Giving this one more go.... molten metal

reply to post by GenRadek


thermite reaction is a function of:
metal oxide
metal oxide surface area to volume ratio
other reactant species
temperature

Once the reaction starts, it will oxidize (fuel) higher temperatures. It is used in welding...makes a wicked cutting torch...a bit dangerous for the garage. But, I don't have one.

reply to post by AaronTheSpeaker


Where did you study metallurgy? They must stop what they are doing immediately.

reply to post by GenRadek


I start my thermite reactions using a bic lighter (portion of flame is just under 2,000 F). Works great.

Originally posted by ibiubu

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.

Does steel or iron, under any set of circumstance, melt when exposed to 1000C?

So if iron sulfide wasn't part of the steel originally, is it your opinion then that it became something other than steel, and then melted?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


No, can't melt it at 1,000 C. That is for traditional engineered steel alloys...i can make a ferrous based variant of "steel" that would melt below 1000 C, but this metal would serve no purpose.

The grain boundary embrittlement theory (sometimes grain boundary "melting" which occurred to a degree)...

If eutectics that would cause fracture are present within the steel (at the grain boundaries), it wouldn't pass inspection at the mill or after welding. It may likely cause cracking during hot-rolling, and it would become scrap at that point. If it makes it that far, it won't make it through the cold mill. And, I'm talking about beams FAILING due to grain boundary sulfide embrittlement like the fake ideas about 911.

How do you cut an I-beam (steel alloy A36) like this? Using my bic torch, i light my homemade thermite sparkler, blow compressed air behind it (low psi, depends on situtation), direct at steel, cut through. A surface layer would be left where i cut it. It would be of the austenitic/ferritc percentage combinations that won't exactly jive with the Fe-C binary diagram. But, the layer would have iron oxides and iron sulfide species dispersed within this primarily austenitic matrix. Their form will likely be globular, forming along the grain boundaries of the matrix...due to their lower temperature.

Exactly what Appendix C of the WTC shows.

In industry, they use cutting torches, plasma torches, water jets, and mechanical saws...PUSSIES

reply to post by ibiubu


I'd love to just be able to play around with thermite. But its kinda hard to get the materials without having the feds raising eyebrows.

i am aware of the thermite reaction and what it entails, but thank you for the reminder!

But what is the temperature of the reaction and the liquid material at the peak when you make it? Do you add any extra ingredients or is it plain old thermite? I'm not too sure its that easy to ignite a regular thermite mixture with a lighter. Unless its a different mix that allows for a lower ignition temp? Is it higher than the flame of the ignitor?

My problem, though, with the association of the eutectic mixture with a thermite reaction, is the fact that the resulting maximum temp of the molten material (eutectic material) found on the steel pieces shows the highest temperature of the eutectic mixture as just approaching 1800F. But if thermite at its most basic mix burns at temps above 2500F, then shouldnt the resulting molten material from the thermite reaction show signs it was at the same max temperatures during the reaction which caused it? Shouldnt the molten material show it was 2500F since that is how high the temp was when it was formed? We are constantly shown that the max temps never approacched the melting point of steel. But in order to melt the steel with thermite, there should be more than enough evidene of thermite-level temps SOMEWHERE on the steel or the eutectic slag material. But there isnt. That is my problem with that assumption!



[edit on 5/1/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by ibiubu


I guess one must think about temperature more:

Surface steel/thermite torch interface: well above 3,000 F...steel and reactant products of thermite (Oxygen primarily, sulfur if its thermate--easier to light with my bic too). This creates a slag and solidifies with high iron oxide, iron sulfide, and a iron rich matrix)
Surface one inch away from the beam: many depends here due to mass/size. Either way, it's well below the melting point.

Simply investigating the problem considering temperature effects on metals and materials at one atmospheric pressure and ideal gas (air) at 21% oxygen...

thermite/thermate changes all of that...

reply to post by GenRadek


the sulfides in question were not present in the base steel...only the surface layer...surface probably hit 4,000 F (just a guess) due to the high iron oxide content in the surface slag layer. Iron oxide is not eutectic...forms only at temperatures above the liquidus of the A36 steel. Oxidation from thermite/thermate changes all of that and raises temperature quickly.

Think about it...oxygen is the key, not hydrogen. Oxygen is the ultimate fuel...and this is a highly oxidizing reaction with some serious exothermic power behind the reaction.

That being said, I'm a peaceful man...but, as a metallurgist/scientist, thermite/thermate is not a very good tool. It's uncontrollable. Welding guys have it most controlled...they know all about this stuff.

reply to post by GenRadek


I only would use my bic lighter because I smoke alot.

I have a pretty good idea of how I would demo a steel tower...no point in talking about that...don't really even want to think about it...creepy

Originally posted by ibiubu
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?

