View Poll Results: How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

Voters
51. This poll is closed
  • Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    22 43.14%
  • Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 0%
  • Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    10 19.61%
  • Allah!

    2 3.92%
  • People keep flogging a dead horse!

    17 33.33%

Thread: WTC Collapses

  1. #881
    This is in response to the last part of Tony Szamboti's post 880 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    It would seem [John99's] naivety on this constitutes the real fantasy.
    God yeah. This is the guy who knows how insurance works
    Last edited by scott3x; 01-04-09 at 12:34 PM.

  2. #882
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 3

    This post is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.



    Sure I can.
    Scott, Imagine that you posted a criticism of some of Mackey’s claims, as a rebuttal I just cut and pasted the original claims that were being criticized. That is what you are doing. That is closer to trolling than discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Mackey's 'debunking' is nothing of the sort. I see that you don't get the point. .
    What you have is an assertion based on some comments made by the people he is criticizing.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The point is that flashovers are instant. 120 and 600 seconds, aka 2 and 10 minutes, is way longer then a flashover would take.
    Whether you want to call it a flashover or not, NISTs workstation tests noted periods over high temperatures (800+) for much longer than two minutes.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I can put my finger over the flame of a lighter for an instant and it really doesn't do much. You can torture a man if you put it for longer durations. I really don't want to know what would happen if it was held under someone's finger for 10 minutes. Buildings and the fires needed to 'hurt' them are on a different scale, but the same principle applies; duration can frequently mean quite a bit.
    Strange examples. A roaring fire over 800C for twenty minutes can do quite a bit of damage to a building.



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Really? Could you please present me the evidence for this?
    Sarcasm scott.



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    It's fine that you copy the answers to my post that you wrote the first time. While I have essentially made flow charts for all the posts in this thread, I haven't really gotten far in doing so for the 9/11 conspiracies thread.


    'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 4
    This post is in response to the 8th and final part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.



    Says the man who is frequently too lazy to even reference the evidence for his own claims.
    I do it quite a lot Scott. The problem is that when you have no response you challenge me to summarize everything. Challenging me to show where I have discussed claims made by Steven Jones or the AE911 claims is a good example as between them they make up the bulk of this thread and the previous one which went over 100 pages. I am not going to link to a couple of hundred posts for you. Then you complain that I ‘won’t back up my claims’. Show some maturity and don’t play these petty games.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Personally, I've found that the best thing that Mackey does is, as Jim Hoffman so aptly put it:
    "generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- , factual distortions, and logical fallacies."
    Mackey addresses the supposed logical fallacies in his most recent version. He devotes a chapter to Hoffman’s claims. Perhaps you should read it.

    Scott I don’t religiously worship Mackey and I’m sure he has at some point made mistakes. The point is that many of the times when I have used him as a reference you have just claimed that he has been discredited and posted a comment like the one above. I am just saying make sure you address the content.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I don't ignore a fair amount of them. Neither have many others. I don't ignore what you have to say either.
    But you pass over key points and continue on as if they didn’t matter. You seem to think that spamming the same stuff over an over makes up for your inability to support your confident claims. If you posted rarely I wouldn’t bother pinning you down on this but you have the most posts in the thread, with big letters, and more than a little arrogance.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post

    Mackey may be a step above you in terms of the wannabe alternate theory debunkers, but you're certainly in the running yourself. In point of fact, I think that while you may have not written any massive document criticizing Griffin's latest commentary, you seem to be more open to investigating certain aspects of 9/11 then he does.




    I quoted the part I find to be most relevant, but on reflection, I find that it has many other good points as well.
    Don’t just randomly spam text Scott. If you actually have a point, make it.



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Backing up claims and explaining one's reasoning

    This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 583 in this thread.



    What's truly sad is that you won't (can't?) even link to a single post to your (imaginary?) rebuttals. .
    They make up a large portion of this thread! Look on nearly any page! The previous one which was over 100 pages. That you have to play these petty games is an indication of your sad position.



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    And you know this because you:
    (a) read minds?
    (b) truly -do- have a magic 8 ball?
    .
    No because :
    (a)You appear to understand English at least and
    (b) I have told you many times.

