What's so hard to understand... Part II

[LARED]

wildbilln864 started this thread and I thought it was a very interesting topic. He asked

What's so hard to understand... about the phrase "high temperature sulfidation" for some here?
Please look it up, learn what it means and how it occurs and then get back to me.

I believe most do not really understand what happened to the steel reported in FEMA Building Performance Study. http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxC.pdf Much has been made about the presence of sulfur found in the above mentioned FEMA report and the eutectic corrosion/erosion found. Folks are connecting this report to Thermate, as if it is strong evidence for CD.

Secondly much has been made about Dr. Jones finding sulfur in a piece of slag he had analyzed. which again gets tied into Thermate used as a CD method.

I have worked with metallurgists on numerous occasions at work, a number of times directly dealing with high temperature eutectic corrosion phenomenon, so I have some practical experience.

My question to the CT'er is this; can anyone explain how the use of Thermate ties into these two issues? I'm not asking someone to tell me the presence of sulfur is powerful evidence, because simply it's not. Finding sulfur in slag created in the collapse (CD or not) is hardly material. What would be more interesting is finding no sulfur in slag. Nor am I asking someone to point out that sulfur in the FEMA samples is powerful evidence of Thermate. It has been well established that sulfur compounds are easily found everywhere is a building collapse.

Thank you in advance.

[Sven77]

1. this guy seems to have a theory

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Brigham Young University

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[mirandapriestly]

5. Here is Steven Jones addressing the issue

I have paraphrased the interview, but it will take awhile to type up and I'm going hiking
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=317

I wonder why the 911 commission didn't mention the eutectic corrosion?

[hack89]

7. Because no one (including you), can show why it is important? nt

[mirandapriestly]

9. How do you think the steel became molten hack?

and why do you think there is sulfur in the slag?

[hack89]

14. Where is the proof that it was steel

and not aluminum? Aluminum melts at much lower temperatures and the WTC was full of the stuff. If it was hot enough to melt steel than logic dictates that it was hot enough to melt aluminum.

How does the molten byproduct of a thermite reaction gather in a big pool when the charges were scattered all through the building and were mixed by the violence of the collapse?

While we are at it, where the pictures of these pools? How much was there?


This is where the sulfur came from:

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

Plus of course that fact that steel has sulfur in it.

[Jazz2006]

55. There is none.

(re: your query "where is the proof?")

That's the beauty of being a CTer... CTers never have to actually support anything they say, and they don't even try to do so by means of any actual research or by means of expending any effort to ascertain facts.

I don't know how many times its been shown in this forum (since I haven't counted) but the unsubstantiated and unresearched and wholly unfounded claims by CTers here are ubiquitous. If they read something on another CT site, it's presented as "factual" even though none of them have actually reserached it. If it's suggested on a CT site, it's presented as gospel, even though none of them have actually researched it. Etc. etc. you get the idea.

It is easy - and wholly justified - for CTers to ask questions, but when the response is along the lines of "why don't you call the guy and ask him about it?", the CTer answer is inevitably (paraphrasing) "I haven't the resources" (as if a long distance telephone call is prohibitively expensive) or "he'll just lie to me" (yes, okay, I won't ask because I think he'll lie to me - that exhibits some real "truth seeking" reseach skills, doesn't it?), or "others should call and ask him" (um, okay, but why are you presenting as fact something that you're afraid to look into yourself?)


Even on the professional level, those who are selling a whole lot of dvds and tee shirts hawking their "alternate theories" don't ever seem to actually do any research to back up the alternate theories that they espouse. How many years has it been since Jones started touting his controlled demolition theory without ever actually providing any evidence of it, without ever backing up a single thing that he says with a shred of evidence, and without ever even being able to articulate a controlled demolition theory with any specificity whatsoever? It's easy to ask questions. It's not so easy to come up with answers. CTers rely upon that to sell their books, dvds, and tee shirts. Just feed the credulous enough to keep them interested but for god's sake, don't ever provide any detail or alternative theory that might (would) be easily torn apart.

It reminds me of the "Paul McCartney is dead" stories from way back (not that I'm old enough to remember them when they first happened, but I remember when I first heard about them as a teenager many years after the fact.)


Bottom line: it's easy to pretend to be a self-proclaimed "9/11 truthseeker" without ever actually expending any effort whatsoever in actively seeking anything remotely close to the truth. But if CTers want to be taken seriously, they really do have do some work and present some rational theories based on facts, and that takes a little more than smoking a joint and playing the album backwards in the basement. (not that there's anything wrong with that)




Edit: missed a closing bracket.

