[Merged] "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation? - Page 37

leftysergeant · 13th February 2012, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The dust cloud caused by the destruction of the towers was made of very thick dust that was forced throughout the building. A light breeze could only carry the tiniest iron spheres a significant distance and any light enough to make it to the Bank building would likely continue on.

Havig been through about twenty of the sort of storm that we knew inLibya as a "ghibli," I find your assertion laughable. For hours after the storm had moved through, there would still be dust in the air, getting into every bloody thing, even between plates stacked inside a cupboard in ther mess hall.

Sorry, I can't just let you tell me things that conflict with what I have seen with my own Mark I eyeballs.

KreeL · 13th February 2012, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Bear in mind that the fires were still raging and producing smoke when collapse started, so even your theory has enormous holes in it.

I thought both sides have already agreed that office fires can't melt steel.

Christopher7 · 13th February 2012, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by C7

But this does point out that the hypothesis in the letter is dumb. There was no rust to flake and melt because the columns had a coat of primer to prevent that.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Some iron oxide forms in the forging and rolling processes. This is a black iron oxide that is reduced at lower temperature than is the red oxide. Some red oxide starts forming almost as fast as the steel is exposed to air with any humidity. The primer just seals it and stops the process right there.

It takes a while for iron oxide to form in an appreciable amount. The amount of rust is minute when they primer.

There is no mention of primer in the letter. Whoever wrote it is uninformed and grasping at straws.

Quote:

Even soot will fall out of a plume of smoke.

Eventually. Look at the videos. The smoke, which is soot, was carried down wind.

Quote:

Bear in mind that the fires were still raging and producing smoke when collapse started

Only the spheres [if there were any] in the smoke still in the building would be caught up in the dust. And of course, the ones that adhered to surfaces.

Oystein · 13th February 2012, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The RJ Lee group analysis used the "TP-01: Protocol for the Monitoring of Non-Biological Indoor Environmental Contaminants" which consist of wipes and a dust lift.
The USGS crew collected grab samples.

This could account for the discrepancy. And/or more heavy particles were deposited in the gash area.

The dust cloud caused by the destruction of the towers was made of very thick dust that was forced throughout the building. A light breeze could only carry the tiniest iron spheres a significant distance and any light enough to make it to the Bank building would likely continue on.

You are pathetically grasping at the flimsiest of straws, while studiously ignoring large portions of the post you responded to.

I see I must repeat some of the stuff and ask you to read it now, and acknoledge you read and tried to understand:

Originally Posted by Oystein

Make sure you take a close look at the maps of sampling locations, the tables with more detailed results, and take note of the calendar dates when the sampling was done. I also recommend looking up the references provided by Jenkins.

C7, please acknowledge that you now know that WTC dust immediately after 9/11 did NOT contain even nearly 6% iron, that the mean is consistently close to 1% in several studies, that not even a single sample at a single location came near 6%, and that therefor the RJ Lee value of 5.87% is an extreme outlier and not explainable by a large amount of thermite in the towers. And that you now consider the possibilities that this outlier could be an error, or not mean what you think i means, or can be best explained be the deposition of additional iron durng the 9 months after the collapse dust had settled on 9/11.

Later in the paper, he works with additional data about airborne iron (aerosols) measured in the months after 9/11. Using his references, I found a database of the EPA data and downloaded the measurements at a location on Liberty Street; from that raw data is my value for aberage iron content of air on Liberty which may have precipitated into RJ Lee's dust.

...
Remember I did the work and showd my assumptions? Do you remember that you did not refute a single of my assumptions, and corrected none of my work?

If you read the RJ Lee report in context, you will find that this Table 3, that reports 5.87% iron spheres, refers not to inaccessible locations in the Building, but to accessible surfaces in the open Gash in the front of the building.

At least tell me that you have abandonded the unsupportably claim that 5.87% iron sphere is typical for inaccessible areas of the building!

leftysergeant · 13th February 2012, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by KreeL

I thought both sides have already agreed that office fires can't melt steel.

of course not. It can, however, reduce it by the bloomerie method.

Christopher7 · 13th February 2012, 02:55 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

acknoledge you read

I read it. No comment. You just like to put up long posts with lots of questions to divert from the point at hand. If I don't respond it's because I have already responded or don't feel it's worth responding to, so don't keep repeating like a 3 year old.

That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation.

I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee.

Oystein · 13th February 2012, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

...
I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee.
[/b]

You make a demand that I believe you know can't be met - Ron is banned from the JREF.
I am in personal contact with Ron, but won't subject myself to mean-spirited put-downs by you in the 100% certain case that Ron verifies personally to me that the letter is genuine.

Back to ignore with the pathetic troll.

000063 · 13th February 2012, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

...Judging by the utter failure of bedunkers in the past to ever produce models that could support their bizarre stretches of logic, e.g., a rubble-driven destruction of 80 - 90 storeys of steel-framed highrise;

Gravity-driven, after a collapse of the floors above induced by fire and impact. Someone on PoliticalForum estimated that the collapsing floors hit the lower section with thirty times their regular weight. In other words, more than the weight of both intact buildings put together, Mr. "moon-sized rubble".

Quote:

an illustration of how the "fireball" from the plane impacts traveled down through the elevators into the basement,

I've already posted two links showing several of the elevator shafts ran the length of the building, though the elevators themselves were staggered.

Quote:

blowing out the lobby and only a few other selected floors, I don't think I'll hold my breath for this one.

"Selected floors"? Selected by who? The alleged conspirators? Suddenly instead of being impossible, it's actually evidence supporting your position? Fire was even travelling between shafts.

And, of course, your personal baseless incredulity is not affirmative evidence of thermite or explosives or even something fishy.

Edx · 13th February 2012, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

I read it. No comment. You just like to put up long posts with lots of questions to divert from the point at hand. If I don't respond it's because I have already responded or don't feel it's worth responding to, so don't keep repeating like a 3 year old.

That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation.

I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee.

Why don't you personally just call RJ Lee yourself Chris if you feel their behaviour is so weird?

000063 · 13th February 2012, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

I read it. No comment. You just like to put up long posts with lots of questions to divert from the point at hand. If I don't respond it's because I have already responded or don't feel it's worth responding to, so don't keep repeating like a 3 year old.

That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation.

I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee.

Have you made any effort to contact him or Lee yourself? Or do you plan to just demand others contact him, so you can call them liars, as you basically have now? Because I've noticed a lot of sophists are very reluctant to seek evidence that is bad for their arguments, especially when they know they made the claim without evidence in the first place. In fact, some of them will actually mock the people requesting evidence for not being able to do their own research*, or try to dodge the question by asking it of the questioner.

If Lee or the Lee Group didn't write the letter, who did? Are they deliberately misrepresenting (lying) the letter as being written by Lee?

*Which is ironic, since one's opposition should not have to provide evidence one claims one has, and expecting them to do so is actually expecting them to do one's research for one.

sheeplesnshills · 13th February 2012, 07:06 AM

[quote]

Originally Posted by ergo

As amusing as this discussion could be, it's irrelevant.

The RJ Lee samples were taken from all sections of the building, including from spaces where dust did not passively deposit. Unless you can show some schematic how these microspheres from the steel cutting hundreds of feet below, that need to also chemically match the spheres in the dust, made their way up and through the entire building in concentrations that altered the iron content far above those of any of the other studies, and also made their way into enclosed spaces, this is just grasping.

Its you that is obsessing about the dust........its you that wants a "new investigation" so its you that has to convince us you have a case.....sorry but so far you just have a big fail......

Quote:

Judging by the utter failure of bedunkers in the past to ever produce models that could support their bizarre stretches of logic, e.g., a rubble-driven destruction of 80 - 90 storeys of steel-framed highrise; an illustration of how the "fireball" from the plane impacts traveled down through the elevators into the basement, blowing out the lobby and only a few other selected floors, I don't think I'll hold my breath for this one.

Why would we make models? Its you that wants something.......I'm a professional engineer and I have no problems with any of the above so quite why I should care less if you hold your breathe or not is beyond me......