    Put those two sentences together in your head and figure the rest out.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    shaman_, I won't deny that you have tried, in your way, to explain it to me. I'm simply saying that I still don't understand your reasoning. I'm not 'playing dumb', and despite your allusions to the contrary, I am not 'dumb' either. Anyway, if you find that trying to explain it to me isn't worth the trouble, fine
    The official story's lethal paper

    This post is in response to the 2nd and final part of shaman_'s post 583 in this thread.



    I'd say it was done by some type of thermite, probably thermate, but perhaps Headspin could weigh in as well. .
    You didn’t answer my question.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The point is that paper is an unlikely candidate for having caused it, to put it mildly.
    You may certainly be right. So the only two possibilities are paper and supermegathermite. Truther logic right?

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    As Tony Szamboti has made clear, the bowing was probably due to the thermite, not the fires. It looks like thermite played even more of a role than I'd previously known.
    What about the softened steel? Astaneh compared it to licorice.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Round 5, Part 2

    This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 634 in this thread.



    I would argue that he is an authority on the WTC steel and the WTC steel assemblies in particular. He was a manager within the company that certified it
    He did not work in the area that certified the assemblies. He worked with water. Just working at the same company doesn’t make him an expert!
    He is not an authority on steel, buildings and fires. It was not his area of expertise.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    and he not only had access to the people who would know most about those steel assemblies; he also asked them about it and got atleast one quite remarkable response, as Kevin Ryan writes in his article Three Years Later: Another Look At Three Claims from UL:
    *******************
    UL’s CEO, Loring Knoblauch, made verbal statements to all staff at UL in South Bend on or about September 27, 2001. These statements included reference to UL having “certified the steel used in the World Trade Center” and that, because of this, employees should be proud of how long the buildings stood.

    After being later asked for formal confirmation of such tests, Knoblauch repeated his statements again, this time in writing.[10]

    “We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully.”
    *******************

    The whole issue is a deep embarassment, to put it mildly, for Underwriter Laboratories, who has vainly tried to disassociate itself from ever having tested the WTC steel as the above article makes clear.
    As I have pointed out to you a couple of times, UL certified assemblies with fireproofing, as stated in that quote. Once an assembly has been damaged and the fireproofing removed that rating is no longer relevant. Understand? So no, it is not an embarrassment for them at all.

  3. #883
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    It would seem your incredulity and possible naivety on this constitutes the real fantasy.
    No, i have read much of what was in your post before, some of which may be true ans some may not but i dont see the problem.

    As far as security - an upgrade is an upgrade. As for the rest - I am not going to sit here and answer unsubstantiated fantasy questions and 'what if this...what if that...'

  4. #884
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    This is in response to the last part of Tony Szamboti's post 880 in this thread.



    God yeah. This is the guy who knows how insurance works
    yeah, and i explained it to you. you still dont seem to have a handle on it. I have recommended to you before to get an education and this was not meant to insult you but merely a recommendation. Let us not go down the road of personal insults, weather craftily hidden or not. K?

  5. #885
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    No, i have read much of what was in your post before, some of which may be true ans some may not but i dont see the problem.

    As far as security - an upgrade is an upgrade. As for the rest - I am not going to sit here and answer unsubstantiated fantasy questions and 'what if this...what if that...'
    you made the claim it was impossible to install explosives in the towers.

    In order to prove that statement false, it is only necessary to show that it is possible. Tony has shown that it was possible.

    Any follow up along the lines of "unsubstanstiated, what if, what if..." is bogus since you never asked Tony what the exact method was, you asked him only to show that it was possible. It would be honest and decent of you to review the posts and accept that your declaration of "impossible to install explosives" is false. Or you can dispute one or more of the components to Tony's argument by providing counter argument of your own. This is basic logic.

    Without pursuing one of these options you are only left with your belief that it would not be possible.

