1,000C. I'll give you a website you can ask directly!

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Here is their contact page:
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

So write to them or give em a call! And ask them if temps can reach 1,000C in an office fire!

[edit on 5/1/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

The last few words are the keywords: "liquefied the steel". Did you notice the words you posted? "A eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur." Let's see what happens when the sulfur in thermate reacts to iron or steel:


The sulfur generates a eutectic system when molten thermate interacts with iron or steel, lowering the melting point of iron or steel.
Source: Wiki

What FEMA described is the exact result of what a thermate reaction accomplishes and exactly what would happen if the steel came in contact with an incendiary like thermate.

FEMA is describing what could be considered a thermate reaction, and preliminary tests have shown incendiary residue in the dust. What more could you possibly need besides someone coming out and actually admitting they placed the incendiaries in the WTC?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Because the iron in it WAS melted,


At 1000C?

You really need to think about that, long and hard.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Ahh but you forget another KEY fact about adding sulfur to thermite. It makes it HOTTER. That turns into THERMATE. THERMATE's sulfur does lower the melting point of steel, BUT it BURNS at a HIGHER TEMPERATURE. Thermate burns HOTTER.

But again, you are back to square one. There is NO indication of even HOTTER temps of the eutectic mix. So no, once again you are trying to shoehorn a square peg into a circle opening. No matter how hard you pound on it, it aint gonna go through!

Sorry but, as it is said in the report for FEMA, the mixture approaches 1800F. Do you understand what that means? That means the temperature APPROACHED about 1800F. So it could have been lower than 1800F. But if thermate was burning, the temperature would be much much higher than 1800F and that would be reflected in the eutectic slag. But it wasnt and consiquently ends up LOWER than 1800F. You see, thermate with sulfur does TWO things: Lowers the melting point of steel AND increases the temperature of the molten steel.


In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.


www.answers.com...

Lets ask the military on thermate's temp:


AN-M14 TH3 incendiary hand grenade
(6) Capabilities -- can be thrown 25 meters by average soldier. A portion of the thermate mixture is converted to molten iron, which burns at 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit. It will fuze together the metallic parts of any object that it contacts. Thermate is an improved version of thermite, the incendiary agent used in hand grenades during World War II. The thermate filler of the AN-M14 grenade burns for 40 seconds and can burn through a 1/2-inch homogeneous steel plate. It produces its own oxygen and will burn under water.

www.fas.org...

So once again, addition of sulfur makes it even HOTTER.

And again, you ignore/hand-wave away/scoff at the other possible alternative that this eutectic mixture (slag) formed in the pile weeks later due to the corrosive environment it was in, due to oxidation, sulfidation, acidification, and high temps.


[edit on 5/1/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Even though you like to post the 1800F figure as law, even though it is an estimate, would you care to theorize what incendiary liquefied the steel at that temperature then?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I woud like to add that I work in the melt shop castor in a steel factory. Our plant recycles scrap metal and melts it in an electric arc oven. It's quite the show actually.

Anyways, it takes an extreme amount of power to melt the steel. I believe it comes into the LAR around 2000 degrees if im not mistaken. Maybe a little under.

This fire, caused by jet fuel and whatever else most likely would not melt the steel. The steel we make is used for rebar, I beam, channel and so on.

The specialty steel used in a building like WTC would of had to have been either

a) exposed to a hotter substance for the period of time it took to collapse

or

b) the exact center of the fire was located on a certain beam and which would of had to have been over 2000 degrees for atleast 20 minutes.

Also, steel has 2 melting types from my experience. The melting point and a cutting point where you can use oxygen to cut cold steel.

Anyways, from my experience working with steel, there had to of been something more



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Uhh bsbray, you are forgetting one major thing here about that "eutectic mixture". What was the temperature of it? On practically every single report about the steel, debris, etc, I have not seen a single temperature indication ever approaching the melting point of steel. None. Not even for the eutectic mixture.


I'm aware of this. The word "eutectic" comes from the Greek for "easily melted." That's the whole point of such a reaction. It is set up chemically to allow a substance (such as iron) to be melted at a temperature much lower than it would normally require, through the sulfur attacking the grain boundaries between the grains of steel as FEMA described.

That's just the "how" of the steel being melted. It was still melted, as the iron in it was still rendered into a liquid form.