Disbelief · 13th February 2012, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by 000063

Have you made any effort to contact him or Lee yourself? Or do you plan to just demand others contact him, so you can call them liars, as you basically have now? Because I've noticed a lot of sophists are very reluctant to seek evidence that is bad for their arguments, especially when they know they made the claim without evidence in the first place. In fact, some of them will actually mock the people requesting evidence for not being able to do their own research*, or try to dodge the question by asking it of the questioner.

If Lee or the Lee Group didn't write the letter, who did? Are they deliberately misrepresenting (lying) the letter as being written by Lee?

*Which is ironic, since one's opposition should not have to provide evidence one claims one has, and expecting them to do so is actually expecting them to do one's research for one.

This is one of the fall back positions for the truthers - faked evidence. When presented with evidence that destroys his position, the truther will claim it is fabricated so he does not need to address it.

Edx · 13th February 2012, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by 000063

If Lee or the Lee Group didn't write the letter, who did? Are they deliberately misrepresenting (lying) the letter as being written by Lee?

*Which is ironic, since one's opposition should not have to provide evidence one claims one has, and expecting them to do so is actually expecting them to do one's research for one.

In fact if it it isnt really an official response from RJ Lee, then Chris, since he is so sure of himself, should call RJ Lee themselves and tell them there are people impersonating them and should start legal proceedings against Ron.

But we know he wont do that.

sheeplesnshills · 13th February 2012, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by KreeL

I thought both sides have already agreed that office fires can't melt steel.

Try and keep up......we are talking about the melting of Iron compounds, alloys and oxides. Rust is an Iron Oxide.

LSSBB · 13th February 2012, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

This is one of the fall back positions for the truthers - faked evidence. When presented with evidence that destroys his position, the truther will claim it is fabricated so he does not need to address it.

Their troubleshooting always seem to leave out the single most important factor in why their theory doesn't jive with the evidence.

Fizzard · 13th February 2012, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation.

Last time I visited this thread, Christopher7 regarded RJ Lee's word as incontestable holy scripture.

Now it's "absurd, uninformed speculation."

Wha' happened?

Disbelief · 13th February 2012, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Their troubleshooting always seem to leave out the single most important factor in why their theory doesn't jive with the evidence.

More basic than that, they do not even have a real theory. If you have not had the pleasure of reading through Chris' ever flexible story on thermite, nanothermite, explosives, explosive nanothermite, etc, feel free to look through his thread if you enjoy pain.

Many truthers say they have a theory, but all have failed to actually flesh one out with detail yet have the balls to complain that NIST, etc failed to give enough information. For example, Ergo promised a comprehensive theory probably a year ago, but he has never delivered and contents himself with trolling threads.

brazenlilraisin · 13th February 2012, 07:58 AM

n/m

000063 · 13th February 2012, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by Fizzard

Last time I visited this thread, Christopher7 regarded RJ Lee's word as incontestable holy scripture.

Now it's "absurd, uninformed speculation."

Wha' happened?

Simple. Since it contradicts him, it's "absurd, uninformed speculation.", and therefore cannot be from Lee.

LSSBB · 13th February 2012, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Disbelief

More basic than that, they do not even have a real theory. If you have not had the pleasure of reading through Chris' ever flexible story on thermite, nanothermite, explosives, explosive nanothermite, etc, feel free to look through his thread if you enjoy pain.

Many truthers say they have a theory, but all have failed to actually flesh one out with detail yet have the balls to complain that NIST, etc failed to give enough information. For example, Ergo promised a comprehensive theory probably a year ago, but he has never delivered and contents himself with trolling threads.

Great point. I always thought the first thing you do in trying to understand what you observe is to create a model to explain the observations. They never got to step one. Therefore, they will never understand the obsrvations.

BasqueArch · 13th February 2012, 01:57 PM

Rust and rust scale on primed steel at the WTC1,2. From fireproofing inspections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C7
But this does point out that the hypothesis in the letter is dumb. There was no rust to flake and melt because the columns had a coat of primer to prevent that.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

It takes a while for iron oxide to form in an appreciable amount. The amount of rust is minute when they primer.

There is no mention of primer in the letter. Whoever wrote it is uninformed and grasping at straws.

Wrong.

Quote:

I inspected core columns up to the 78th floor but was unable to access them above that point. These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets. Photo 3, taken in 1994, shows a core column from which the fireproofing had fallen off in a sheet that is several stories high. The red circle and date was the Port Authority's response to the missing fireproofing. This resulted because the steel had not been properly prepared at the time of the initial spray application. Rust scale had not been removed prior to applying the fireproofing. The fireproofing had adhered well to the rust scale, but the rust was coming loose from the steel (photo 4). of the rust, indicating that the rust existed at the time the fireproofing was applied.

Quote:

The result was that the fireproofing adhered loosely to the columns and would fall off in large sheets. This defect was never corrected and still existed in June 2000 and probably at the time of the plane crashes. It is possible the fireproofing was missing from sections of columns on the impact floors or that some or all of the loosely adhered fireproofing fell off with the force of the impacts. This is a defect that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM adhesion and cohesion quality assurance test, had this standard existed at the time of construction......

Quote:

Test conditions, however, do not match actual conditions in the field. Insulation adhesion may be ineffective because of rust. Frequently, insulation is applied to rusted metal that has not been properly treated before application; the insulation's consistency may vary; its application may be inconsistent; or it may be dislodged during original and new construction and maintenance.

The steel was primed and rusted.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html

Sunstealer · 13th February 2012, 04:01 PM

All low alloyed or plain carbon steels develop mill-scale during the rolling process at the rolling mill due to the temperatures at which the steel is formed into shape by rolling. Mill-scale is the formation of iron oxide on the steel's surface and is typically 1mm thick or less.

This layer is detrimental to the steel for a number of reasons but primarily because the oxide scale is incoherent with the parent metal due to a large difference in atomic lattice parameters. (that's why rust on steel flakes off but oxide on aluminium and titanium and most other metals doesn't) Effectively what this means is that it flakes off exposing fresh steel underneath which then rusts. If you paint over mill-scale then the paint is essentially worthless because the mill-scale will spall (technical term for flaking) taking the paint with it thus losing any corrosion protection.

Mill-scale also causes problems when welding - you don't want brittle, sharp particles of mill-scale in the weld because this is detrimental. This is one of the reasons why ship builders used to leave steel from the rolling mill out in the open so that it would "weather", i.e. the mill-scale would fall off through handling, temperature differences etc, which is where we get the traditional term "weathered steel" from. After this had happened the steel can then be used to weld after the usual grinding of the surfaces to be welded.

Mill-scale is removed from the steel at the rolling mill by one of 2 or 3 methods Iirc; via mechanical stress, thermal stress or acid pickling. An oxide layer is still present but that layer is more coherent with the parent metal and will not flake off as readily. That layer is much thinner.

There is no way to stop rust on construction steel exposed to the elements and that's why protection is needed. Paint is the cheapest option. It is also more economical and easier to apply paint in a controlled environment prior to assembly depending upon the building specifications obviously. In this instance primer paint has one use and that is to protect the steel from corrosion. It has no factor regarding resistance to elevated temperatures (and by that I mean above normal parameters in the building specifications). Paint is so thin that even if it ignites and burns at a temperature as low as 100°C it is not going to have any effect whatsoever on the mechanical properties of the steel. Fire-proofing is what protects the steel. If the fire-proofing is compromised either through it's removal or the fire burning past it's rating then the steel has far more problems than a thin layer of paint burning on it's surface.

LaClade primer paint was applied to the trusses in the factory via an electro-static process which has been detailed in this thread.

So what happens to steel that's been painted with primer paint when it's subjected to higher temperatures above normal? Well we know this because steel has been studied for over 100 years. NIST also carried out experiments and for this purpose it doesn't matter which type of primer paint is applied it's what happens to the steel's surface that counts.