  6. #886
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    bump:
    what is the maximum gas temperature in the core just prior to collapse according to NISTs fire simulation?
    anyone care to argue with some real (albeit simulated) data:

    http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf

  7. #887
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    bump:


    anyone care to argue with some real (albeit simulated) data:

    http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf
    One other problem, the lite steel construction, the lite steel construct are only strong as long as they remain in alignment with themselves, once the are bent out of line, and or kinked, they lose all structural strength, and tensile strength.

  8. #888
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    bump:
    what is the maximum gas temperature in the core just prior to collapse according to NISTs fire simulation?
    anyone care to argue with some real (albeit simulated) data:

    http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf
    Not necessarily argue with, but can you please excerpt the relevant part? It's 164 pages....

  9. #889
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam View Post
    One other problem, the lite steel construction, the lite steel construct are only strong as long as they remain in alignment with themselves, once the are bent out of line, and or kinked, they lose all structural strength, and tensile strength.
    do you have evidence for this?

  10. #890
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Originally Posted by Headspin
    bump:“ what is the maximum gas temperature in the core just prior to collapse according to NISTs fire simulation? ”

    anyone care to argue with some real (albeit simulated) data:

    http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05161.pdf
    can you please excerpt the relevant part? It's 164 pages....
    start on page 63, each temperature distribution is represented in red and blue diagrams. They are time sequenced according to the timeline bars below the diagrams, so the last one of the six diagrams is just prior to collapse. each tower and each floor with fire is provided with six time slices between impact and collapse. what does the blue colors of the core indicates about the temperature of the core at collapse time? the diagrams are there, do not take my word for it.

  11. #891
    I don't suppose any of you have visited the Richard Dawkins 'Clear thinking Oasis' Forum from whence Psikey has been temporarily banned?

    it's supposed to be a place for rational thinking and science based discussion, but I fear it may have been hijacked by followers of non-science.
    At present they have one supposed engineer - a moderator by the way - who seems to support the pile-driver/pancake/global collapse theory while actually entertaining the idea that he differs slightly from NIST's analysis. Also, there are a lot of people claiming to have some background in the field of demolition who like to claim that it is a near physical impossibility for the buildings to have been rigged that way.

    To be honest, I can't personally refute their claims. I can't point out any real obvious flaws or even hope to hold a decent argument for the opposition side in this debate as I am not knowledgeable enough in the subject. Though I do know quite a lot about the history of 'State sponsored terrorism' and I find the subject of 9/11 quite compelling as it does seem that certain interested parties from within the American establishment would have the means and the motive to pull off such an event.

    It's also worth noting that as human beings, we have evolved a natural ability to judge how 'middle world' physics would 'play out' without having to actually do equations.
    Actual equations would bring more accurate results in terms of physics - that's really undeniable - however, we must all have surely seen a Hollywood film for example, which has some kind of CGI sequence where the physics don't appear to be right?
    Now, I cannot escape that very same feeling whenever I see the Twin Towers 'collapse'. The debris cloud, the speed of fall, the complete destruction straight down. It just doesn't sit right.

    Anyway, What I'm trying to ask is - and I completely understand if you don't agree to it. - Seeing as this thread does appear to now be quite unbalanced in favour of the pro-demolition theorists and the thread itself seems to be dying down, I wonder if any of you people more knowledgeable in the pro-demolition theories would be willing to take a short amount of time to visit the Richard Dawkins forum and argue your case and to test their theories out? It is really quite one sided over there and some of the comments are verging on the ridiculous. It would be nice to see those peoples theories actually challenged...

    .. Also, someone who claims to work for the Hearst corporation is currently posting there; and history has shown us how "reliable" they have been in their journalism.

    The thread is :

    richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2869&start=375
    Last edited by leeray666; 01-05-09 at 04:42 PM. Reason: missed word

  12. #892
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by leeray666 View Post
    It's also worth noting that as human beings, we have evolved a natural ability to judge how 'middle world' physics would 'play out' without having to actually do equations.
    Actual equations would bring more accurate results in terms of physics - that's really undeniable - however, we must all have surely seen a Hollywood film for example, which has some kind of CGI sequence where the physics don't appear to be right?
    Now, I cannot escape that very same feeling whenever I see the Twin Towers 'collapse'. The debris cloud, the speed of fall, the complete destruction straight down. It just doesn't sit right.