[petgoat]

96. That's utterly ridiculous, Jazz. Your claim that Dr. Jones has provided

no evidence for his theories shows you don't know the meaning of the
word.

[John Q. Citizen]

67. A much better question would be "where is the proof that

fire caused the failures of three steel framed buildings in a single day?"

[Jazz2006]

69. Steven Jones Talking Point #101 ~ yep, got it.

The beauty of it is that it requires no facts or evidence whatsoever to the "believers" ~ just blind faith.

Just like Bush believers.

Got it.

[John Q. Citizen]

72. You place your faith in No Proof, just like the

the WMD believers.

This cureent administration doesn't need no stinking proof. And apparently you don't either.

Where's the proof that fire caused the collaspe of three steal frame buildings on the same day?

Why won't the scientists employed by the government debate Jones in an open forum?

You attack Dr. Jones' work just like Libby/Rove/Cheney/ attacked Wilson's work.

The Popular Science article is reminiscent of Judith Millers work. More taste, less filling, and full of holes.

This administration employs people like that to do their dirty work for them, or hadn't you noticed?

[Jazz2006]

75. Nope, it's CTers who place their belief in "no stinking proof"

And, by the way, you need to either work on your spelling or invest in a (free) spellchecker.

[petgoat]

95. Impossible demands for proof are pointless. The evidence is destroyed

at the hands of the authorities.

Here's why it's not aluminium: Aluminium becomes molten at 600
degrees and it doesn't turn orange until 1000 degrees. So where is
your crucible in which the aluminium was superheated beytond its
molten temperature?

How does the molten byproduct of a thermite reaction gather in a
big pool when the charges were scattered all through the building and
were mixed by the violence of the collapse?

I'll suppose it gathered in the bottoms of the elevator shafts.
I'll also suppose that the steel pouring out of WTC2 did so at the
level of the sky lobby, that is, at the bottom of the topmost
elevator shafts.


steel has sulfur in it.

If you had bothered to read the very short FEMA Appendix C paper
(it has a lot of pictures) you would know that the sulfir in steel is
manganese sulfide, while the excess sulfir observed by the WPI
team is iron sulfide and copper sulfide.

[mirandapriestly]

11. the "deepest mystery" of the investigation

is unimportant?

[hack89]

17. And who said it was the "deepest mystery" ..

and why should we place any particular significance to their choice of words?

[petgoat]

97. The NYT did. nt

[hack89]

100. And I am sure that journalism school fully prepares them ..

to make judgments like that. Are we supposed to believe the corporate media now?

Kind of weak wouldn't you say? Sounds like a throw away comment from some reporter - unless you have some evidence that he/she had access to the investigation or had some unique knowledge. Do you?

[wildbilln864]

29. Yes that is curious Miranda.

It's like saying finding a strange compound in a dead victims body has no relavence to the death.
Hmmm!

[Carefulplease]

34. Jones did not find any strange compound...

So it's rather like finding a broken glass of water besides a dead body riddled with bullets and saying the man must've been drowned because there is water nearby and water causes drowning.

[John Q. Citizen]

68. And water in his lungs. And the bullets are all in his legs arms, and

toes.

This is fun. And easy.

[Carefulplease]

74. Bad analogy...

What specific case of Jones is that an analogy for?

Water in lungs of a drowned man would be an analogy for structural columns that failed due to partial melting or heating caused conspicuously by thermite/thermate. Jones can only point to columns that have in all likelihood been cut by recovery workers (without even mentioning this possibility!) and to slag of unspecified metals found on unspecified items that sustained unspecified damage and that contain unspecified amounts of elements known to exist anyway in great abundance in the debris pile of Ground Zero or even as an alloy present in structural steel to start with (Mn).

Hardly a smoking gun.

[John Q. Citizen]

77. If the government who brought us WMD in Iraq without any proof

would only prove that three steal framed buildings collasped on the same day due to fire, then there wouldn't be much to talk about around here, would there?

When is NIST going to release their report on building #7?

When is NIST going to release the computer modeling?

Call me when you get that info, OK? i'm hitting the sack.

Good night gentlemen, and close the door when you leave.

[Jazz2006]

79. In other words, JQC is saying

"I have no idea what I'm talking about and I can't refute a single thing that Carefulplease has said, so I'll spout off with a lot of rhetoric without ever addressing any of the facts that Carefulplease has set out and backed up, and then I'll say I'm going to bed so that I have an excuse not to reply to the obvious questions that arise from my complete and utter failure to make a cogent point".

Yep, got it.

[petgoat]

98. You crow "no smoking gun." The smoking gun was destroyed. nt

[LARED]

104. The smoking gun was destroyed

Just out of curiosity how exactly is something a "smoking gun" if you're speculating about something that no longer exists, was not inspected to your satisfaction, and there is no way you know it it was a smoking gun or not.

[wildbilln864]

27. BS!

Dr Jones has shown why it's important! Whether you deny it or not has no bearing.
Don't you watch CSI?

[hack89]

40. I am glad you have not lost your sense of humor. nt

[Carefulplease]

16. Of course he has a theory...

He mentions just one among many possible alternate explanations and he dismisses it without making a shred of an argument.

"While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic."

Why is that unlikely? He does not say. However there are reasons for doubting thermate to be the primary source.

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
See "Single Column K-16" pp.229-233

Notice: No slag. No evidence of melting. Just plain progressive sulfidation and corrosion in the hot rubble pile. The sulfur could have come from any one of the sources Greening mentions in the first reference.)

[LARED]

24. Thank you for pointing out the work the NIST

performed. As usual is is well done, and if read with understanding would put to bed all the silliness about the FEMA report.

[mirandapriestly]

2. First of all, how do we know

"I have worked with metallurgists on numerous occasions at work, a number of times directly dealing with high temperature eutectic corrosion phenomenon, so I have some practical experience."

this is true?

[hack89]

3. Straight the periphery of the issue! nt

[mirandapriestly]

4. If it is not germaine to the issue, why is it in the OP?eom

[hack89]

6. It's just funny that your first instinct is a personal attack..

instead of addressing the thermite question.

[mirandapriestly]

8. I did address it with a link

and if you think it is a "personal attack" then alert the mods.

[hack89]

10. No need to alert the mods ....

LARED can defend himself - I was more amused then anything else.

[mirandapriestly]

12. A lot of trouble to go to for "amused".

and if you are going to accuse me of personal attack, then you need to alert the mods.

[hack89]

15. You are worth the effort. nt

[LARED]

20. Does it matter if it's true?

It is, but as an anonymous poster, I or you, can claim anything about yourself. I merely added that information on the basis that most folks are fairly truthful about their experiences and how they lend or distract from their credibility.

[mirandapriestly]

30. That's my point.

you can claim anything about yourself on the internet and it gives you a psychological advantage to say that you have experience in something like this, since most people don't. I think I am entitled to question your experience for that reason. Unless you are going to use specific studies that you have done which relate to the topic or you are going to put yourself on the line and "out" yourself , (ie:to become Steven Jones's nemesis) then I think it is trickery to state that you have professional experience in something.

You're a brilliant poster (unfortunately) & your arguments are enough. Claiming experience makes people think (subconsciously perhaps) that you are holding an ace close to your chest which you plan to pull out and it stifles discussion by giving you an unfair advantage

It also gives you authority on the subject and if it is possibly untrue then it makes a big difference.

I edited this because the first time I wrote it in a hurry and it had grammatical spelling errors, plus was written badly.

[Make7]

22. miranda, how do we know this is true?

mirandapriestly wrote:

... My husb. has a masters in electrical engineering, and my sister is a chemical engineer who works for Boeing. I have asked them about this material and their response is that you need to have more information than is available to make those kind of decisions. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=102508&mesg_id=103647

- Make7

.   .

[mirandapriestly]

28. I suppose

DU has my name and I can send proof of my husband's position to lithos. Actually his name is listed on a Univ of Washington site which shows where he works with the phone # behind his name and what he does could easily be found.

BUT I don't include my husband's job in my posts when I start a thread . I don't say, "My husband is an ee and he has experience with this so what do you think"? Because people would think "well, she is going to come back with "My husband noticed that steel DOES NOT melt at these temperatures" ...but I don't do that, I use the example of my husband because it does NOT make anyone qualified to answer question about 9-11, he won't ever answer my questions re engineering related 9-11 stuff and he's MIHOP because of the actions of gov't agencies on 9-11.

I believe the reason Lared does it is to give the impression that s/he has "inside knowledge" that the rest of us don't have. That is why I am questioning it , not to be cruel.

"Cruel" would be a poster saying that I was a bad parent or that I had a psychological disorder, that would be "cruel", but that kind of behavior is accepted on this forum if the victim is someone who questions the government's role on 9-11.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dailykoff]

93. Soliciting the public disclosure of personal information

is a violation of DU rules as I understand them and potentially very dangerous.

Please stop.

[Make7]

94. See post #28.

I was merely asking mirandapriestly to follow through on her/his idea.

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of using a third party to verify information without having to publicly disclose that information.

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

13. From Jones paper

ANALYSIS 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 ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)

"How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel columns where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are indeed remarkable.

Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports.

Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level thermite analog containing sulfur developed by the military (see
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744&HL=ON). Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure. Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is allowed in the discussion. Note that other oxidizers (like KMnO4) and metals (like titanium and silicon) are commonly used in thermite analogs."
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[Carefulplease]

18. Jones claims are false and irrelevant.

Edited for grammmar.

When the FEMA report was released it was thought the reaction could have occurred (or accelerated) in the pre-collapse fires. NIST studied the phenomenon further and demonstrated that such reactions most likely occurred in the debris pile at somewhat lower temperatures. Jones's claims about the pre-collapse fires and the "heat sink of the steel structure" of the WTC are just irrelevant. Maybe he didn't read the NIST report.

Not only are they irrelevant to the sulfidation issue, they are just plain wrong.

Steel has a low heat conductivity. Heat can just not conduct heat away from even small office fires. Very low heat inputs to one region of a beam can easily sustain huge temperature differentials over short distances along that beam. Radiative transfer is everything in office fire conditions, conduction counts for little. This is something Jones -- a physicist -- ought to be able to figure out himself.

[mirandapriestly]

19. Sulfur is used to lower melting temperature

could you please use the appropriate NIST statements which support your claims?

[Carefulplease]

23. I produced the link and page numbers in message #16

Edited for grammar.

There are just 5 pages to read Miranda. If there is something you question or doubt, please, ask for specifics.

There is no slag on the samples FEMA and NIST analysed. Jones claims that thermate was used to cut through columns though melting them. The oxidising agents are iron oxide (and/or barium nitrate). The iron from the melted steel does not get all oxidized. The aluminium from the thermate preparation is. This was not what was seen. It's just plain sulfidation and oxidation of steel. The sulfur could have had just any number of sources.

[John Q. Citizen]

31. I need to show this to my stainless steal cookware and to my

cast iron skillets.

They are under the impression that steel and iron conduct heat rather well. :)

[greyl]

32. If only your cookware could talk. Here's a tutorial for you:

Stainless Steel - This is an iron alloy which is made resistant to corrosion by the addition of chromium and other compounds. Its primary disadvantage is that it is an even poorer conductor than steel, so that constant movement of the food is required in order to cook it evenly.
http://fantes.com/cookware.htm

You're seriously talking about the science of the collapse of the WTC buildings based on your experience with a stove?

[WoodrowFan]

36. it's progress

at least it doesn't involve flaming bunny cages and bricks!

[Ka hrnt]

89. LOL

The "experiment" with the wire cage was the first thread I read in this forum... Ah, memories.

[mirandapriestly]

37. And you are using a quote from a cookware site to do the same?eom

[greyl]

39. Good gravy.

He was talking about cookware, right?
My use of appropriately relevant quote and link was excellent.
I'd like to see more of that around here.

[Carefulplease]

44. Greyl did not "do the same"...

Edited to "Greyl" Grey and to "Jones's" Jones.

John Q. Citizen produced the example of cookware to make a point about the structural steel of the WTC. Greyl just set him straight on the thermal properties of steel and stainless steel.

These are the thermal conductivities (k) of some materials:

http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/conduction/

Aluminium: 237 W/m*K
Copper: 401 W/m*K
Iron: 80 W/m*K
Steel: 45-65 W/m*K
(*) Structural steel at high temperature: 55 W/m*K
Stainless steel: 14 W/m*K
Concrete: 0.05-1.5 W/m*K
Air: 0.025 W/m*K

(*) See also figure A-4 in this document for the temperature dependent value of k for structural steel:

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxA.pdf

Why would we say that steel has low thermal conductivity when it conducts heat so much better than wood, concrete, air, etc.?

Steel having a thermal conductivity of 55 W/m*K means that the heat flow per unit cross sectional area of a steel beam, when the temperature differential (with constant gradient) is 1 degree K, is 55 Watt. The heat flow is proportional to both the cross sectional area and the temperature differential. It is inversely proportional to the length heat has to travel from the hotter spot to the colder spot. (So, really, the units of k are Wm/m^2*K)

Jones claims that the steel structure of the WTC provides a good heat sink *because* steel would conduct heat away from the fires. This is false. Here is why.

For simplicity, let us assume temperature independent k = 55. The most massive core columns that can be found in the fire affected floors of the WTC were four wide flange corner columns (14WF219) --

See p.10
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05157.pdf)

-- with a cross sectional area close to 64 square inches or 0.042m^2 each. If one such huge column was heated by fire to a temperature as high as 600 degree C across its whole cross section at some point of the topmost fire affected floor, let us consider how efficiently it would carry the heat to the cool floor directly above. Let us thus assume an efficient constant gradient, that is, a regular temperature variation from 600C to 20C, 3.77m above (height of one WTC floor), where the heat would be dissipated radiatively at the same rate it arrives through conduction (let us assume). At what rate would the column move heat away from the fire zone?

This would be P = 55Wm/m^2*K * 0.042m^2 * 580K / 3.77m = 355W.

This is the heat output of an average workstation. If 287 similar columns could move the heat in this fashion from one whole floor heated by fires to 600C, the whole heat flow to both the floors above and the floor below would be 0.4 Megawatt. However, the heat output from the fires were estimated by NIST to be 8000GJ (WTC1) and 3000GJ (WTC2). This is an average 8000GJ/(1.75*3600s) = 1.27 Gigawatt for WTC1 and 3000GJ/(3600s) = 0.83 Gigawatt for WTC2.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf
p. xlvi

At best, the massive 47 core columns and the (assumed equally massive for simplicity) 240 perimeter columns would only move away 1/2000 or 0.05% or the heat away from the fire zone.

(Of course, uniformly heated perimeter columns would radiate heat out rather than conducting it far away along their lengths. But this is not relevant to Jones's misguided claim about the sufficiency of conduction through the steel structure.)

[John Q. Citizen]

41. Why, you got a problem with that?

Einstein first came up with his theory of relativity while riding and observing in the back of a street car.

Of course, unlike some people, he had an active imagination and didn't constrain scientific thought to any particular preconceived setting.

I liked your link by the way. It points out that the heat conductivity of aluminum is very high reletive to many materials.

Because of that, it's doubtful it would remain in a molten state for long after seperation from a heat source, since it would conduct the heat away.

[greyl]

43. Yeah, a little bit.

I'd prefer it was based on something more than zero research into factual information.

But that's just me. I might be totally fucked on this.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. You will just have to get over it. If that's possible. n/t

[greyl]

47. There's nothing for me to get over.

Yours is the post that was in error.

[John Q. Citizen]

48. Getting over the problem you have: first step is to admit it.

My cookware conducts heat just fine, by the way.

Even the stainless.

[greyl]

49. I was doing De Niro. nt

[Carefulplease]

50. That's irrelevant. See post #44 please.

Your cookware conducts heat from the stove to the food through its (3/64)inch thickness. The steel structure of the WTC has to conduct heat away from the fires several meters away from the blaze along the length of the beams. The heat conduction efficiency is thousands of times lower.

[John Q. Citizen]

52. Steel has higher heat conductivity than stainless,

according to greyl. He even provided me a link that said so.

Has NIST published their analysis of the collapse of building #7 yet?
perhaps they just need a little more time....

Your guys are afraid to debate my guys. They have been invited, but they refuse, claiming they don't want to lend legitimacy to anyone who dares to question their half baked theories.

That's just plain chicken. They won't debate because they know they would get creamed. They are willing to snipe, smear and ridicule but they won't go mano a mano. 'nuff said.

Has NIST released their computer visualizations yet?

Or perhaps they just need a little more time....

such BS comes from the protectors of 9/11 official myth. It's like right out of the CIA playbook for dealing with puzzling evidence...

[greyl]

56. Irrelevant.

I can't believe you don't know it's irrelevant.

Your guys are afraid to debate my guys.

I'd love to see Jones show up here.
I'd like to see him start in the R/T forum regarding his faith-based opinion on indigenous American art.

edit: Do you realize that the subject of this thread is an implication made by Jones which has been shown to be irrelevant bullshit? Right here in this little thread?

[dailykoff]

58. Like this thread.

Nice deck chairs, though.

[greyl]

59. Your post is pathetic. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

63. Ha ha that's pretty good...

[dailykoff]

65. Thanks :D

[John Q. Citizen]

60. Your guys can't back up their BS.

So they hide out behind a bunch of toadies.

I can't believe it's not butter! But it melted like butter.

Did you attend ANY of Jones public forums and point out the error of his ways?
Why not, tough guy? Scared?

Indigenous art? Ha ha ha. 99% percent of the politicians in America claim some guy died and "Rose from the grave " after three days due to divine intervention. I don't see you attacking anyone of those folks for that. Talk about irrelevant.

[greyl]

66. Why don't you want to talk about the OP anymore?

Did you ever?

[Carefulplease]

57. Read post #44.

It is disingenious for you to argue the point and to dismiss my rebutals with the line "If you're so smart, tell that to Doc Jones!"

The thermal conductivity of steel is 2000 times too small to efficiently conduct the heat away from the fires. And if the WTC towers had been built with stainless steel instead, then the efficiency would be 8000 times too small. So?

Your guys are afraid to debate my guys.

And my dad is stronger than your dad.

[John Q. Citizen]

62. Except your dad won't show up and prove it, apparently. Because

he's got you to do his dirty work for him.

Look, if the claims made by "The Magic Implosion Theory" are provable, why are they so afaid to show up and prove it?

Where's the beef?

[Jazz2006]

70. You are so far out of your league, John Q. Citizen, that it's embarrassing

to watch.

Edit: typo.

[John Q. Citizen]

73. You are just "Far Out," period, Jazz2006. I doubt you are

embarrassed by anything. Some people have no shame, apparently.

[Jazz2006]

76. Typical non-response by a typical CTer.

Like I said above, you can't refute Carefulplease's facts so you're busy tilting at windmills in hopes that nobody notices that you haven't refuted a single thing he has said.

This latest post of yours is yet another example of that.

[John Q. Citizen]

51. Perhaps you would like to debate him? It's easy to say,

"Heat can just not conduct heat away from even small office fires," here on DU, but I think you should put it to the test.

Have you published any papers on this?

[Carefulplease]

53. Publishing a parer on that?

Why should I publish a paper explaining a basic principle that is well known to anybody who either has a modicum of knowledge of fire dynamics or a shred of physical science background? Because 9/11 Pope Jones ignores it?

All you need to know is the heat equation and the definitions of thermal conductivity. Is there is anything you do not understand about the explanation I've provided? Just ask. If you do not care to discuss the issue rationally anymore, just drop it.

[John Q. Citizen]

54. What does this mean?

Heat can just not conduct heat away from even small office fires,"

Whoa ho brother, who you jiving with that cosmic debris - F. Zappa

[Carefulplease]

61. Typo.

Steel can not do so. OK?

I'm sorry that you got stuck on this. I'll try to be more careful next time. I hope everything makes sense now.

[John Q. Citizen]

64. Well be a little more careful, please n/t

[Jazz2006]

71. Typical CTer response...

When they can't refute your facts, they pounce on a typo.

But they still never even come close to refuting your facts, just as "John Q. Public" has not been able to refute your facts on a single one of the threads in this forum.

[petgoat]

99. "Steel has a low heat conductivity"

Compared to what?

Less than copper, zinc, nickel, brass, gold, tungsten, chromium,
tin, platinum.

More than just about everything else.

http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/conduction/

Thermal Conductivity for Selected Materials (~300 K except where otherwise indicated)
material k (W/m·K) material k (W/m·K)
air, sea level 0.025 neoprene 0.15 - 0.45
air, 10,000 m 0.020 nickel 90.7
aluminum 237 particle board 0.15
asbestos 0.05 - 0.15 paper 0.04 - 0.09
asphalt 0.15 - 0.52 plaster 0.15 - 0.27
brass (273 K) 120 platinum 71.6
brick 0.18 plutonium 6.74
bronze (273 K) 110 plywood 0.11
carbon, diamond 895 polyester 0.05
carbon, graphite 1950 polystyrene foam 0.03 - 0.05
carbon, graphite 5.7 polyurethane foam 0.02 - 0.03
carpet 0.03 - 0.08 sand 0.27
chromium 93.7 silica aerogel 0.026
concrete 0.05 - 1.50 silver 429
copper 401 soap powder 0.11
cotton 0.04 snow (< 273 K) 0.16
feathers 0.034 steel, plain (273 K) 45 - 65
fiberglas 0.035 steel, stainless (273 K) 14
freon 12, liquid 0.0743 straw 0.05
freon 12, vapor 0.00958 teflon 0.25
felt 0.06 tin 66.6
glass 1.1 - 1.2 titanium 21.9
gold 317 tungsten 174
granite 2.2 uranium 27.6
helium gas 0.152 vacuum 0
helium I (< 4.2 K) 0.0307 water, ice (223 K) 2.8
helium II (< 2.2 K) ~100,000 water, ice (273 K) 2.2
ice cream powder 0.05 water, liquid (273 K) 0.561
iron 80.2 water, liquid (373 K) 0.679
lead 35.3 water, vapor (273 K) 0.016
limestone 1 water, vapor (373 K) 0.025
marble 1.75 wood 0.09 - 0.14
mercury 8.34 wool 0.03 - 0.04
mica 0.26 zinc 116
mylar 0.0001 zirconia 0.056

[Carefulplease]

101. Compared to most other metals, of course.

Edited to add reference at the end.

Steel is assumed by some to have high enough thermal conductivity to be able to conduct the heat away from fire zones into other cooler parts of a steel framed building. This is not so for two reasons. (1) Steel conducts heat less efficiently than most other metals. (2) Heat does not flow in metals like water does in a pipe. The Fourrier heat equation dictates that temperature gradient increases linearly with length. It also dictates that (given steel's low thermal conductivity) too little heat can move away from the fires even when the gradients are large. These are some reason why radiative transfer and heat capacity are the relevant factors in office fires. See the quantitative details in previous posts (such as #44)

[petgoat]

102. IOW steel, as all metals do, has high heat conductivity.

As anyone with any common sense knows.

[Carefulplease]

103. Blazingly hot (...) can be held with a bare hand.

Petgoat, you seem to understand that "high" and "low" are relative concepts. Steel's heat conductivity just is too low *for the task at hand*: that is conducting heat away from office building fires. That is just not physically possible.

http://pozadzides.com/bladesmithing/intro/forging.htm

"Each blade began with a 1.25" x .25" billet of steel. In the class we took a 5 foot length of steel and cut it in half on a chop saw. We began each blade from a length of steel to allow the material to be heated in a forge and struck on an anvil without the need for a pair of tongs. Although the metal gets blazingly hot, the heat does not transfer all the way up the billet. It's advisable to use gloves when holding the material, but the metal at the farthest end from the heat can be held with a bare hand."

That's just a 2.5 foot "beam". Steel just does not conduct heat very well, does it? That's blacksmith's common sense, not naive common sense.

[Make7]

21. Does anyone know if Dr. Jones has presented the results of the testing?

I think I saw this mentioned in this forum previously, but low-carbon steel may contain traces of sulfur. Did the testing uncover more than trace amounts?

And did the sample contain amounts of carbon that would be found in low-carbon steel? Less? More? Or was no carbon at all found in the sample?

Or would the results have conformed to some other formulation of steel that may have been used in the towers?

If anyone knows where I can obtain the results of the testing performed on the steel samples obtained by Dr. Jones, could you please reply with that information?

Thank you,
Make7

.   .

[John Q. Citizen]

46. Make7,

Here is his e-mail address

[e-mail]

[Make7]

78. Perhaps I could start a petition ...

... similar to the one on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. It seems that one of their issues with the official version is that the government hasn't released all of the evidence that is supposed to verify their claims.

- Make7

.   .

[Jazz2006]

80. Thanks. I emailed him. I'll let you know the results.

Here is the body of the email I sent:

There are theories floating around the internet that are based upon, supposedly, your assertions about testing performed upon steel samples from the World Trade Center in which traces of sulfur were found, but there are no links or evidence that show what your alleged testing actually ascertained.

So, the simple question is this: what are/were the results of your findings, and how do those findings support your allegations that the towers were brought down by controlled demolitions?

A couple of secondary questions are: did the sample contain amounts of carbon that would be found in low-carbon steel? Less? More? Or was no carbon at all found in the sample?

I'll look forward to your reply.

Thanks in advance.

I'll keep you posted on his response ~ but I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

[Make7]

82. I emailed him on a previous occasion and got a reply from James Fetzer. nt

[Jazz2006]

83. That figures.

Like I said, I won't hold my breath.

:)

[LARED]

25. Kick it

Hoping some of our resident CT'ers will response.

[wildbilln864]

26. Thank you lared 4..

continuing this discussion. I have a question please.
You said, "Finding sulfur in slag created in the collapse (CD or not) is hardly material."

Can you please answer these questions.
1) what is slag?
2) what causes slag?
3) what caused slag in WTC 1,2,and 7?

Thank you!

[Carefulplease]

33. That must be molten iron...

Edited to fix html tags.

Can you please answer these questions.
1) what is slag?

My Oxford English Dictionary suggests "A piece of refuse matter separated from a metal in the process of smelting"

2) what causes slag?

Anything that can melt metal. In the case of steel: thermite, oxyacetylene torches, thermal lances, etc

3) what caused slag in WTC 1,2,and 7?

Which slags? What metals? Could some come from the recovery operation?

In the latest revision of his paper (July 18th 2006) Jones does mention the source of his one of his samples. It's from a "WTC-molten metal pool". He does not say a single word about the results of his analysis. We don't even know what metal it is. This is supposed to appear in a forthcoming paper.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
(Section 1)

In his "Answers to Objections and Questions" he advances some vague qualitative results (he's found some fluorine, manganese and potassium -- how much?) and he provides a picture of a cut column on ground zero witch has much slag on it. He suggests this could be a thermite cut. He does not even consider the possibility of a torch (or thermal lance) cut. Was this obvious interpretation never even mentioned to him?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/AnsQJones1.pdf
(Slide 83)

[mirandapriestly]

35. Jones got his latest sample from a sculptor who had received

the steel to make a memorial park statue. The slag was removed and sent to him.

[Carefulplease]

38. Did he report on the results of his analysis? n/t

[mirandapriestly]

81. Cfp, he has not finished writing it up, but he talks about it here:

http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=317

Sorry this is best I can do:
I'll try to paraphrase from my notes if you don't have time to watch(50 minutes or so)_
he found iron, flourine, potassium, manganese in abundance in the "formerly molten" metal sample. (These are in the thermate version of thermite),Sulfidation was found in all three buildings. Sulfur formed the eutectic mixture.(?) He said steel will melt at 2500, but sulfur added would melt it at 900. The thermate with sulfur will cut through steel like a knife through butter. The fires were not hot enough to do this.
He said there was evidence for evaporated steel (that's all he said on that). Molten iron will cut through steel in a fraction of a second
He said there is an invention from the nineties which is a cylinder with a linear groove and nozzle, the nozzle is placed against the steel, molten iron blasts "white hot" - slices through the metal
(molten metal pools, molten metal poutring out, and sulfidation made him think thermite (something he uses in class experiments)
How? thermite incendiary in the central columns, elevator shafts, apply cylinder to columns, cylinder made of tungsten or ceramic (withstand high temp)
super thermite is a mixture that is ground superfine and becomes explosive rather than incendiary
Ignite - Superthermite matches (heh heh)(Los Alomos laboratory web site has info on these) wires into capsule electric current ignites electrical trigger (matches) and radio control from a distance- radio signal. Trigger electric current through superthermite match. charges in the floors where planes went in? (this is where collapse starts, I think mp) Computer used to start demolition.
most explosives use "tags" to identify. Thermite is a clever choice because ingredients are commonly found and there aren't any of these tracers.
Slice at an angle and then explode. Cutting deep in the basement an hour before (witness Rodriguez). molten residue inside and out of column at 45 degree angle so it will easily slide off. Floor 80 is where molten metal was (South tower).(I think that is collapse point)NOT aluminum, it would be silver (aluminum will get yellow hot, but at higher temp).
Nist couldn't get their models to fail and refuse to show computerized models Theories need to account for all the evidence/observations. NIST stops when building starts (?)
Society mesmerized by Islamic hijacking (I agree, mp)

He made a point to say the corrosion was at the surface, so this would be from a device at a point rather than over all heat (I think that is what that means)

[LARED]

84. Wow, I for one can't wait to see the write up

I want to see him explain;

he found iron, flourine, potassium, manganese in abundance in the "formerly molten" metal sample.

Does he have a metal sample of a slag sample? They are entirely different things.

Sulfidation was found in all three buildings.

Sulfidation is a specific type of chemical reaction (if I remember correctly). Does he mean he found sulfur or sulfidation in all three buildings. If he found sulfur, then he needs to explain why one finding one of the most abundant element is material for his theories. If he found sulfidation, he still needs to explain why Thermate is the most likely source of the reaction.

Sulfur formed the eutectic mixture.(?) He said steel will melt at 2500, but sulfur added would melt it at 900.

900 deg would be very surprising.

[LARED]

42. The technical definition of slag or the way Dr. Jones uses it?

Jones is using it in a non-technical way. Which is not surprising, as it is quite common and accepted.


1. I won't bother defining slag for you as anyone can look it up in a dictionary.

2. See definition of slag. Can I assume you're fixated on the word oxidation in most definitions of slag, and believe that somehow sulfur in the slag is odd? Is that your point?

3. Molten metal

[LARED]

86. Can anyone explain how the use of Thermate ties into these two issues?

Was the question, so far no answer.

[greyl]

87. It doesn't look like it, no.

Maybe you should ask if anyone can introduce a lot of irrelevancies into a discussion.

[LARED]

88. Avoiding irrelevancies was my hope in the OP (nt)

[greyl]

90. Clearly. Never let it be said that you aren't hopeful. :) nt

[LARED]

91. OK, how about a revised more friendly question

Can anyone speculate how the use of Thermate ties into these two issues?