Effectively what we are seeing here is the spallation (flaking off) of the steel's oxide layer taking the paint with it due to thermal stress differences between the oxide layer and the steel underneath. It's essentially like the spalling of mill-scale and one can argue that the thickness of the oxide layer has increased due to the elevated temperature of 650°C which isn't far from the AC₃ temperature.

It's clear from the above photo that paint is peeling from the surface and thin flakes of oxidised steel are being liberated from the steel's surface. These flakes are very thin with large surface to volume ratios just like steel wool.

Hydrocarbons when burnt will produce CO and CO2. It is well understood that Carbon will reduce iron oxides below the melting point of Fe and below the oxide melting temperature. Mankind has been using this process since the Iron Age. Anyone who has looked into Iron production will know this.

See Bloomery.

Quote:

In operation, the bloomery is preheated by burning charcoal, and once hot, iron ore and additional charcoal are introduced through the top, in a roughly one to one ratio. Inside the furnace, carbon monoxide from the incomplete combustion of the charcoal reduces the iron oxides in the ore to metallic iron, without melting the ore; this allows the bloomery to operate at lower temperatures than the melting temperature of the ore. As the desired product of a bloomery is iron which is easily forgeable, nearly pure, and with a low carbon content, the temperature and ratio of charcoal to iron ore must be carefully controlled to keep the iron from absorbing too much carbon and thus becoming unforgeable. Because the bloomery is self-fluxing the addition of limestone is not required to form a slag.

In effect a steel's surface, no matter whether it's structural steel or conduit or wire or whatever, subjected to a fire; whose fuel is a hydrocarbon such as jet fuel and office furnishings will undergo this same chemical reaction at the temperatures at which such a fire is capable of producing.

The production of "iron rich micro-spheres" in such a situation is to be expected. The only reason that these by-products are argued over by truthers is the fact that such by-products were identified in environmental studies.

We also have environmental studies from coal and municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators that operate below the temperatures required to melt pure Fe. Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings.

There is absolutely no reason to use therm*te to explain such phenomena.

alienentity · 13th February 2012, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

Judging by the utter failure of bedunkers in the past to ever produce models that could support their bizarre stretches of logic, e.g., a rubble-driven destruction of 80 - 90 storeys of steel-framed highrise

Wrong again...

And again:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

ETA and again

riptowtan · 13th February 2012, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by alienentity

Wrong again...

And again:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

ETA and again

Wow. I didn't know a simulation like this existed. Thanks for posting this! This will make a great visual aid when debating truthers.

Christopher7 · 14th February 2012, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

The steel was primed and rusted.

http://images.pennnet.com/articles/f...cap_111461.jpg

http://images.pennnet.com/articles/f...cap_111460.jpg

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html

Thank you for the info. These problems were no doubt corrected on an ongoing basis but your point is made that there was rust on some of the columns.

However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit.

Christopher7 · 14th February 2012, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

All low alloyed or plain carbon steels develop mill-scale during the rolling process at the rolling mill due to the temperatures at which the steel is formed into shape by rolling. Mill-scale is the formation of iron oxide on the steel's surface and is typically 1mm thick or less.

1mm = 0.04 inches

Quote:

Hydrocarbons when burnt will produce CO and CO2. It is well understood that Carbon will reduce iron oxides below the melting point of Fe and below the oxide melting temperature. Mankind has been using this process since the Iron Age. Anyone who has looked into Iron production will know this.

See Bloomery.

In operation, the bloomery … reduces the iron oxides in the ore to metallic iron, without melting the ore; this allows the bloomery to operate at lower temperatures than the melting temperature of the ore.

iron oxide becomes metallic iron at roughly 1250°C, almost 300 degrees below iron's melting point of 1538°C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting

Iron ore:
magnetite (Fe₃O₄), hematite (Fe₂O₃), goethite (FeO(OH)), limonite (FeO(OH).n(H₂O)) or siderite (FeCO₃).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore

Melting point of magnetite/Iron oxide (Fe₃O₄) 1538^oC - 2800^oF
http://www.espimetals.com/index.php/...on-oxide-fe3o4

Melting point of iron oxide/rust (Fe₂O₃) 1566^oC - 2850^oF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%28III%29_oxide

Iron must melt and then be atomized to produce iron spheres.

The bloomery process does NOT melt the iron in the ore and therefore it cannot produce iron spheres.

Quote:

The production of "iron rich micro-spheres" in such a situation is to be expected.

Wrong, as noted above.

Quote:

We also have environmental studies from coal and municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators that operate below the temperatures required to melt pure Fe. Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings.

Fly ash is one of the residues generated in combustion, and comprises the fine particles that rise with the flue gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

Fine particles: Particulates – also known as particulate matter (PM), suspended particulate matter (SPM), fine particles, and soot – are tiny subdivisions of solid matter suspended in a gas or liquid.

Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.

beachnut · 14th February 2012, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

...
Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.

Thus, no micro-spheres in the dust. Final Quixotic statement?

"my name... prepare to die", from laughter ; you live in a fictional world.

10 years, no clue office fires make micro-spheres, and these are found in the dust. When you get a PhD in fire science, will you retract your delusions?

leftysergeant · 14th February 2012, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit.

Balderdash. There were super-heated, oxygen-poor gases from the combustion of Class A fuels. Much of this was conducted up the chimneys formed by the opening up of the core. When those hot gases hit the fresh oxygen rising through the core, they would have to have ignited again, perhaps explosively.

Christopher7 · 14th February 2012, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Balderdash. There were super-heated, oxygen-poor gases from the combustion of Class A fuels. Much of this was conducted up the chimneys formed by the opening up of the core. When those hot gases hit the fresh oxygen rising through the core, they would have to have ignited again, perhaps explosively.

Source?

beachnut · 14th February 2012, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Source?

fire science

It happens in my wood stove...

leftysergeant · 14th February 2012, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Source?

I cannot believe you could be this ignorant and actually have the years of experience that you claim to have in the building trades.

I hardly have time here to give you the entire course in Fire Science 101. If you have evidence to show that any of the principles that I identify for you are in error, please do so. Most of them are as basic and time-tested as Newton's laws of thermodynamics.

Steel looses its strength, thus its ability to support loads, at temperatures in the range of 1000 F.

A fire in flash-over excedes temperatures of 1000 F.

Thus, we can draw certain conclusions based on what we can observe.

Flammable gases generated by the heating of Class A and Class B fuels in a fire will, after a certain concentration is achieved, cease to burn, but will, upon the introduction of oxygen, or the escape of these gases into an oxygen-rich environment, re-ignite, sometimes explosively, resulting in a phenomenon called "backdraft."

The combustion of flammable gases will release more energy than will the combustion of the solid from which these gases are derived because no energy is absorbed in initiating the combustion.

We have observed that the fires were in flashover. We have observed that fire protection measures within the structures had been compromised.

Everything else that I have stated follows from these statements. We can, for example, conclude that the blasts in the basement and lobby were the result of hot, flammable gases meeting a supply of oxygen at locations where elevator doors were standing open. Because this is going to be random in any building of this type and size, secondary blast damage from backdraught will be random.

Don't just stand there and tell everybody that this is not so. Cite your sources that it is not. As it stands, we are now in a situation where a carpenter is telling veteran fire fighters that he has a better understanding of fire science than they have.

I might point out, as well, that turds like DRG and MacQueen do the same thing.

They are speaking outside their areas of competency, through their trousers.

DRG is the hardest of the lot to excuse, since he has spent most of his adult years blathering about how people come to believe what they believe. I must, therefor, conclude that his is as competent to discuss theology as S. Jones showed himself to be with his pathetic paper "Behold My Hands."

Uncle Fetzer is even less respectable because his work is all about the way that the human mind processes data to acquire knowledge, yet he fails to notice the holes in Judy Woo-woo's scribblings or the fact that she fell for "the Hutchison Effect."

BasqueArch · 14th February 2012, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Thank you for the info. These problems were no doubt corrected on an ongoing basis but your point is made that there was rust on some of the columns.

However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit.