    The thread is :

    richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2869&start=375

    The collapse of WTC 1&2 was correct in sequence and action, and now looking at the type of support beams and vertical inner and outer structure, I see nothing out of the ordinary in how it collapsed.

    The main support was at the Central core of the structure, was a long rigid Central spike, and every thing was attached to it, and then radiated out to the outer supports which were were lite corrugated steel support beams, creating a outer skin or rind.

    The Central core structure

    http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/wtc_plan_small.jpgTypical Floor Plan of the World Trade Center:
    A perimeter of closely spaced columns, with an internal lift core. The floors were supported by a series of light trusses on rubber pads, which spanned between the outer columns and the lift core.

    The Central Core vertical support structure, acted as the guide running straight up the center of the top section of the WTC towers, this guided the upper structure straight down.

    The radial support were of light corrugate beam material, that once it was kinked, bent, or twister lost it's load bearing ability, even with out heat induced lose of tensile strength.

    The Outer vertical support was was corrugated beam, that one it is out of alignment with it's self, due to kinking, bending, twisting, has no structure support strength.

    The horizontal beams were sheared at the ends, sheared from the Central Core, and sheared at the wall supports, the action very much like a Pineapple corer in action.

    It was a giant impalement, the Central core acting as the spear impaling the Upper Structure through the Upper Central Core structure.

    Once the Upper Structure is in motion, add Newtons Laws, and :

    Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete story at the level of impact.

    Once one story collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure

    http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/wtc_collapse5.jpg

    As can be seen Perimeter columns, several stories high, and still linked together, were pealed from the Towers like the rind of a Pineapple.

    Not only is the floor directly below the collapse point destroyed, but the energy transfer, then is transferred to floors below the collapse point, destroying supporting structure by shock, and creating damage to facilitate the collapse of those floors when the event front impacts them.

    http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/wtc_collapse4.jpg

    The gigantic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below travelled down the columns like a shockwave faster than the entire structure fell. The clouds of debris coming from the tower, several storeys below the huge falling mass, probably result from the sudden and almost explosive failure of each floor, caused by the "shockwave".
    Last edited by Buffalo Roam; 01-05-09 at 07:44 PM.

  13. #893
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam View Post
    The collapse of WTC 1&2 was correct in sequence and action, and now looking at the type of support beams and vertical inner and outer structure, I see nothing out of the ordinary in how it collapsed.

    The main support was at the Central core of the structure, was a long rigid Central spike, and every thing was attached to it, and then radiated out to the outer supports which were were lite corrugated steel support beams, creating a outer skin or rind.

    The Central core structure

    http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/wtc_plan_small.jpgTypical Floor Plan of the World Trade Center:
    A perimeter of closely spaced columns, with an internal lift core. The floors were supported by a series of light trusses on rubber pads, which spanned between the outer columns and the lift core.

    The Central Core vertical support structure, acted as the guide running straight up the center of the top section of the WTC towers, this guided the upper structure straight down.

    The radial support were of light corrugate beam material, that once it was kinked, bent, or twister lost it's load bearing ability, even with out heat induced lose of tensile strength.

    The Outer vertical support was was corrugated beam, that one it is out of alignment with it's self, due to kinking, bending, twisting, has no structure support strength.

    The horizontal beams were sheared at the ends, sheared from the Central Core, and sheared at the wall supports, the action very much like a Pineapple corer in action.

    It was a giant impalement, the Central core acting as the spear impaling the Upper Structure through the Upper Central Core structure.

    Once the Upper Structure is in motion, add Newtons Laws, and :

    Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete story at the level of impact.

    Once one story collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure

    http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/wtc_collapse5.jpg

    As can be seen Perimeter columns, several stories high, and still linked together, were pealed from the Towers like the rind of a Pineapple.