It can be red orange yellow and even white if you get it hot enough.

this is why I say it doesn't matter what metal it is, there is glowing yellow ball of metal (doesn't really matter if its steel or aluminum), which indicates a temp higher that can be caused due to an office fire. we can ignore the dripping metal and all that. temp were created that can not be explained by office fire alone.

can we stop argueing over the same things now?

reply to post by ibiubu


What, in your professional opinion, caused the "eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur" on the steel samples that FEMA examined?

reply to post by ohhwataloser


just saying it can't be orange...i used to try to superheat aluminum while simultaneously fluxing the tenacious oxide surface layer in order to vaporize tramp elements. And, that didn't make it glow orange. Sorry if I offended you...peace

reply to post by _BoneZ_


It was Sulfidation and Oxidation of the A36 Steel, as my friends generically published for WTC report appdx C. They didn't exactly understand what was going on, or they were pressured. Either way, here it is...

The steel suffered highly localized melting under highly (not atmospheric) oxidizing conditions. Everything in the microsctructure confirms this through thermodynamic laws.

Looks like A36 that was thermite welded...except for the iron sulfide. But, thermate would have sulfur and explain the resultant iron sulfides. They so happen to have a lower melting point than the base steel. But, they are not present in the base steel, only the surface layer...just like the report shows.

[edit on 1-5-2010 by ibiubu]

reply to post by ibiubu


Am I understanding your reply correctly in that it is your opinion that thermate is the likely cause for what FEMA concluded happened to the steel?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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.

FALSE. I clearly showed that NO ONE can claim it is molten steel.

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.

QUITE CLEARLY FALSE. I clearly showed that Gross was misrepresented. You can deny it all you want but I showed who said what. I repeat it here to show how that claim that Gross lied is completely false:

---
The claim that John Gross lied came from a student video of a Q & A session:

"This video was shot on October 18, 2006. John Gross was asked to come speak at the University of Texas at Austin by the Phil. M. Ferguson Fund. A UT 9/11 Truth student organization called A Project for the New American Citizen was there to ask questions and film his response."

www.livevideo.com...

This student group, now defunct, was run by two students, one by the name of "Jon" who is apparently the one asking John Gross the questions. I transcribed the relevant section leaving only very few irrelevant parts out:

---

Jon: "I'm curious about the pool of molten steel found in the bottom of the towers... eyewitnesses there found huge pools of molten steel beneath the towers.... and scientists, some scientists, don't think that the collapse of the building could melt all that steel and professor...uh...a physics professor ana lysed some of this steel and Steven Jones, he found evidence of thermite residue which would explain how the buildings collapsed by means of pre-planted explosives, so have you ana lysed the steel for any of those residues."

Gross: "First of all, let's go back to your basic premise that there was...uh...a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses who said so, nobody who's produced it...I don't know that that's so."

Jon: "There's video of it."

Gross: "Steel melts around 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit. I think it's probably pretty difficult to get that kind of temperatures in a...uh...fire."

Jon: "Well NASA pictures...uh...thermal images show those sorts of temperatures in the basement."

Gross: "Will you send them to me?"

Jon: "He (Gross) asked me to e-mail him those thermal images. When I approached him after his talk to get his e-mail address for that purpose, he refused to provide it to me.

---

Let's list what Jon, the student, is stating:

1. A pool of molten steel was found at the bottom of the towers.
2. Eyewitnesses there found huge pools of molten steel beneath the towers.
3. There's video of it. (A pool of "molten steel.")
4. thermal images show those sorts of temperatures in the basement.

These are the statements to which John Gross replied, to wit, when he said: "First of all, let's go back to your basic premise that there was...uh...a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses who said so, nobody who's produced it...I don't know that that's so."

At that point the video instantly shifts to statements of various people. But in this video with the "testimony" of "eyewitnesses" there is not one claim there of anyone seeing pools of molten steel..

- No ones states seeing a "pool" or "huge pools of molten steel."
- No one shows any video of "a pool of molten steel."
- The NASA thermal images could only measure the surface temperatures down a few feet, not temperatures of any kind in the basement of the towers.

So the claim that John Gross "lied" is not even supported by the one claiming he lied.
---

There is no question that John Gross did not lie. Denying it does not change that fact, _BoneZ_. Everyone can see that clearly.

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.

I showed quite clearly that NO ONE could tell the difference between molten aluminum and molten steel and that the firemen themselves stated quite clearly that temperatures NEVER reached more than 2,000 degrees F., 600 degrees short of the melting point of construction 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.

It's not surprising that you would claim the melting temperature of steel "does not matter."

I don't know of anyone that was going around specifically measuring temperatures.

Except the "witnesses" you use. They thought they were seeing molten steel. They did not know that it was molten aluminum. And Jon, who lied about John Gross in the video, also lied when he said, "thermal images show those sorts of temperatures in the basement"

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.