Wrong again. You don't read or comprehend well. From the same post you reference:

Quote:

The result was that the fireproofing adhered loosely to the columns and would fall off in large sheets. This defect was never corrected and still existed in June 2000 and probably at the time of the plane crashes. It is possible the fireproofing was missing from sections of columns on the impact floors or that some or all of the loosely adhered fireproofing fell off with the force of the impacts.

The inspections were "non-destructive", meaning limited to what was visible without removing coverings. The porous fireproofing absorbs moisture like a sponge, exacerbating the corrosion of the steel.

Originally Posted by Christopher7

.......Fly ash is one of the residues generated in combustion, and comprises the fine particles that rise with the flue gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

Fine particles: Particulates – also known as particulate matter (PM), suspended particulate matter (SPM), fine particles, and soot – are tiny subdivisions of solid matter suspended in a gas or liquid.

Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.

Why would the same microspheres created by thermxte not fly away in the smoke.

Sunstealer and RJ Lee are right. You and Jones are wrong.

Quote:

Sunstealer: Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings.

Existing evidence proves ferrospheres (and many other microspheres) and volatile lead are produced at less than 1200C, less than the melting point of iron and its oxides and less than the vaporization temperature of lead, and collected in the fly ash as shown in my previous incinerator link.

There is no evidence that thermxte was used to produce ferrospheres and volatile lead.

leftysergeant · 14th February 2012, 05:59 AM

So, the SFRM was falling off by itself and the primer appears not to have been applied in a fully-competent manner. Sunstealer mentions that mill scale does not hold paint especially well. It appears to me, from the photo shown elsewhere of paint peeling from the steel that the steel in the towers was not very well descaled.

We might also stop here and re-address the mechanisms by which primer would be removed from the steel during the fire or the collapse.

Heat will clearly cause the epoxy to oxidize or eveporate. Abrasion during the collapse will scrape some of it loose.

POUNDING will dislodge some of the paint. Certainly, every structural element in the building was subject to considerable pounding, thus accounting for the bits of La Clede primer being beaten loose from the trusses. When you pound on stee hard enough to dislodge paint, you are going to dislodge some of the mill scale as well.

Oystein · 14th February 2012, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

So, the SFRM was falling off by itself and the primer appears not to have been applied in a fully-competent manner. Sunstealer mentions that mill scale does not hold paint especially well. It appears to me, from the photo shown elsewhere of paint peeling from the steel that the steel in the towers was not very well descaled.

We might also stop here and re-address the mechanisms by which primer would be removed from the steel during the fire or the collapse.

Heat will clearly cause the epoxy to oxidize or eveporate. Abrasion during the collapse will scrape some of it loose.

POUNDING will dislodge some of the paint. Certainly, every structural element in the building was subject to considerable pounding, thus accounting for the bits of La Clede primer being beaten loose from the trusses. When you pound on stee hard enough to dislodge paint, you are going to dislodge some of the mill scale as well.

BENDING of steel members will induce tensions that can break up an oxidized surface. The floor trusses, being thinner, would have experienced more bending than the columns, and also possibly more pounding and grinding.

Sunstealer · 14th February 2012, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Christopher7

iron oxide becomes metallic iron at roughly 1250°C, almost 300 degrees below iron's melting point of 1538°C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting

Wow I suppose you ought to inform the people who wrote this paper that they are wrong then.

http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/engin...1-5-0012-2.pdf

Quote:

Effect of Temperature

Reduction experiments of the composite pellets were carried out at 900, 950, 1000, 1050 and 1100°C with different coal consumption ratios. Figures 2 and 3 show the effect of temperature on the degree of reduction
for Cfix / Fe total ratios of 0.17 and 0.38. As seen in the figures, the amount of reduction increases, for both Cfix / Fe total ratios, as the temperature increases.

As seen in Figure 3, a reduction period of approximately 60 minutes is satisfactory to reach a reduction degree of 0.7 at 1100°C, while it takes 110
minutes to reach the same degree of reduction at 900°C. A 22% increase in temperature reduces the reduction period about 45%. At the same temperature, on the other hand, for a degree of reduction of
0.5, a 22% increase in temperature causes a 67% decrease in time required for reduction. As seen, longer reduction periods are required at lower temperatures in order to reach the same reduction, and this period increases with the degree of reduction.

Reduction of iron oxides occurs either by carbon or by carbon monoxide, formed by the gasification of carbon. The reduction process carried out by the carbon is called "direct reduction":

FenOm + mC = nFe + mCO (2)

while the reduction process conducted with CO is
called "indirect reduction":

FenOm + mCO = nFe + mCO2 (3) mCO2 + mC = 2mCO (Boudouard Reaction)
(4)

The overall reaction involves a cyclic mechanism in which CO2 reduced as a result of the reduction of iron oxides gasifies carbon to generate CO, which
in turn produces CO2 through oxide reduction. The reduction and gasification reactions are thus necessarily coupled.

Now I know you won't accept this so lets try another one. Fancy contacting these people and telling them that they are wrong aswell?

Quote:

Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of the reduction of Fe2O3 in a continuous stream of 100% CO was conducted at temperatures ranging from 800 to 900 °C. X-ray diffraction analysis of solids identified the presence of iron, graphite and a carbide of iron as the products of reactions. A kinetic model based on the first-order irreversible rate kinetics was developed and fitted to the TGA data so as to estimate the rate constants for each reduction reaction. The reaction pathways considered in this analysis involved reduction of iron oxides, Boudouard reaction and iron-carbide formation. The rate parameters were calculated and compared with data reported in literature.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7838200400044X

Apology accepted C7.

Christ don't you get tired of being shown to be wrong on just about everything? You should have learnt by now that I can back everything I say with sources.

Accept that iron oxides can be reduced below 1000°C well within the temperature obtained in office fires. Stop being a martyr, you're making yourself look like a fool. Accept it and move on.

ergo · 14th February 2012, 11:30 AM

I'm confused. Isn't iron reduction a completely different chemical process than that required to produce metal-rich microspheres? What is the relevance of this discussion to the melting of iron or iron oxide into microspheres? What is the relevance of this to the melting or vaporization of lead and molybdenum?

Why does Sunstealer think he's now not only just debunked Chris7, but also apparently RJ Lee, Frank Greening and all of 9/'11 bedunkerdom?

ergo · 14th February 2012, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

BENDING of steel members will induce tensions that can break up an oxidized surface. The floor trusses, being thinner, would have experienced more bending than the columns, and also possibly more pounding and grinding.

Yeah, in the whole 0.16 seconds each floor had to experience all this "grinding".

GlennB · 14th February 2012, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

I'm confused.

Nominated.

DGM · 14th February 2012, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

I'm confused. Isn't iron reduction a completely different chemical process than that required to produce metal-rich microspheres? What is the relevance of this discussion to the melting of iron or iron oxide into microspheres? What is the relevance of this to the melting or vaporization of lead and molybdenum?

Why does Sunstealer think he's now not only just debunked Chris7, but also apparently RJ Lee, Frank Greening and all of 9/'11 bedunkerdom?

That's right, You're confused.

I think this is the first time you've admitted this. You're making progress.

grandmastershek · 14th February 2012, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Yeah, in the whole 0.16 seconds each floor had to experience all this "grinding".

Yet another fantastic argument from incredulity. Klunkity klunk!