    Not only is the floor directly below the collapse point destroyed, but the energy transfer, then is transferred to floors below the collapse point, destroying supporting structure by shock, and creating damage to facilitate the collapse of those floors when the event front impacts them.

    http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/wtc_collapse4.jpg

    The gigantic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below travelled down the columns like a shockwave faster than the entire structure fell. The clouds of debris coming from the tower, several storeys below the huge falling mass, probably result from the sudden and almost explosive failure of each floor, caused by the "shockwave".
    The columns in the towers had less than 30% of their load capacity used and an amplified load would be the only natural way to overcome the reserve capacity of the columns in the floors below and continue the collapse past it's initiation. You are saying amplified loads occurred.

    However, there is a big problem for your theory.

    An amplified load requires high deceleration and measurements of the velocity of the roof line of the upper block of the North Tower, from the start and for the first 114 feet of its fall, after which it is obscured by smoke and dust, show no deceleration at any point in that fall. It just keeps accelerating smoothly at about 75% the rate of gravity. To put it in simple terms there were no shocks or impulses and thus no amplified loads and no mechanism for a natural collapse continuation.

    There will be papers coming out showing this in the very near future.
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 01-05-09 at 09:53 PM.

  14. #894
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    The columns in the towers had less than 30% of their load capacity used and an amplified load would be the only natural way to overcome the reserve capacity of the columns in the floors below and continue the collapse past it's initiation. You are saying amplified loads occurred.

    However, there is a big problem for your theory.

    An amplified load requires high deceleration and measurements of the velocity of the roof line of the upper block of the North Tower, from the start and for the first 114 feet of its fall, after which it is obscured by smoke and dust, show no deceleration at any point in that fall. It just keeps accelerating smoothly at about 75% the rate of gravity. To put it in simple terms there were no shocks or impulses and thus no amplified loads and no mechanism for a natural collapse continuation.

    There will be papers coming out showing this in the very near future.
    The shock wave is evident in this picture so why would it cease? just because it is obscured by dust?

    Accelerating....meaning that it is gaining speed?.....till it reaches maximum speed of gravity acceleration, which means the shock wave would move further out in front of the event.

    http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/wtc_collapse4.jpg

    Accelerating at 75% of the rate of gravity, exactly, a continuos acceleration for the collapse, from event initiation to cessation, not a free fall, or a controlled demolition.

    Some were it was posted that the whole Tower weight in a 100,000 tons,

    The top third then would weigh in at 33,000 tons, moving at 7.5 meters per second, that is approximately 17 miles per hour, at 17 mph, a Train that weighs 33,000 tons in a full emergency stop brakes fully applied takes a mile to stop, so how would the top of a building at 75% acceleration of gravity be brought to a stop from resistance in 700 feet? less than a 1/4 mile.

  15. #895
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Originally Posted by Headspin
    bump: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=2264

    Don't you find it interesting the mention of the figure of ~1000 degrees? when the minimum possible temperature of a liquid iron sulphur eutectic is 996C degrees. The paper leaves room for higher temperatures, but it leaves NO ROOM for lower temperatures. And it is also interesting that this minimum temperature of 996 Celcius for the molten Fe-S eutectic only exists if the Sulfur content of the eutectic mix is precisely 31.40%. if there is deviation either side by a percentage point or two for the sulfur content, the liquid eutectic can only exist at MUCH HIGHER temperatures, actually approaching the melting point of iron. ”
    Your numbers still differ from those of Biederman.

    From
    http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/Ima...iedermanA2.pdf

    The as-fabricated microstructure consisted of a hot worked banded structure of ferrite and pearlite. In severely “eroded” regions where the thickness had been reduced to less than a 1/16 of and inch significant decarburation was observed. In addition, some pearlite bands presented regions that had re-austentized as well as regions where the pearlite had started to spheroidize. These observations indicate that steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850°C. An examination of the “slag” that formed on the surface of the steel found iron oxides and iron sulfides. It appeared that the “slag” was liquid at high temperature and easily attacked the grain boundaries. A eutectic microstructure was seen within the “slag” of iron oxides and iron sulfides. If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is 940°C. It appears that the severe “erosion” was due to the sulfidation and oxidation (i.e. hot corrosion) of the steel followed by the liquid “slag” attack of the grain boundaries.
    You say "Your numbers still differ from those of Biederman", but there is no significant difference from his initial estimate, the new numbers do not contradict what he said earlier - they merely provide more data.

