FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7

reply to post by Whodunnit


no. i have thought about it, and it's pretty obvious that the corrosion did not happen over a long period of time.

paint? you mean the white parts? or the rust coloured areas that might be red from primer?

either way, the patterns are not consistent with slow corrosion due to a constant barrage of firefighting overspray. they are consistent with the pattern left by a small stream of liquid.

i would love to see you or anyone else reproduce that effect at the junkyard with some water and an old I-beam or some other similiar steel. c'mon. convince me that erosion pattern can happen from a little bit of water. reproduce it.

i've been around big steel all my life. it doesn't turn rusty when you spill a glass of water on it. the water has to be in constant contact with the steel for several hours AT LEAST for visible rust to appear. the liquid that caused this was clearly running, and not pooled.

reply to post by Whodunnit


The nuts were sheared off but the top of that beam assembly obviously suffered intense and prolonged heat, much more than at bottom. The fireproofing's gone from above. The coloration, corrosion and deformation of the steel are entirely different above than what you see lower down. That remaining bit of flange plate at bottom is neatly fractured in comparison to the deformed mess at top right. The bolt holes on that flange have been deformed and corroded and rounded. The coloration and loss of definition of the sheared edges certainly don't suggest water did that. Looks more like the action of a blast furnace.

billybob's analysis ^ is spot-on.

The streams are pooling in the wells of the bolt holes and dribbling down, very neat and defined.

Originally posted by gottago
[
The streams are pooling in the wells of the bolt holes and dribbling down, very neat and defined.

Correct.

The streams of rust are dribbling down. The rust is more prevalent in the bolt's location cuz...... it's "fresh" steel. Fresh as in not protected by paint or the thin oil film present in any rolled steel. Ask any welder how fast newly welded parts will rust and he'll tell you almost imeadiately if there's water getting on it. Just a few days and oops, there it is. I've done some welding too, although by no means is it my job, and I've seen exactly this phenomenon.

Originally posted by billybob
no. i have thought about it, and it's pretty obvious that the corrosion did not happen over a long period of time.

paint? you mean the white parts? or the rust coloured areas that might be red from primer?

i've been around big steel all my life. it doesn't turn rusty when you spill a glass of water on it. the water has to be in constant contact with the steel for several hours AT LEAST for visible rust to appear. the liquid that caused this was clearly running, and not pooled.

The corrosion developed over a few weeks, the duration of water being sprayed over the piles.

The white parts are removed insulation. The dull red areas are the primer. The bright orangish red are the rust.

I've been around big steel all my life also, to varying degrees. I've also done some welding in my 45 years. You're right, steel won't rust when you spill a glass of water on it. I guess you missed the part where the firefighters were sparaying water on the piles for weeks. So there's your water source.

And they were spraying water cuz they were HOT. Which also explains the fact that ya'll bring up about how they show signs of being hot. I don't disagree with this assesment.

The columns got hot first down in the pile. This explains why they looked "cooked" As the piles shrunk, these beams were exposed to the water spray, which first cooled them, and then induced rust.

These conditions aren't exclusive.

Originally posted by Whodunnit
And they were spraying water cuz they were HOT. Which also explains the fact that ya'll bring up about how they show signs of being hot. I don't disagree with this assesment.

How does water being sprayed on steel explain why they "show[ed] signs of being hot"? I don't disagree with the observation, but I think your reasoning is a little off.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11



In your view bsbray, what do you think we are seeing in that photo? Thanks.

reply to post by Griff


I haven't really been keeping up and I only just now looked at it. The side that's half missing was where a spandrel plate from one set of perimeter columns met this other spandrel plate, right? At least in the same image this came from, I saw two vertical rows of bolts that looked the same, that did just that, on a pair of intact perimeter column sets.

Has anyone found any metallurgical sort of info as far as what could possibly cause steel to corrode this way (whatever was running down through the bolt holes, if any sort of corrosion can even do that)? I wonder if there is a link between the white stuff (some kind of fireproofing? or concrete dust) on the intact bolts, and whatever was the running liquid out of the destroyed bolt holes. Maybe whatever destroyed those bolt holes, at one time looked exactly like spray-on fireproofing. I can only guess though, without somebody digging up some kind of metallurgical data or something to allow us to discriminate between different ideas. It definitely looks "wrong," like that kind of "corrosion" at least should not look like that, but maybe I'm just biased since I've always wondered what made the spandrel plates fall apart so easily.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Griff

It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occured in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel in the WTC 7.

www.fema.gov...

Are we still going to argue that there was/wasn't melted steel at Ground Zero? Please read that report and tell me, even if it was the sulfur from the drywall (gypsum board), how we could have evaporated steel without having melted steel?

That is definite proof that there was melted steel at ground zero. If you want to argue that it was only microscopic, you still have to admit that there WAS melted steel found and analysed.

Microscopic bits of steel were melted in the "grain boundry region" in WTC7 samples. So? What does this have to do with claims that there were streams of molten steel at ground zero?

Originally posted by RKWWWW
What does this have to do with claims that there were streams of molten steel at ground zero?

It has nothing to do with such claims. This thread was started because I got sick of hearing from the debunkers that no molten steel was observed and/or analysed.

I have proven them wrong.