13th February 2012, 12:59 AM	#1441
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by Christopher7 The dust cloud caused by the destruction of the towers was made of very thick dust that was forced throughout the building. A light breeze could only carry the tiniest iron spheres a significant distance and any light enough to make it to the Bank building would likely continue on. Havig been through about twenty of the sort of storm that we knew inLibya as a "ghibli," I find your assertion laughable. For hours after the storm had moved through, there would still be dust in the air, getting into every bloody thing, even between plates stacked inside a cupboard in ther mess hall. Sorry, I can't just let you tell me things that conflict with what I have seen with my own Mark I eyeballs.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

13th February 2012, 12:59 AM	#1442
KreeL Muse Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 659	Originally Posted by leftysergeant Bear in mind that the fires were still raging and producing smoke when collapse started, so even your theory has enormous holes in it. I thought both sides have already agreed that office fires can't melt steel.
KreeL Muse Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 659	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." -- Philip K. Dick

13th February 2012, 02:48 AM	#1445
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by KreeL I thought both sides have already agreed that office fires can't melt steel. of course not. It can, however, reduce it by the bloomerie method.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

13th February 2012, 04:08 AM	#1447
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 17,713	Originally Posted by Christopher7 ... I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee. [/b] You make a demand that I believe you know can't be met - Ron is banned from the JREF. I am in personal contact with Ron, but won't subject myself to mean-spirited put-downs by you in the 100% certain case that Ron verifies personally to me that the letter is genuine. Back to ignore with the pathetic troll.
	Last edited by Oystein; 13th February 2012 at 04:13 AM. Reason: added two words in blue

13th February 2012, 06:39 AM	#1448
000063 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by ergo ...Judging by the utter failure of bedunkers in the past to ever produce models that could support their bizarre stretches of logic, e.g., a rubble-driven destruction of 80 - 90 storeys of steel-framed highrise; Gravity-driven, after a collapse of the floors above induced by fire and impact. Someone on PoliticalForum estimated that the collapsing floors hit the lower section with thirty times their regular weight. In other words, more than the weight of both intact buildings put together, Mr. "moon-sized rubble". Quote: an illustration of how the "fireball" from the plane impacts traveled down through the elevators into the basement, I've already posted two links showing several of the elevator shafts ran the length of the building, though the elevators themselves were staggered. Quote: blowing out the lobby and only a few other selected floors, I don't think I'll hold my breath for this one. "Selected floors"? Selected by who? The alleged conspirators? Suddenly instead of being impossible, it's actually evidence supporting your position? Fire was even travelling between shafts. And, of course, your personal baseless incredulity is not affirmative evidence of thermite or explosives or even something fishy.
000063 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 5,398	__________________ http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...63#post7231363 "I have to think William of Occam is turning over in his grave about now, except that I'm sure someone would accuse the corpse of being a vicsim." - JayUtah

13th February 2012, 01:43 AM	#1443
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,538	Originally Posted by C7 But this does point out that the hypothesis in the letter is dumb. There was no rust to flake and melt because the columns had a coat of primer to prevent that. Originally Posted by leftysergeant Some iron oxide forms in the forging and rolling processes. This is a black iron oxide that is reduced at lower temperature than is the red oxide. Some red oxide starts forming almost as fast as the steel is exposed to air with any humidity. The primer just seals it and stops the process right there. It takes a while for iron oxide to form in an appreciable amount. The amount of rust is minute when they primer. There is no mention of primer in the letter. Whoever wrote it is uninformed and grasping at straws. Quote: Even soot will fall out of a plume of smoke. Eventually. Look at the videos. The smoke, which is soot, was carried down wind. Quote: Bear in mind that the fires were still raging and producing smoke when collapse started Only the spheres [if there were any] in the smoke still in the building would be caught up in the dust. And of course, the ones that adhered to surfaces.

13th February 2012, 01:54 AM	#1444
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 17,713	Originally Posted by Christopher7 The RJ Lee group analysis used the "TP-01: Protocol for the Monitoring of Non-Biological Indoor Environmental Contaminants" which consist of wipes and a dust lift. The USGS crew collected grab samples. This could account for the discrepancy. And/or more heavy particles were deposited in the gash area. The dust cloud caused by the destruction of the towers was made of very thick dust that was forced throughout the building. A light breeze could only carry the tiniest iron spheres a significant distance and any light enough to make it to the Bank building would likely continue on. You are pathetically grasping at the flimsiest of straws, while studiously ignoring large portions of the post you responded to. I see I must repeat some of the stuff and ask you to read it now, and acknoledge you read and tried to understand: Originally Posted by Oystein Make sure you take a close look at the maps of sampling locations, the tables with more detailed results, and take note of the calendar dates when the sampling was done. I also recommend looking up the references provided by Jenkins. C7, please acknowledge that you now know that WTC dust immediately after 9/11 did NOT contain even nearly 6% iron, that the mean is consistently close to 1% in several studies, that not even a single sample at a single location came near 6%, and that therefor the RJ Lee value of 5.87% is an extreme outlier and not explainable by a large amount of thermite in the towers. And that you now consider the possibilities that this outlier could be an error, or not mean what you think i means, or can be best explained be the deposition of additional iron durng the 9 months after the collapse dust had settled on 9/11. Later in the paper, he works with additional data about airborne iron (aerosols) measured in the months after 9/11. Using his references, I found a database of the EPA data and downloaded the measurements at a location on Liberty Street; from that raw data is my value for aberage iron content of air on Liberty which may have precipitated into RJ Lee's dust. ... Remember I did the work and showd my assumptions? Do you remember that you did not refute a single of my assumptions, and corrected none of my work? If you read the RJ Lee report in context, you will find that this Table 3, that reports 5.87% iron spheres, refers not to inaccessible locations in the Building, but to accessible surfaces in the open Gash in the front of the building. At least tell me that you have abandonded the unsupportably claim that 5.87% iron sphere is typical for inaccessible areas of the building!

13th February 2012, 02:55 AM	#1446
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,538	Originally Posted by Oystein acknoledge you read I read it. No comment. You just like to put up long posts with lots of questions to divert from the point at hand. If I don't respond it's because I have already responded or don't feel it's worth responding to, so don't keep repeating like a 3 year old. That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation. I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee.

13th February 2012, 06:47 AM	#1449
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642	Originally Posted by Christopher7 I read it. No comment. You just like to put up long posts with lots of questions to divert from the point at hand. If I don't respond it's because I have already responded or don't feel it's worth responding to, so don't keep repeating like a 3 year old. That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation. I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee. Why don't you personally just call RJ Lee yourself Chris if you feel their behaviour is so weird?
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642

13th February 2012, 06:52 AM	#1450
000063 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by Christopher7 I read it. No comment. You just like to put up long posts with lots of questions to divert from the point at hand. If I don't respond it's because I have already responded or don't feel it's worth responding to, so don't keep repeating like a 3 year old. That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation. I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee. Have you made any effort to contact him or Lee yourself? Or do you plan to just demand others contact him, so you can call them liars, as you basically have now? Because I've noticed a lot of sophists are very reluctant to seek evidence that is bad for their arguments, especially when they know they made the claim without evidence in the first place. In fact, some of them will actually mock the people requesting evidence for not being able to do their own research, or try to dodge the question by asking it of the questioner. If Lee or the Lee Group didn't write the letter, who did? Are they deliberately misrepresenting (lying) the letter as being written by Lee?* *Which is ironic, since one's opposition should not have to provide evidence one claims one has, and expecting them to do so is actually expecting them to do one's research for one.
000063 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 5,398	__________________ http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...63#post7231363 "I have to think William of Occam is turning over in his grave about now, except that I'm sure someone would accuse the corpse of being a vicsim." - JayUtah Last edited by 000063; 13th February 2012 at 06:54 AM.

13th February 2012, 07:06 AM	#1451
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	[quote] Originally Posted by ergo As amusing as this discussion could be, it's irrelevant. The RJ Lee samples were taken from all sections of the building, including from spaces where dust did not passively deposit. Unless you can show some schematic how these microspheres from the steel cutting hundreds of feet below, that need to also chemically match the spheres in the dust, made their way up and through the entire building in concentrations that altered the iron content far above those of any of the other studies, and also made their way into enclosed spaces, this is just grasping. Its you that is obsessing about the dust........its you that wants a "new investigation" so its you that has to convince us you have a case.....sorry but so far you just have a big fail...... Quote: Judging by the utter failure of bedunkers in the past to ever produce models that could support their bizarre stretches of logic, e.g., a rubble-driven destruction of 80 - 90 storeys of steel-framed highrise; an illustration of how the "fireball" from the plane impacts traveled down through the elevators into the basement, blowing out the lobby and only a few other selected floors, I don't think I'll hold my breath for this one. Why would we make models? Its you that wants something.......I'm a professional engineer and I have no problems with any of the above so quite why I should care less if you hold your breathe or not is beyond me......