It's not my job to teach you chemistry. Throw in a phrase like "eutectic mixture" and it's like suddenly you guys think we're talking about something that is totally unrelated to steel, even though it was the steel that was destroyed by it and is obviously the subject of the FEMA analysis.





Originally posted by Joey Canoli
At 1000C?

You really need to think about that, long and hard.


You need to read what I posted above too. I see you are just as sharp on your science as ever Joey.



eutectic ...

[from Greek eutēktos melting readily, from eu- + tēkein to melt]


www.google.com...:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-a

Come on. I've known this information for YEARS ever since doing initial research on thermite, that this is a special and actually defining characteristic of eutectic reactions. But characteristically of yourself, you've been around the same information for a long time as well and it STILL hasn't sunk in yet, because you're not actually interested in science. You come here to get your rocks off picking arguments. That's no secret either, and something you don't appear to understand about yourself when I do.

Eutectic reactions cause melting at unusually low temperatures.

Yes, the iron in the steel melted. FEMA tells you themselves in black and white kids! Learn to read and comprehend what you are reading.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by AaronTheSpeaker
Anyways, from my experience working with steel, there had to of been something more

I work with steel and aluminum every day. Cut, weld, form, you name it. Your point is exactly what those of us in the know are trying to get at. Something caused the steel to liquefy according to FEMA and dozens of witnesses. Trying to figure out what could have been used to liquefy the steel is what's proving to be the challenge at this point.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Unless the building's were jut made pathetically. Look at these oil rig's...and look at American cars coming out of the 80's...

It is apparent that Big Business cares more about profit then making something correctly.

Now I hear a simple 500k part, one required anywhere else, on an oil rig, was not installed on this one in the Gulf.

Maybe the building was just made terribly and it shouldn't have fallen but it was actually just a terrible building made with cheap steel from russia/india/china



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


BoneZ, I have never thought it would be some incendiary because it does not work at all.

I have posted numerous time to you and bsbray about what else could have created such a eutetic mixture, and you just ignored it and had your personal incredulity do all the talking. You want to know what I think did it? Look in the upper right hand corner of the page. There is the search button. Find it yourself. I've posted it many times.

reply to post by bsbray11
 


Teaching me chemistry? You?
No thanks.

I wouldnt trust someone that thinks when a reaction has a very high temperature, the resulting molten material will only be heated up to a temperature well below the melting point of the material AND below the actual temperature of the reaction.

You throw around the word eutectic mixture and think, "AHA! that is all the proof I need that thermite was used!" That is not how it works. Especially when A) A thermite/ate reaction is much much hotter than the melting point of steel B) The resulting MOLTEN MATERIAL will mirror the HIGH TEMPERATURE it reached DURING the reaction C) The temperatures on the steel samples all were seen to be BELOW the melting point of steel. Oh and the actual "melting" of the surfaces of the steel was on the scales of 50 microns. Thats it? A tiny thin "melted" layer of eutectic material? geeze how much thermate did they put on it? 100 microns? Where did it all go?

How can a thermite/ate reaction reach 2500-4000F, creating a molten material of the same temperature to which it was heated to, but the molten material itself only shows a MAXIMUM temperature of less than 1800F? Thats like saying "oh well we heated this glass of water to 110F, but the water temperature itself is only 80F and did not go any higher."

And you think you can teach me chemistry?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

It was still melted, as the iron in it was still rendered into a liquid form.



No.

www.tms.org...

"The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge."




Read what that says. The iron in it became iron oxide and iron sulfide. No longer is it simply just iron. Or steel.

I reaize that the science is beyond you at this point of the discussion, and there's zero hope of penetrating your psychological armour, but I'll keep on replying to your nonsense, just to try and educate someone here.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostR1der
 


Silly Rabbit, Ignorance is for kids.

Molten aluminum can be orange??? If you put on orange lensed glasses maybe...would like to see some instructional videos that I developed for an Aluminum Research Company?



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


the eutectic reaction products in Appendix C of the 911 report were the result of liquification (melting) under highly oxidizing conditions. The eutectic seen in the melted zone wasn't present in the base steel.

So, the hand forge idea is bogus...for a number of different reasons to. The don't use steel with eutectics that embrittle. For WTC steel, the eutectic was iron sulfide.

But, the iron oxide (not eutectic) was in the melted layer which further proves that it melted. Joey, I covered this all before...





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join