Jon, who lied about John Gross in the video, also lied when he said, "thermal images show those sorts of temperatures in the basement"

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.

MISREPRESENTATION. No one claims witnesses "lied." I showed why they could not distinguish molten aluminum from molten steel and thought it was molten steel. Jon, who lied about John Gross in the video, also lied when he said, "thermal images show those sorts of temperatures in the basement"

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?

FALSE. Most of the aluminum cladding fell in large panels attached to structural steel near the buildings in a radius around both towers:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e805d54c1a61.jpg[/atsimg]

WTC 2 fell first, it's aluminum cladding all around the tower. WTC 1 fell later is structural steel falling and overlapping the aluminum cladding debris of WTC 2:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6c02dc60ecb4.jpg[/atsimg]

There's no way you can claim that the aluminum cladding was not well dispersed in the burning pile and subject to temperatures sufficient to melt aluminum. Here is the thermal image:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7e78a938ac23.jpg[/atsimg]

So it is clear that your claims about molten steel remain completely unsupported. Just repeating what people thought they saw does not refute this fact. You have not been able to assemble any credible evidence that any molten metal seen or reported was nothing more than molten aluminum. As a researcher, you should now acknowledge that your claims are unsupported as they have been all along.

This would also be a good time for you and your group, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, to apologize to John Gross of NIST for falsely accusing him of lying.

reply to post by jthomas


I'll ask again, what is steel when the iron in it is melted?

Steel is predominantly iron and carbon. When the iron in it melts, why is the steel not melted? These are word games you are playing. Thing about what is actually happening to the steel. Even if you come up with some twisted semantic argument, the iron in the steel has melted. It is in liquid form. According even to FEMA.

reply to post by jthomas


JThomas, you are playing word games like BSBRay has suggested, so I'm not even going to respond to that nonsense.

What I will say is that you are continuing to miss two very glaring points:

1.) The aluminum cladding fell outside of the foot print of the structures.

2.) What was in the oxygen-starved environment of the basements that caused such high temperatures to melt anything, whether it be aluminum or steel?


If you look at all the witness testimony, most everyone has said that the molten steel was "below ground" or "in the basements". Very little, if any, aluminum cladding could have made it into the basements of either tower. Your whole point is based on the estimated temperatures and that's the only leg you have to stand on.

But I do find it disturbing that you believe every architect, engineer and firefighter that claimed to have seen molten steel was "mistaken". That's a very large straw to grasp at and a very large leap to take. Sorry, but I'm not ready to take that leap when all you have to go on is estimated temperatures. You would think there would be cooled aluminum somewhere at the end of the dripping and someone would have said "OH! It's not molten steel, it's molten aluminum!"

How can you look at yourself in the mirror and claim that every architect, engineer, firefighter, and any other worker that was there, was mistaken and doesn't know what they are talking about concerning the molten steel? Unbelievable. That kind of thinking defies logic.











[edit on 1-5-2010 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by jthomas

 

What I will say is that you are continuing to miss two very glaring points:

1.) The aluminum cladding fell outside of the foot print of the structures.

Read my post. Plenty of aluminum cladding fell within the burning zone. Plenty of structural steel from WTC fell on top of the aluminum cladding from the already-fallen WTC 2. You cannot deny that.

2.) What was in the oxygen-starved environment of the basements that caused such high temperatures to melt anything, whether it be aluminum or steel?

Molten aluminum that is flowing obviously can be anywhere in the fire in the pile and flow downward.

If you look at all the witness testimony, most everyone has said that the molten steel was "below ground" or "in the basements".

Already debunked multiple times No one saw molten steel.

Very little, if any, aluminum cladding could have made it into the basements of either tower.

Aluminum cladding did not have to be in the basement.

But I do find it disturbing that you believe every architect, engineer and firefighter that claimed to have seen molten steel was "mistaken".

Already explained.

Since you know you cannot demonstrate any molten steel it's time to admit it, _BoneZ_.

reply to post by jthomas


FEMA analyzed steel in which the iron content (again, steel being iron and carbon) had melted.


There is no use continuing to deny the existence of melted steel at the WTC site when FEMA reported it in 2004.

jthomas...i'm shaking my head...lengthy thread perpetuations and needless end-capping. You were poorly trained my friend...Mossad?

Back to the question at hand...the probability that thermate was used based on all of the steel and iron alloy microstructures that I've seen...i'd say 90% confidence

ferrous alloys (iron-based): iron has carbon at higher levels, steel has carbon at lower levels. Steel is very heat treatable (can change properties) by thermal diffusion of carbon throughout the alloy microstructure. Why??? Because carbon is small...it's number 3 on the current understanding of the periodic table

[edit on 1-5-2010 by ibiubu]