13th February 2012, 07:10 AM	#1452
Disbelief Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,048	Originally Posted by 000063 Have you made any effort to contact him or Lee yourself? Or do you plan to just demand others contact him, so you can call them liars, as you basically have now? Because I've noticed a lot of sophists are very reluctant to seek evidence that is bad for their arguments, especially when they know they made the claim without evidence in the first place. In fact, some of them will actually mock the people requesting evidence for not being able to do their own research, or try to dodge the question by asking it of the questioner. If Lee or the Lee Group didn't write the letter, who did? Are they deliberately misrepresenting (lying) the letter as being written by Lee?* *Which is ironic, since one's opposition should not have to provide evidence one claims one has, and expecting them to do so is actually expecting them to do one's research for one. This is one of the fall back positions for the truthers - faked evidence. When presented with evidence that destroys his position, the truther will claim it is fabricated so he does not need to address it.
Disbelief Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,048	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

13th February 2012, 07:13 AM	#1453
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642	Originally Posted by 000063 If Lee or the Lee Group didn't write the letter, who did? Are they deliberately misrepresenting (lying) the letter as being written by Lee? *Which is ironic, since one's opposition should not have to provide evidence one claims one has, and expecting them to do so is actually expecting them to do one's research for one. In fact if it it isnt really an official response from RJ Lee, then Chris, since he is so sure of himself, should call RJ Lee themselves and tell them there are people impersonating them and should start legal proceedings against Ron. But we know he wont do that.
Edx Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,642

13th February 2012, 07:15 AM	#1454
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by KreeL I thought both sides have already agreed that office fires can't melt steel. Try and keep up......we are talking about the melting of Iron compounds, alloys and oxides. Rust is an Iron Oxide.

13th February 2012, 07:23 AM	#1455
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by Disbelief This is one of the fall back positions for the truthers - faked evidence. When presented with evidence that destroys his position, the truther will claim it is fabricated so he does not need to address it. Their troubleshooting always seem to leave out the single most important factor in why their theory doesn't jive with the evidence. The theory is wrong
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

13th February 2012, 07:43 AM	#1456
Fizzard Student Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 37	Originally Posted by Christopher7 That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation. Last time I visited this thread, Christopher7 regarded RJ Lee's word as incontestable holy scripture. Now it's "absurd, uninformed speculation." Wha' happened?
Fizzard Student Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 37

13th February 2012, 07:57 AM	#1457
Disbelief Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,048	Originally Posted by LSSBB Their troubleshooting always seem to leave out the single most important factor in why their theory doesn't jive with the evidence. The theory is wrong More basic than that, they do not even have a real theory. If you have not had the pleasure of reading through Chris' ever flexible story on thermite, nanothermite, explosives, explosive nanothermite, etc, feel free to look through his thread if you enjoy pain. Many truthers say they have a theory, but all have failed to actually flesh one out with detail yet have the balls to complain that NIST, etc failed to give enough information. For example, Ergo promised a comprehensive theory probably a year ago, but he has never delivered and contents himself with trolling threads.
Disbelief Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,048	__________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

13th February 2012, 07:58 AM	#1458
brazenlilraisin ...tart Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 660	n/m
brazenlilraisin ...tart Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 660

13th February 2012, 08:04 AM	#1459
000063 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by Fizzard Last time I visited this thread, Christopher7 regarded RJ Lee's word as incontestable holy scripture. Now it's "absurd, uninformed speculation." Wha' happened? Simple. Since it contradicts him, it's "absurd, uninformed speculation.", and therefore cannot be from Lee.
000063 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 5,398	__________________ http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...63#post7231363 "I have to think William of Occam is turning over in his grave about now, except that I'm sure someone would accuse the corpse of being a vicsim." - JayUtah

13th February 2012, 08:12 AM	#1460
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery Posts: 20,058	Originally Posted by Disbelief More basic than that, they do not even have a real theory. If you have not had the pleasure of reading through Chris' ever flexible story on thermite, nanothermite, explosives, explosive nanothermite, etc, feel free to look through his thread if you enjoy pain. Many truthers say they have a theory, but all have failed to actually flesh one out with detail yet have the balls to complain that NIST, etc failed to give enough information. For example, Ergo promised a comprehensive theory probably a year ago, but he has never delivered and contents himself with trolling threads. Great point. I always thought the first thing you do in trying to understand what you observe is to create a model to explain the observations. They never got to step one. Therefore, they will never understand the obsrvations.
	__________________ "You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

13th February 2012, 01:57 PM	#1461
BasqueArch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,871	Rust scale and rust on the WTC1,2 primed steel Rust and rust scale on primed steel at the WTC1,2. From fireproofing inspections. Quote: Originally Posted by C7 But this does point out that the hypothesis in the letter is dumb. There was no rust to flake and melt because the columns had a coat of primer to prevent that. Originally Posted by Christopher7 It takes a while for iron oxide to form in an appreciable amount. The amount of rust is minute when they primer. There is no mention of primer in the letter. Whoever wrote it is uninformed and grasping at straws. Wrong. Quote: I inspected core columns up to the 78th floor but was unable to access them above that point. These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets. Photo 3, taken in 1994, shows a core column from which the fireproofing had fallen off in a sheet that is several stories high. The red circle and date was the Port Authority's response to the missing fireproofing. This resulted because the steel had not been properly prepared at the time of the initial spray application. Rust scale had not been removed prior to applying the fireproofing. The fireproofing had adhered well to the rust scale, but the rust was coming loose from the steel (photo 4). of the rust, indicating that the rust existed at the time the fireproofing was applied. Quote: The result was that the fireproofing adhered loosely to the columns and would fall off in large sheets. This defect was never corrected and still existed in June 2000 and probably at the time of the plane crashes. It is possible the fireproofing was missing from sections of columns on the impact floors or that some or all of the loosely adhered fireproofing fell off with the force of the impacts. This is a defect that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM adhesion and cohesion quality assurance test, had this standard existed at the time of construction...... Quote: Test conditions, however, do not match actual conditions in the field. Insulation adhesion may be ineffective because of rust. Frequently, insulation is applied to rusted metal that has not been properly treated before application; the insulation's consistency may vary; its application may be inconsistent; or it may be dislodged during original and new construction and maintenance. The steel was primed and rusted. http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html
	__________________ In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum Last edited by BasqueArch; 13th February 2012 at 02:13 PM.