    Biederman has provided more data from further analysis in that pdf document you provided.

    Here is his original paper (which was peer reviewed and published in JOM, the pdf you provided doesn't appear to have been peer reviewed or published).
    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html

    It states:
    "...Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. 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..."

    Originally he estimated the liquid eutectic required a temperature "approaching 1000°C". In the pdf it is stated "If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is 940°C.".

    The minimum temperature at which a pure Iron-Sulfur Eutectic exists is 996°C. This is for an optimum concentration of 31.4% sulfur, at slightly lower and slightly higher concentrations of sulfur the minimum temperature of such a eutectic will be much higher (of the order of 1200°C).

    The pdf states 940°C as the minimum temperature when Wustite (Iron Oxide FeO) is considered in the Eutectic, so the minimum temperature doesn't change much from the initially stated estimate of 1000°C.

    The other numbers in the pdf refer to different regions of the same sample. It states "...some pearlite bands presented regions that had re-austentized as well as regions where the pearlite had started to spheroidize. These observations indicate steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850°C"

    So the microstructure of specific areas on the sample had spheroidized etc, which required a minimum temperature of 550°C and a maximum of 850°C

    So we have a A36 steel sample with regions that has suffered temperatures somehwere within the bounds of 550°C and 850°C, and other regions on the sample that have suffered temperatures of at least 940°C, but most likely much higher than 940°C.

    These significant differences in steel temperatures on the same sample can be explained by a molten iron-sulphur eutectic (thermate slag) at a temperature of higher than 940°C melting its way through the steel.

  16. #896
    The Keyspan Maspeth Holding Tanks

    This post is in response to MacGyver's post 2461 from the 9/11 Conspiracy thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FDNY Aux
    Sure does,

    "a parallel between the demolition of the Keyspan Maspeth Holding Tanks in Queens, NY on July 15th, just a few months before 9/11. Although explosives were outlawed, somehow with the Giuliani administration in power, this demolition was carried out even though the surrounding area was residential."...
    I'm still confused on what this has to do with 9/11?
    The argument is that the Keyspan tank demolitions may well have been a test run for the WTC building demolitions. As you may know, Controlled Demolitions Inc. was brought in for the cleanup of ground zero. Personally, I find it... interesting that a demolition company would be involved in a cleanup that allegedly didn't involve any actual demolitions. I found an interesting article, "Unbelievable: NIST Uses CDI (suspect?) To Prove No Controled Demolition", that has some information on the owner of that company, Mark Loizeaux:
    ********
    ...it looks like the sole reasons that NIST is claiming that they concluded there was no “controlled demolition” of Building 7 appears to be coming from Mark Loizeaux; the owner of the demolitioncompany that was on scene of the WTC destruction right after 9/11 and a man by his own admission, called his friends in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001 and told them to get out of the area because he knew the buildings would come down.

    Mark Loizeaux is listed on page VI in the report’s credits as having been a contributing contractor for the report.

    They took the word of the owner of the controlled demolition company that was on-site right after the WTCs fell (and possibly even before) contracted to do “clean-up” while search and rescue teams were still looking for survivors, rather than testing for explosive residue. That’s right, NIST has admitted they NEVER tested for the tell-tale evidence of explosive residueat the WTC site.

    ********
    Last edited by scott3x; 01-06-09 at 05:57 AM.

  17. #897

  18. #898
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    Was there an actual demolition at WTC?

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Demolish
    Yep. Lots of evidence of it as well.

  19. #899
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    “ Originally Posted by Headspin
    Also sulfur evaporates at 444 degrees Celcius, so if you choose the second option, you have to explain how free sulfur can itself exist liberated from any calcium sulphate compounds, but also how this free sulfur (once liberated) can avoid being evaporated as the temperature gradually rises to 1000C in order that the theoretically liberated free sulfur forms the iron sulfur eutectic. ”
    Chemistry is not my thing so I have to go to R.Mackey again.