13th February 2012, 04:01 PM	#1462
Sunstealer Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,128	All low alloyed or plain carbon steels develop mill-scale during the rolling process at the rolling mill due to the temperatures at which the steel is formed into shape by rolling. Mill-scale is the formation of iron oxide on the steel's surface and is typically 1mm thick or less. This layer is detrimental to the steel for a number of reasons but primarily because the oxide scale is incoherent with the parent metal due to a large difference in atomic lattice parameters. (that's why rust on steel flakes off but oxide on aluminium and titanium and most other metals doesn't) Effectively what this means is that it flakes off exposing fresh steel underneath which then rusts. If you paint over mill-scale then the paint is essentially worthless because the mill-scale will spall (technical term for flaking) taking the paint with it thus losing any corrosion protection. Mill-scale also causes problems when welding - you don't want brittle, sharp particles of mill-scale in the weld because this is detrimental. This is one of the reasons why ship builders used to leave steel from the rolling mill out in the open so that it would "weather", i.e. the mill-scale would fall off through handling, temperature differences etc, which is where we get the traditional term "weathered steel" from. After this had happened the steel can then be used to weld after the usual grinding of the surfaces to be welded. Mill-scale is removed from the steel at the rolling mill by one of 2 or 3 methods Iirc; via mechanical stress, thermal stress or acid pickling. An oxide layer is still present but that layer is more coherent with the parent metal and will not flake off as readily. That layer is much thinner. There is no way to stop rust on construction steel exposed to the elements and that's why protection is needed. Paint is the cheapest option. It is also more economical and easier to apply paint in a controlled environment prior to assembly depending upon the building specifications obviously. In this instance primer paint has one use and that is to protect the steel from corrosion. It has no factor regarding resistance to elevated temperatures (and by that I mean above normal parameters in the building specifications). Paint is so thin that even if it ignites and burns at a temperature as low as 100°C it is not going to have any effect whatsoever on the mechanical properties of the steel. Fire-proofing is what protects the steel. If the fire-proofing is compromised either through it's removal or the fire burning past it's rating then the steel has far more problems than a thin layer of paint burning on it's surface. LaClade primer paint was applied to the trusses in the factory via an electro-static process which has been detailed in this thread. So what happens to steel that's been painted with primer paint when it's subjected to higher temperatures above normal? Well we know this because steel has been studied for over 100 years. NIST also carried out experiments and for this purpose it doesn't matter which type of primer paint is applied it's what happens to the steel's surface that counts. Effectively what we are seeing here is the spallation (flaking off) of the steel's oxide layer taking the paint with it due to thermal stress differences between the oxide layer and the steel underneath. It's essentially like the spalling of mill-scale and one can argue that the thickness of the oxide layer has increased due to the elevated temperature of 650°C which isn't far from the AC₃ temperature. It's clear from the above photo that paint is peeling from the surface and thin flakes of oxidised steel are being liberated from the steel's surface. These flakes are very thin with large surface to volume ratios just like steel wool. Hydrocarbons when burnt will produce CO and CO2. It is well understood that Carbon will reduce iron oxides below the melting point of Fe and below the oxide melting temperature. Mankind has been using this process since the Iron Age. Anyone who has looked into Iron production will know this. See Bloomery. Quote: In operation, the bloomery is preheated by burning charcoal, and once hot, iron ore and additional charcoal are introduced through the top, in a roughly one to one ratio. Inside the furnace, carbon monoxide from the incomplete combustion of the charcoal reduces the iron oxides in the ore to metallic iron, without melting the ore; this allows the bloomery to operate at lower temperatures than the melting temperature of the ore. As the desired product of a bloomery is iron which is easily forgeable, nearly pure, and with a low carbon content, the temperature and ratio of charcoal to iron ore must be carefully controlled to keep the iron from absorbing too much carbon and thus becoming unforgeable. Because the bloomery is self-fluxing the addition of limestone is not required to form a slag. In effect a steel's surface, no matter whether it's structural steel or conduit or wire or whatever, subjected to a fire; whose fuel is a hydrocarbon such as jet fuel and office furnishings will undergo this same chemical reaction at the temperatures at which such a fire is capable of producing. The production of "iron rich micro-spheres" in such a situation is to be expected. The only reason that these by-products are argued over by truthers is the fact that such by-products were identified in environmental studies. We also have environmental studies from coal and municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators that operate below the temperatures required to melt pure Fe. Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings. There is absolutely no reason to use therm*te to explain such phenomena.
Sunstealer Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,128	__________________ Proof that thermite was NOT discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. Proof of Tnemec red primer paint in Harrit et al paper.

14th February 2012, 01:36 AM	#1465
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,538	Originally Posted by BasqueArch The steel was primed and rusted. http://images.pennnet.com/articles/f...cap_111461.jpg http://images.pennnet.com/articles/f...cap_111460.jpg http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html Thank you for the info. These problems were no doubt corrected on an ongoing basis but your point is made that there was rust on some of the columns. However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit.

14th February 2012, 02:10 AM	#1466
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,538	Originally Posted by Sunstealer All low alloyed or plain carbon steels develop mill-scale during the rolling process at the rolling mill due to the temperatures at which the steel is formed into shape by rolling. Mill-scale is the formation of iron oxide on the steel's surface and is typically 1mm thick or less. 1mm = 0.04 inches Quote: Hydrocarbons when burnt will produce CO and CO2. It is well understood that Carbon will reduce iron oxides below the melting point of Fe and below the oxide melting temperature. Mankind has been using this process since the Iron Age. Anyone who has looked into Iron production will know this. See Bloomery. In operation, the bloomery … reduces the iron oxides in the ore to metallic iron, without melting the ore; this allows the bloomery to operate at lower temperatures than the melting temperature of the ore. iron oxide becomes metallic iron at roughly 1250°C, almost 300 degrees below iron's melting point of 1538°C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting Iron ore: magnetite (Fe₃O₄), hematite (Fe₂O₃), goethite (FeO(OH)), limonite (FeO(OH).n(H₂O)) or siderite (FeCO₃). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore Melting point of magnetite/Iron oxide (Fe₃O₄) 1538^oC - 2800^oF http://www.espimetals.com/index.php/...on-oxide-fe3o4 Melting point of iron oxide/rust (Fe₂O₃) 1566^oC - 2850^oF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%28III%29_oxide Iron must melt and then be atomized to produce iron spheres. The bloomery process does NOT melt the iron in the ore and therefore it cannot produce iron spheres. Quote: The production of "iron rich micro-spheres" in such a situation is to be expected. Wrong, as noted above. Quote: We also have environmental studies from coal and municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators that operate below the temperatures required to melt pure Fe. Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings. Fly ash is one of the residues generated in combustion, and comprises the fine particles that rise with the flue gases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash Fine particles: Particulates – also known as particulate matter (PM), suspended particulate matter (SPM), fine particles, and soot – are tiny subdivisions of solid matter suspended in a gas or liquid. Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.

14th February 2012, 02:34 AM	#1467
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,072	Originally Posted by Christopher7 ... Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter. Thus, no micro-spheres in the dust. Final Quixotic statement? "my name... prepare to die", from laughter ; you live in a fictional world. 10 years, no clue office fires make micro-spheres, and these are found in the dust. When you get a PhD in fire science, will you retract your delusions?
	Last edited by beachnut; 14th February 2012 at 03:07 AM.

14th February 2012, 02:38 AM	#1468
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by Christopher7 However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit. Balderdash. There were super-heated, oxygen-poor gases from the combustion of Class A fuels. Much of this was conducted up the chimneys formed by the opening up of the core. When those hot gases hit the fresh oxygen rising through the core, they would have to have ignited again, perhaps explosively.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

14th February 2012, 02:46 AM	#1469
Christopher7 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,538	Originally Posted by leftysergeant Balderdash. There were super-heated, oxygen-poor gases from the combustion of Class A fuels. Much of this was conducted up the chimneys formed by the opening up of the core. When those hot gases hit the fresh oxygen rising through the core, they would have to have ignited again, perhaps explosively. Source?

14th February 2012, 03:29 AM	#1470
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,072	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Source? fire science It happens in my wood stove...

14th February 2012, 04:00 AM	#1471
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Source? I cannot believe you could be this ignorant and actually have the years of experience that you claim to have in the building trades. I hardly have time here to give you the entire course in Fire Science 101. If you have evidence to show that any of the principles that I identify for you are in error, please do so. Most of them are as basic and time-tested as Newton's laws of thermodynamics. Steel looses its strength, thus its ability to support loads, at temperatures in the range of 1000 F. A fire in flash-over excedes temperatures of 1000 F. Thus, we can draw certain conclusions based on what we can observe. Flammable gases generated by the heating of Class A and Class B fuels in a fire will, after a certain concentration is achieved, cease to burn, but will, upon the introduction of oxygen, or the escape of these gases into an oxygen-rich environment, re-ignite, sometimes explosively, resulting in a phenomenon called "backdraft." The combustion of flammable gases will release more energy than will the combustion of the solid from which these gases are derived because no energy is absorbed in initiating the combustion. We have observed that the fires were in flashover. We have observed that fire protection measures within the structures had been compromised. Everything else that I have stated follows from these statements. We can, for example, conclude that the blasts in the basement and lobby were the result of hot, flammable gases meeting a supply of oxygen at locations where elevator doors were standing open. Because this is going to be random in any building of this type and size, secondary blast damage from backdraught will be random. Don't just stand there and tell everybody that this is not so. Cite your sources that it is not. As it stands, we are now in a situation where a carpenter is telling veteran fire fighters that he has a better understanding of fire science than they have. I might point out, as well, that turds like DRG and MacQueen do the same thing. They are speaking outside their areas of competency, through their trousers. DRG is the hardest of the lot to excuse, since he has spent most of his adult years blathering about how people come to believe what they believe. I must, therefor, conclude that his is as competent to discuss theology as S. Jones showed himself to be with his pathetic paper "Behold My Hands." Uncle Fetzer is even less respectable because his work is all about the way that the human mind processes data to acquire knowledge, yet he fails to notice the holes in Judy Woo-woo's scribblings or the fact that she fell for "the Hutchison Effect."
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat. Last edited by leftysergeant; 14th February 2012 at 04:53 AM. Reason: typos

14th February 2012, 04:42 AM	#1472
BasqueArch Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,871	Originally Posted by Christopher7 Thank you for the info. These problems were no doubt corrected on an ongoing basis but your point is made that there was rust on some of the columns. However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit. Wrong again. You don't read or comprehend well. From the same post you reference: Quote: The result was that the fireproofing adhered loosely to the columns and would fall off in large sheets. This defect was never corrected and still existed in June 2000 and probably at the time of the plane crashes. It is possible the fireproofing was missing from sections of columns on the impact floors or that some or all of the loosely adhered fireproofing fell off with the force of the impacts. The inspections were "non-destructive", meaning limited to what was visible without removing coverings. The porous fireproofing absorbs moisture like a sponge, exacerbating the corrosion of the steel. Originally Posted by Christopher7 .......Fly ash is one of the residues generated in combustion, and comprises the fine particles that rise with the flue gases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash Fine particles: Particulates – also known as particulate matter (PM), suspended particulate matter (SPM), fine particles, and soot – are tiny subdivisions of solid matter suspended in a gas or liquid. Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter. Why would the same microspheres created by thermxte not fly away in the smoke. Sunstealer and RJ Lee are right. You and Jones are wrong. Quote: Sunstealer: Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings. Existing evidence proves ferrospheres (and many other microspheres) and volatile lead are produced at less than 1200C, less than the melting point of iron and its oxides and less than the vaporization temperature of lead, and collected in the fly ash as shown in my previous incinerator link. There is no evidence that thermxte was used to produce ferrospheres and volatile lead.
	__________________ In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum Last edited by BasqueArch; 14th February 2012 at 04:53 AM.

14th February 2012, 05:59 AM	#1473
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	So, the SFRM was falling off by itself and the primer appears not to have been applied in a fully-competent manner. Sunstealer mentions that mill scale does not hold paint especially well. It appears to me, from the photo shown elsewhere of paint peeling from the steel that the steel in the towers was not very well descaled. We might also stop here and re-address the mechanisms by which primer would be removed from the steel during the fire or the collapse. Heat will clearly cause the epoxy to oxidize or eveporate. Abrasion during the collapse will scrape some of it loose. POUNDING will dislodge some of the paint. Certainly, every structural element in the building was subject to considerable pounding, thus accounting for the bits of La Clede primer being beaten loose from the trusses. When you pound on stee hard enough to dislodge paint, you are going to dislodge some of the mill scale as well.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

14th February 2012, 06:29 AM	#1474
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 17,713	Originally Posted by leftysergeant So, the SFRM was falling off by itself and the primer appears not to have been applied in a fully-competent manner. Sunstealer mentions that mill scale does not hold paint especially well. It appears to me, from the photo shown elsewhere of paint peeling from the steel that the steel in the towers was not very well descaled. We might also stop here and re-address the mechanisms by which primer would be removed from the steel during the fire or the collapse. Heat will clearly cause the epoxy to oxidize or eveporate. Abrasion during the collapse will scrape some of it loose. POUNDING will dislodge some of the paint. Certainly, every structural element in the building was subject to considerable pounding, thus accounting for the bits of La Clede primer being beaten loose from the trusses. When you pound on stee hard enough to dislodge paint, you are going to dislodge some of the mill scale as well. BENDING of steel members will induce tensions that can break up an oxidized surface. The floor trusses, being thinner, would have experienced more bending than the columns, and also possibly more pounding and grinding.

14th February 2012, 07:17 AM	#1475
Sunstealer Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,128	Originally Posted by Christopher7 iron oxide becomes metallic iron at roughly 1250°C, almost 300 degrees below iron's melting point of 1538°C http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting Wow I suppose you ought to inform the people who wrote this paper that they are wrong then. http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/engin...1-5-0012-2.pdf Quote: Effect of Temperature Reduction experiments of the composite pellets were carried out at 900, 950, 1000, 1050 and 1100°C with different coal consumption ratios. Figures 2 and 3 show the effect of temperature on the degree of reduction for Cfix / Fe total ratios of 0.17 and 0.38. As seen in the figures, the amount of reduction increases, for both Cfix / Fe total ratios, as the temperature increases. As seen in Figure 3, a reduction period of approximately 60 minutes is satisfactory to reach a reduction degree of 0.7 at 1100°C, while it takes 110 minutes to reach the same degree of reduction at 900°C. A 22% increase in temperature reduces the reduction period about 45%. At the same temperature, on the other hand, for a degree of reduction of 0.5, a 22% increase in temperature causes a 67% decrease in time required for reduction. As seen, longer reduction periods are required at lower temperatures in order to reach the same reduction, and this period increases with the degree of reduction. Reduction of iron oxides occurs either by carbon or by carbon monoxide, formed by the gasification of carbon. The reduction process carried out by the carbon is called "direct reduction": FenOm + mC = nFe + mCO (2) while the reduction process conducted with CO is called "indirect reduction": FenOm + mCO = nFe + mCO2 (3) mCO2 + mC = 2mCO (Boudouard Reaction) (4) The overall reaction involves a cyclic mechanism in which CO2 reduced as a result of the reduction of iron oxides gasifies carbon to generate CO, which in turn produces CO2 through oxide reduction. The reduction and gasification reactions are thus necessarily coupled. Now I know you won't accept this so lets try another one. Fancy contacting these people and telling them that they are wrong aswell? Quote: Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of the reduction of Fe2O3 in a continuous stream of 100% CO was conducted at temperatures ranging from 800 to 900 °C. X-ray diffraction analysis of solids identified the presence of iron, graphite and a carbide of iron as the products of reactions. A kinetic model based on the first-order irreversible rate kinetics was developed and fitted to the TGA data so as to estimate the rate constants for each reduction reaction. The reaction pathways considered in this analysis involved reduction of iron oxides, Boudouard reaction and iron-carbide formation. The rate parameters were calculated and compared with data reported in literature. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7838200400044X Apology accepted C7. Christ don't you get tired of being shown to be wrong on just about everything? You should have learnt by now that I can back everything I say with sources. Accept that iron oxides can be reduced below 1000°C well within the temperature obtained in office fires. Stop being a martyr, you're making yourself look like a fool. Accept it and move on.
Sunstealer Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,128	__________________ Proof that thermite was NOT discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. Proof of Tnemec red primer paint in Harrit et al paper.

14th February 2012, 11:30 AM	#1476
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339	I'm confused. Isn't iron reduction a completely different chemical process than that required to produce metal-rich microspheres? What is the relevance of this discussion to the melting of iron or iron oxide into microspheres? What is the relevance of this to the melting or vaporization of lead and molybdenum? Why does Sunstealer think he's now not only just debunked Chris7, but also apparently RJ Lee, Frank Greening and all of 9/'11 bedunkerdom?
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339	__________________ “Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

14th February 2012, 11:32 AM	#1477
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339	Originally Posted by Oystein BENDING of steel members will induce tensions that can break up an oxidized surface. The floor trusses, being thinner, would have experienced more bending than the columns, and also possibly more pounding and grinding. Yeah, in the whole 0.16 seconds each floor had to experience all this "grinding".
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339	__________________ “Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.