    "Regarding the melting/boiling temperature of other sulfur compounds, you forget that the sulfur may have started to react with the steel before it was heated, or the two could have been concurrent. To pick an obvious example, sulfuric acid from overheated uninterruptible power supplies could have flowed onto structural steel at a temperature of about 100oC, then started to react with the steel, and then was further heated eventually to a temperature of about 900oC. The sulfur would bond to iron and form more heat-resistant compounds (but far less heat resistant compounds than steel itself) first. There is no reason at all to assume the sulfur started at the upper temperature.
    ....
    The sulfur that caused the eutectic probably started as an acidic form, such as H2S or a weak solution of H2SO4 (sulfuric acid). "
    Do you have any proof that Ryan Mackey even exists as a real person? For all you know he could be a fabrication used KGB/FSB or other organisation to make the anti-truthers look ridiculous. Chemistry is not "your thing" but your faith relies on an anonymous internet poster! can you feel the ground beneath your feet shaking, because i can certainly see it shaking.

    "Regarding the melting/boiling temperature of other sulfur compounds, you forget that the sulfur may have started to react with the steel before it was heated"
    "sufur" is not the same as "sulfur compounds"
    in the same way that sodium (explodes in water) is not the same as sodium-chloride (table salt - very tasty)

    "sulfuric acid from overheated uninterruptible power supplies could have flowed onto structural steel at a temperature of about 100oC, then started to react with the steel"
    wtc7 had diesel generators as a power backup not sulfuric acid batteries, nevertheless assuming that there was a quantity of sulphuric acid available. if it "flowed onto" a steel beam it would leave behind only a wet surface, technically a very thin film of sulphuric acid which would evaporate very quickly.

    "and then was further heated eventually to a temperature of about 900oC"
    sulphuric acid has a boiling point of 290 oC - it cannot exist as a liquid above that temperture, it would boil off as a gas - it appears that chemistry isn't mackey's "thing" either.

    "at a temperature of about 100oC, then <sulfuric acid> started to react with steel"
    sulfuric acid reacts with steel producing hydrogen gas and iron sulfate solution.
    Fe(s) + H2SO4(aq) → H2(g) + FeSO4(aq)
    An iron-sulfur eutectic requires elemental sulfur, in the above reaction the sulfur is bound with 4 oxygen and an iron, it is not elemental sulfur. (elemental sodium explodes in water, sodium bound to chlorine is tasty)

    I think Mackey maybe thinking of the film Alien when the aliens "sulfuric acid blood" burns through the steel hull rather than any repeatable experiment.

    "The sulfur would bond to iron and form more heat-resistant compounds"
    it would perhaps form iron sulfate (FeSO4) if it managed to find a chance. but not iron sulfide (FeS). Mackey does not explain how Sulfur is liberated from FeSO4.

    "There is no reason at all to assume the sulfur started at the upper temperature"
    The reason is that elemental sulfur is required to form FeS Eutectic, elemental sulfur would evaporate during a heating process from 100 to 900 C. Mackey assumes incorrectly that iron sulphate creates a FeS iron-sulfur eutectic."

    "The sulfur that caused the eutectic probably started as an acidic form, such as H2S or a weak solution of H2SO4 (sulfuric acid)"
    There is no reason to assume this at all. it is a complete guess without an explanation. what is a "scientist" doing making a complete guess and lacking any coherent explantion, let alone experiment? This appears to have been plucked out of the collective JREF ass.
    Last edited by Headspin; 01-06-09 at 06:19 AM.

  20. #900
    As you may know, Controlled Demolitions Inc. was brought in for the cleanup of ground zero. Personally, I find it... interesting that a demolition company would be involved in a cleanup that allegedly didn't involve any actual demolitions.
    Did you read the definition in the previous post?

Similar Threads

  1. By Stryder in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 01-21-09, 01:23 AM
    Replies: 2517
  2. By reasonmclucus in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 08-07-07, 12:14 AM
    Replies: 5
  3. By duendy in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 04-19-06, 08:20 AM
    Replies: 381
  4. By Brian Foley in forum World Events
    Last Post: 04-02-06, 05:11 AM
    Replies: 10
  5. By Raven in forum World Events
    Last Post: 01-05-06, 07:27 AM
    Replies: 1

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •