FEMA appendix C [unusually corroded steel]

brucecam7

New Member
Some truthers point to FEMA's appendix C which says,

And they say that this is an important piece of evidence relevant to the collapses. Because NIST did not explore these samples, so the claim goes, their report is undermined and more investigation is clearly needed. What is the debunking response to this?
FEMA_39.jpg

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There was more investigation. See previous discussions.

NIST did not lose it. It's still at the WPI (the Worcester Polytechnic Institute) , where they continue to study the mechanisms of the phenomenon, as recommended by FEMA.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html


Here's a study done on that steel after FEMA recommended there be more study:
View attachment 2411

Here's a 2006 Discussion of the WPI work.
View attachment 2412

https://web.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/MCSI/2005biederman2.pdf
 
Last edited:

Redwood

Active Member
Doesn't the saving of two oddly-corroded pieces of WTC steel refute the notion of a big conspiracy rushing the steel off to China to suppress evidence of something-or-other?
 

Cube Radio

Member
Sisson is not to be understood to be an independent researcher, and neither is the institution he works for: he is a scientist working for the army. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11645377.htm Despite this, as I have shown elsewhere, the BBC was obliged to misrepresent his comments on its Third Tower documentary to imply that the source of the sulfur that created this reaction has been positively identified.
 

Redwood

Active Member
Sisson is not to be understood to be an independent researcher, and neither is the institution he works for: he is a scientist working for the army. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/03/prweb11645377.htm Despite this, as I have shown elsewhere, the BBC was obliged to misrepresent his comments on its Third Tower documentary to imply that the source of the sulfur that created this reaction has been positively identified.

One thing we can be damned sure of, it's not thermate. Even Harrit and Jones gave up on that long ago. It might be sulfuric acid from storage batteries, or gypsum from wallboard probably combined with acid generated from combustion of PVC. Research on this matter is a low priority.
 

ETB

New Member
There is far more pertinent information to be taken from FEMA Appendix C which clearly speaks to molten steel, my underlined italics. Further the actual microscopic images clearly show a crystalline transformation consistent with the surface of the radically eroded surface of the steel FEMA analyzed having melted and re-solidified rather than having been etched simply by a corrosive. What is being described is a high temperature eutectic liquid which as stated had a quote 'unique' action it's elemental sulfur component effectively lowering the melting point of the steel causing the inter-granular melting discribed. If simply corroded no transformation of the materials structure would have occurred perhaps for annealing at high temperatures. Annealing that interestingly enough hadn't occurred in the body of the material even though the steel is stated to have been eroded by a high temperature eutectic liquid having produced near surface temperatures of approximately 1000C. The body of the steel is described in one image as being in it's as milled untransformed pearlite phase, showing just how rapidly the steel was, as described in the report 'liquefied'.

FEMA Appendix C introduction:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000° C (1,800°F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

Microscopic image of cross section C.3 Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of
oxidation and sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in
the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3.The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

Description of figures relevant to potential annealing and crysteline transformation of the body of the sampled steel FEMA Appendix C:
Note: Banding of Pearlite in the Rolling Direction Due to Manganese Segregation.

Further description of the sampled steel pertinent to the speed at which the steel had liquefied FEMA Appendix C:
When steel cools below the eutectic temperature, the liquid of eutectic composition transforms to two phases, iron oxide, FeO, and iron sulfide, FeS.The product of this eutectic reaction is a characteristic geometrical arrangement that is unique and is readily visible even in the unetched microstructure of the steel. Figures C-4 and C-5 present typical near-surface regions showing the microstructural changes that occur due to this corrosion attack. Figure C-6 presents the microstructure from the center of a much thicker section of the steel that is unaffected by the hot corrosion.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
There is far more pertinent information to be taken from FEMA Appendix C which clearly speaks to molten steel, ...

The steel was studied, and it corroded at temperatures from 800 to 1000 C. Thus no melted steel. When 911 truth uses these two steel samples as proof of thermite, the eutectic formed up to 1000 C, proves that is not the case.
The FEMA report can be quote mined for melt, appearing five times, but it does not imply melted steel, as the report clearly explains in terms chemical engineers use.
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf
I think 911 truth is lost at "eutectic", appearing 9 times, then the quote mining to form the fantasy of thermite begins.

"High temperature" appears twice, and then explained the high temperature corrosion took place at the high temperatures between 800 to 1000 C, well below the melting point of steel - thus corrosion. I wonder, it 911 truth followers take the time to find "intergranular melting"; does that confuse them to jump to melted steel. I never see a lot of use of the FEMA report, the eutectic might be too much technical chemical engineering jargon for 911 truth.
 

ETB

New Member
It appears that some definitions are in order in regards the common English terms used in the FEMA Appendix C report:

Definition of melt:
a: to change or to cause (something) to change from a solid to a liquid usually because of heat.
b: to gradually become less or go away.

Definition of liquefied:
To cause to become liquid, especially:
a.To melt (a solid) by heating.
b. To condense (a gas) by cooling.
c:To become liquid.

Definition of eutectic:

Relating to or denoting a mixture of substances (in fixed proportions) that melts and freezes at a single temperature that is lower than the melting points of the separate constituents or of any other mixture of them.

The relevant point here is that a eutectic liquid melts at a lower temperature than either constituent. Sulfur melts at 115.21°C iron at 1538°C. The report describes the nature of the solidified eutectic liquid.

FEMA Appendix C: When steel cools below the eutectic temperature, the liquid of eutectic composition transforms to two phases, iron oxide, FeO, and iron sulfide, FeS.

How a high temperature eutectic liquid formed containing highly reactive elemental sulfur famous for it's role as an oxidizer in gun powder with the conventional conspiracy narrative isn't explored. How elemental sulfur could have formed within the conventional 9/11 conspiracy narrative remains to be explained, dry wall in uncontrolled fires doesn't form elemental sulfur, that's absurd sulfur is just too reactive. The eutectic liquid of iron and sulfur described in the report as unique, further discounting it's formation withing uncontrolled building fires, would have been highly reactive. It seems as if it could have only have formed within a finely divided and rapidly reactive mixture in which some sulfur could be trapped within molten iron before it could oxidize, burning off as does in gun powder. Molten sulfur placed on hot iron/steel will not yield a eutectic liquid of iron containing sulfur rather it will yield a rapid combustion of the sulfur.

The action that this eutectic liquid, described as unique, and the sulfur within it is stated as:

FEMA Appendix C: This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000° C (1,800°F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

FEMA Appendix C: The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.

At the end of the report a conjecture is made that even if the liquid hadn't melted the steel the sulfur/sulfides would have still have penetrated the steels surface as they show a capacity to do so at lower 700-800C rather than the reported approximate 1000C at which the eutectic liquid did melt the steel, see above FEMA Appendix C quote. However this portion of the report is a theoretical conjecture within the stated fact that the steel experienced melting.

FEMA Appendix C: It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700–800°C (1,290–1,470°F).

I think I have done enough 'quote mining' to have almost quoted a larger portion of the FEMA Appendix C report over my two posts. I hope my cut and pasting common English words and their meanings has cleared up any misconceptions. Perhaps it would be poignant to sign off with an interesting picture showing the historical context of the FEMA sampled steel. The gentleman in the attached picture is Dr John L Gross who was a key figure in writing the NIST report on WTC7. In an October 18, 2006 lecture at the University of Texas at Austin he denied the presence of molten iron/steel at the WTC 9/11 site. The attached picture from 2002 shows Dr John L Gross hands on what looks by shape to be the very ragged entirely eroded steel that FEMA used in their report.

http://s1222.photobucket.com/user/danp5648/media/swisscheese2.jpg.html
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
It appears that some definitions are in order in regards the common English terms used in the FEMA Appendix C report:

Definition of eutectic:

Relating to or denoting a mixture of substances (in fixed proportions) that melts and freezes at a single temperature that is lower than the melting points of the separate constituents or of any other mixture of them.

The relevant point here is that a eutectic liquid melts at a lower temperature than either constituent. Sulfur melts at 115.21°C iron at 1538°C. The report describes the nature of the solidified eutectic liquid.

...
http://s1222.photobucket.com/user/danp5648/media/swisscheese2.jpg.html

There was no evidence for melted iron, or melted steel in the paper. The quotes from the paper confirm it

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf



The report clearly explains the steel corroded, not melted. The eutectic is at 800 to 1000 C; thus no steel was melted. This is so clear in the report, and it does not support melted steel. There is no need to define melt, there was no melted steel. The eutectic is no longer steel. It would be better to get a chemical engineering definition of intergranular melting, then a dictionary for melt. Eutectic, would help.

How would thermite do this, we could ask 911 truth... What percent sulfur does thermite have? aka thermate, the stuff Jones made up based on no evidence; as his culprit for the inside job CD. Thermite would leave iron, and iron fused to steel; not found on 911. Thus 911 truth has no case for thermite.

The eutectic is not melted steel. I understand this, and I only had one Chem Eng course. Not sure how defining melt is going to make melted steel move from a fantasy 911 truth has, to reality. It is not a theory, the eutectic is proof of the materials, and the temperature; and 800 to 1000 C, is high temperature.

The interest in the corroded steel is academic, not related to the cause of the WTC collapse.

The steel was corroded in fire, and looks like the steel in my old cars battery box, except the eutectic will be different.





The samples were exposed to 800 to 1000 C. Steel melts at, 1,426–1,538 °C; the samples did not melt, they corroded. "" temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000° C (1,800°F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel. ""

Interesting, how does steel corrode, it does in my battery box, it did for two samples in the WTC fires, at temperatures of 800 to 1000 C. 911 truth can quote-mine Appendix C forever, it will not support melted steel, and debunks thermite as the cause. Yes, it is interesting, corrosion, and it was studied, but it means nothing for 911 truth claims of an inside job.

intergranular melting, is not melted steel - a book on chemical engineering is needed to understand the eutectic, no need for definitions of melting from a dictionary, they are out of context, the report explains the steel corroded, adds some chemical engineering terms, and becomes a source for making up stuff by 911 truth.

I think you discussed sulfur, but left out the oxygen... where did the oxygen come from.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachment...ded-structural-steel-fomr-wtc-1-2-7-pdf.2411/
The other report posted earlier.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/2006biederman-pdf.2412/
And the other posted earlier, it gives some reasons for study of the samples, and goals.
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
...
Definition of eutectic:

Relating to or denoting a mixture of substances (in fixed proportions) that melts and freezes at a single temperature that is lower than the melting points of the separate constituents or of any other mixture of them.

The relevant point here is that a eutectic liquid melts at a lower temperature than either constituent. Sulfur melts at 115.21°C iron at 1538°C. The report describes the nature of the solidified eutectic liquid.
Alright, this piece betrays your lack of understanding.
No one claims elemental sulfur. Your bringing up elemental sulfur tells us that you do not understand the chemistry and metallurgy that Biederman, Barnett and Sisson present and discuss.
More pertinent would be, for example, iron sulfide. FeS has a theoretical melting point of 1,194 °C.
When the authors write "a liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen and sulfur", they do NOT mean "elemental iron, elemental oxygen and elemental sulfur". The mix surely contained elemental iron, surely no elemental oxygen, and almost certainly no elemental sulfur. Of course the iron had in part reacted with S and O (and C and H), and there were also copper sulfides, calcium compounds even (Fig. C-13, Location 1). Cu2S melts at 1,130 °C.

...
How a high temperature eutectic liquid formed containing highly reactive elemental sulfur famous for it's role as an oxidizer in gun powder with the conventional conspiracy narrative isn't explored. How elemental sulfur could have formed within the conventional 9/11 conspiracy narrative remains to be explained, dry wall in uncontrolled fires doesn't form elemental sulfur, that's absurd sulfur is just too reactive. The eutectic liquid of iron and sulfur described in the report as unique, further discounting it's formation withing uncontrolled building fires, would have been highly reactive.
Except it wasn't, for you ignore the oxygen present in the mix and invent the tale of "elemental" S.

It seems as if it could have only have formed within a finely divided and rapidly reactive mixture in which some sulfur could be trapped within molten iron before it could oxidize, burning off as does in gun powder. Molten sulfur placed on hot iron/steel will not yield a eutectic liquid of iron containing sulfur rather it will yield a rapid combustion of the sulfur.
You just gave one good reason why your fantasy of elemental S is a fairy tale.

The action that this eutectic liquid, described as unique, and the sulfur within it is stated as:

FEMA Appendix C: This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000° C (1,800°F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.
"Sulfur-rich" does not mean "rich in elemental sulfur", it means "rich on sulfur compounds". Since the liquid is already liquid, the eutectic of iron, iron sulfide, iron oxide etc. has already formed and does the corroding.

FEMA Appendix C: The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
The source of the sulfur is not known - sulfides, sulfates... ya know, acid rain (SO2), gypsum (CaSO4-H2O), whatever. Just not elemental S.

At the end of the report a conjecture is made that even if the liquid hadn't melted the steel
The liquid did not "melt" the steel, the liquid was the melted eutectic that penetrated the boundaries between the still solid iron grains and thus corroded the steel. Not melt. Corrode.

the sulfur/sulfides would have still have penetrated the steels surface as they show a capacity to do so at lower 700-800C rather than the reported approximate 1000C at which the eutectic liquid did melt the steel, see above FEMA Appendix C quote. However this portion of the report is a theoretical conjecture within the stated fact that the steel experienced melting.
Except no one stated this "fact": The entire report makes zero allusions to "steel" experiencing "melting". Only the eutectic - a eutectic is NOT steel - formed between the grains near the surface as materials from the outside (sulfur compounds, oxygen compounds) diffused into those boundaries. This sort of chemical reaction following diffusion is clearly stated as a "corrosion attack on the steel", "corrosion of the steel", "corrosion and erosion of the steel", "severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2" - these are all verbatim quotes from the report, some occur severally, adding up to 12 (twelve) instances where the word "corrosion" directly describes what happens to the "steel" or the "Samples", whereas there are 0 (zero) instances where the report talks about "melting" or similar describes what happens to the "steel" or the "Samples".

Is that clear now? Please acknowledge in your own words that you now know that, contrary to what you wrote in the quoted passage, the metallurgists Biedermann, Barnett and Sisson have NOT "stated [as] fact that the steel experienced melting"!

FEMA Appendix C: It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700–800°C (1,290–1,470°F).
Yes, reinforcing the notion that what happened to the steel was a type of corrosion, not melting, caused by sulfur compounds, not elemental sulfur.

I think I have done enough 'quote mining' to have almost quoted a larger portion of the FEMA Appendix C report over my two posts. I hope my cut and pasting common English words and their meanings has cleared up any misconceptions.
Yes, you did more than enough quote-mining.
You did so without understanding.
The misconceptions are all yours.
I hope I cleared them up for you.

Perhaps it would be poignant to sign off with an interesting picture showing the historical context of the FEMA sampled steel. The gentleman in the attached picture is Dr John L Gross who was a key figure in writing the NIST report on WTC7. In an October 18, 2006 lecture at the University of Texas at Austin he denied the presence of molten iron/steel at the WTC 9/11 site. The attached picture from 2002 shows Dr John L Gross hands on what looks by shape to be the very ragged entirely eroded steel that FEMA used in their report.

http://s1222.photobucket.com/user/danp5648/media/swisscheese2.jpg.html
Dr. John L. Gross was and is entirely correct:
No steel melted.
Yes, this piece eroded. It did not melt. In four separate sentences, Biederman, Barnett and Sisson mention corrosion and erosion as what happened to the steel. In zero sentences do they combine "melting of steel" and "erosion". Becasue no steel melted.

You are correct to write "eroded steel". The eroded steel has corroded, as Fema Appendix C makes abundantly and repeatedly clear.
 

ETB

New Member
There is not much to say when the common meaning of English words such as,
1:melting
2:liquefied
are denied. The term melting within the term inter-granular melting is characterised as being some mysterious technical term used in reference to the word eutectic. Eutectic simply means a mixture of substances which melt at lower temperature than their constituents. Within the report the term eutectic is used in the context of a high temperature corrosive eutectic liquid that eroded the steel at a temperature lower than simple heat melting, approximately 780c to 1000c for which their was no explanation in the FEMA report but which was described as unique. As for the report stating that the eutectic liquid 'liquefied the steel' that is just ignored.
Or when the microscopic images in FEMA Appendix C clearly show that:
1: The as mill delivered pearlite crystal structure of the sampled steel sections is obliviously totally absent in the sampled near surface of the as described liquefied steel.
2: The deeper body of the sampled steel still is in it's as milled pearlite state which shows than in no way did the body of the sampled steel as pictured with John L Gross reach temperatures anywhere near 800c by which point the tensile steels as milled fine grained would have fully annealed through astenite, this indicates that the heating was rapid but of short duration.
3: The structure of the surface layer of the steel shows amorphous unregulated crystalline structure consistent with melting and re-solidification.
4: The sampled surface layers of the steel's unregulated non-pearlite structure simply could not have formed under corrosive etching in which the crystalline structure of the the steel at the erosion front would remain as intact pearlite so at best a sustained expose at to iron sulfide at 1100C + is required to achieve a similar result yet this would transform the as milled grain structure. The physical photographic evidence,
is ignored.
Deny and ignore.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
There is not much to say when the common meaning of English words such as,
1:melting
2:liquefied
are denied.
Nonsense on stilts.
The question is not the dictionary definition of words but their proper application in full sentences.

WHAT melts?
WHAT is liquefied?

What about the meaning of words such as
1:corrosion?
2:steel?
3:eutectic?

The term melting within the term inter-granular melting is characterised as being some mysterious technical term used in reference to the word eutectic.
What????????????????????????????????????????
WHO, precisely, characterised the term "inter-granular melting" as "being some mysterious technical term used in reference to the word eutectic"?
1:Barnett, Biederman and Sisson?
2:Me?
3:Nobody [but you]? [minor politeness edit]

Eutectic simply means a mixture of substances which melt at lower temperature than their constituents.
Yes, nothing "mysterious" about that.

Within the report the term eutectic is used in the context of a high temperature corrosive eutectic liquid that eroded the steel at a temperature lower than simple heat melting, approximately 780c to 1000c for which their was no explanation in the FEMA report
Huh???
Can you please be more precise? Biederman, Barnett and Sisson provide a detailed explanation. What are you missing?

but which was described as unique.
Was it?? Where? Please be specific! Quote the context!
The word "unique" appears in the report only once and describes a geometrical arrangement of the products of a eutectic reaction; this uniqueness helps identify the products. You say a "high temperature corrosive eutectic liquid that eroded the steel at a temperature lower than simple heat melting" was described as "unique". No, it this is not true, you made that up!

As for the report stating that the eutectic liquid 'liquefied the steel' that is just ignored.
That's part of the "Summary for Sample 1".
What you ignore is EVERYTHING ELSE! Yes, a eutectic formed on the surface and diffused into the grain boundaries, causing corrosion and erosion.

Or when the microscopic images in FEMA Appendix C clearly show that:
1: The as mill delivered pearlite crystal structure of the sampled steel sections is obliviously totally absent in the sampled near surface of the as described liquefied steel.
Yes, a eutectic formed on the surface and diffused into the grain boundaries, causing corrosion and erosion at near 1000 °C. It is expcted that this would change the original "cool" steel structure.

2: The deeper body of the sampled steel still is in it's as milled pearlite state which shows than in no way did the body of the sampled steel as pictured with John L Gross reach temperatures anywhere near 800c by which point the tensile steels as milled fine grained would have fully annealed through astenite, this indicates that the heating was rapid but of short duration.
Can you quantify "rapid" and "short duration"? The pearlite was found in the center of a much thicker part of the piece of steel. Do you know how far away?
Can you exclude that the piece was heated only near the corroded end? Or that heating affected it on and off, such that it would not heat to >800 °C through and through?

3: The structure of the surface layer of the steel shows amorphous unregulated crystalline structure consistent with melting and re-solidification.
Uhm - yes - so what?

4: The sampled surface layers of the steel's unregulated non-pearlite structure simply could not have formed under corrosive etching in which the crystalline structure of the the steel at the erosion front would remain as intact pearlite so at best a sustained expose at to iron sulfide at 1100C + is required to achieve a similar result yet this would transform the as milled grain structure. The physical photographic evidence,
is ignored.
Deny and ignore.
No. I think you are taking your speculation too far.

Where is the photo that proves "intact pearlite" was found "at the erosion front"? Figure C-6, which shows the intact pearlite, "presents the microstructure from the center of a much thicker section of the steel that is unaffected by the hot corrosion". So the report very specifically contradicts your claim!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ETB

New Member
1: C3 Summary 2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000° C (1,800°F) results in
the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

liquefied the steel

2: Keith Beachy: I think 911 truth is lost at "eutectic", appearing 9 times, then the quote mining to form the fantasy of thermite begins.

3: Agreed, Keith Beachy was simply name calling.

4: As above.

5: C2 bottom of the page: The product of this eutectic reaction is a characteristic geometrical arrangement that is unique and is readily visible even in the unetched microstructure of the steel.

6: Agreed: C.3Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of
oxidation and sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3.The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

7: Not if as many claim it was just acid corrosion etching the surface away however yes of course because, quote:
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

8: The evidence indicated that the section was in no way broadly exposed exposed to heating in an uncontrolled burning pile or as per the Biederman, Barnett and Sisson in their 1st experiment exposed A36 steel to quote: Isothermal Reaction of Compacted FeS Powder on the Ground Surface of A36 In Air for 12 Hours at 1100C.
Which naturally is above the FEMA reported temperature and an amount of time in which the section would have been annealed thoroughly. The FEMA report which shows that manganese segregation had occurred as is common in annealed low carbon steel it doesn't look that the sample had been thoroughly annealed however this would need to be established with more certainty. However this is of relative importance next to the simple statement in the FEMA report that quote: Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel .

9: Yes the steel melted and re-solidified on the surface.

10: Acid etching doesn't disrupt the structure of the surface being eroded, melting does as per FEMA's observation that quote: Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...
... liquefied the steel.
...
liquefied the steel
... liquefied the steel....liquefied the steel....liquefied the steel .

... liquefied the steel.
You ignore everything else.
How is this phrase even relevant?

The phrase is actually FALSE. Biederman, Barnett and Sisson wording carelessly.
Steel is not simply iron with anything.
Steel is iron alloyed with certain other metals and half-metals in a certain crystal structure. This stucture involves "grains".
No steel alloy melted. The grains didn't melt.
What happened was that a eutectic (NOT steel) penetrated the grain boundaries, and this corroded the steel. Where the aggressive eutectic touched steel (iron), it reacted with the iron. By this, the iron ceased to be steel - it was now corroded steel. This corroded steel melted - the eutectic, not the steel - and caused the erosion of the sample.

Why do you ignore practically everything?

Your main (and better) argument goes to the fact that the samples weren't heated to >800 °C throughoiut.
So what? Why is that even relevant? It suffices if some flame on one side of the piece of steel heats the surface there. If there is no flame on the other side, the center may forever remain relatively cool. Do you know the exacti conditions this piece of steel was subjected to in the rubble? No, you do not. Neither do the authors. So why do you speculate about the pissibility of effects?
 

ETB

New Member
You ignore everything else.
How is this phrase even relevant?

The phrase is actually FALSE. Biederman, Barnett and Sisson wording carelessly.
Steel is not simply iron with anything.
Steel is iron alloyed with certain other metals and half-metals in a certain crystal structure. This stucture involves "grains".
No steel alloy melted. The grains didn't melt.
What happened was that a eutectic (NOT steel) penetrated the grain boundaries, and this corroded the steel. Where the aggressive eutectic touched steel (iron), it reacted with the iron. By this, the iron ceased to be steel - it was now corroded steel. This corroded steel melted - the eutectic, not the steel - and caused the erosion of the sample.

Why do you ignore practically everything?

Your main (and better) argument goes to the fact that the samples weren't heated to >800 °C throughoiut.
So what? Why is that even relevant? It suffices if some flame on one side of the piece of steel heats the surface there. If there is no flame on the other side, the center may forever remain relatively cool. Do you know the exacti conditions this piece of steel was subjected to in the rubble? No, you do not. Neither do the authors. So why do you speculate about the pissibility of effects?

"liquefied the steel" is relevant because this thread is all about denying a simple clear statement. A statement in an early, 2002 and unusual government report into the WTC 9/11 site, FEMA Appendix C. I characterize the report as such as it actually involved physical forensics being done on 9/11 WTC rubble not to do with pollution & as opposed any later NIST reports. For example NIST's failure to look for explosive forensics because as they stated they knew it wasn't there before they looked. Another example is how NIST finally gave up on explaining the disintegrations of WTC1 or 2 once initiated with statements such as 'global collapse became inevitable'. A final example could be NIST's 'proving' how WTC7 could go into a 2nd stage symmetrical partial free-fall based on a forensics free supposition, column 79's failure computer modeled by a simulation whose assumption and physics engine has never been released. The denial of this simple statement "liquefied the steel" is done so as to have evidence fit the official 9/11 conspiracy narrative. A physical evidence thin & physics twisting narrative in which in fullness of time denying the fact that there was molten steel & iron in the rubble of the 9/11 WTC site has become important. The denial of molten steel/iron at the sight has always involved denying 1st hand witness including NYFD 1st responders. Now that denial has to deny the simple statements in the FEMA report as to the melting of 9/11 WTC steel most markedly "liquefied the steel".
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Stressing "liquefied steel" when the processes really is hot corrosion misrepresents willfully what the authors of the paper found, present and discuss.

Steel, as long as it's steel, "liquefies" near 1500 °C.
What Truthers allude to when they quote-mine witnesses using words such as "molten steel" (or Gross negating "molten steel") is the idea that steel was seen or otherwise observed on Ground Zero. You know, that things got so terribly hot it even "melted" the "steel".
None of that is true at all.

No molten steel flowed anywhere visibly. No lava, no pools, no pieces of steel deformed because it was previously "molten".


And you, ETB, deny that. Wilfully.

There was intergranular melting of a eutectic. Yes. The grain boundaries are not "the steel". A eutectic is not steel. And no one ever saw and observed this melting on Ground Zero, because it happened at a microscopic level and did not liquefy the steel sample, did not make it loose shape, did not cause it to flow like a liquid. All that was liquefied was a microscopic amount of a mix of iron and iron-compounds (sulfides, sulfates, oxides...) between the steel grains, detaching the grains from the steel sample - that's corrosion.

You know all that, ETB. But you choose to concentrate on a single sentence and ignore and deny everything else.
No one denies intergranular melting. Why do you lie? However, everybody except Truthers understands that this essentially was a corrosion process, not a melting-of-steel process.


Is it TRUE or UNTRUE that Biederman, Barnett and Sisson speak of corrosion and erosion throughout the entire paper? Please, give me a straight answer, I want to check whether you are able to write something that is essentially true!
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
ETB...How would you define symmetrical collapse?

Considering that there was a mix of chemicals, including corrosive ones...heat and water... post collapse... would you not consider this a more corrosive environment than normal? Would you expect the corrosion to be uniform through the debris or somewhat varied depending on the local conditions?
 

ETB

New Member
The phrase is actually FALSE. Biederman, Barnett and Sisson wording carelessly.
Steel is not simply iron with anything.
Steel is iron alloyed with certain other metals and half-metals in a certain crystal structure. This stucture involves "grains".
No steel alloy melted. The grains didn't melt.
What happened was that a eutectic (NOT steel) penetrated the grain boundaries, and this corroded the steel. Where the aggressive eutectic touched steel (iron), it reacted with the iron. By this, the iron ceased to be steel - it was now corroded steel. This corroded steel melted - the eutectic, not the steel - and caused the erosion of the sample.

Why do you ignore practically everything?

Your main (and better) argument goes to the fact that the samples weren't heated to >800 °C throughoiut.
So what? Why is that even relevant? It suffices if some flame on one side of the piece of steel heats the surface there. If there is no flame on the other side, the center may forever remain relatively cool. Do you know the exacti conditions this piece of steel was subjected to in the rubble? No, you do not. Neither do the authors. So why do you speculate about the pissibility of effects?[/QUOTE]

FeS melting point 1194C
Fe3O4 FeO.Fe2O3 melting point 1,538 °C
Now about that melted s
ETB...How would you define symmetrical collapse?

Considering that there was a mix of chemicals, including corrosive ones...heat and water... post collapse... would you not consider this a more corrosive environment than normal? Would you expect the corrosion to be uniform through the debris or somewhat varied depending on the local conditions?

So iron oxides and sulfides melted?
 

ETB

New Member
ETB...How would you define symmetrical collapse?

It's short hand for the 2nd stage of WTC7, free-fall of all exterior walls and it's parapet and the final result of its demise.


Considering that there was a mix of chemicals, including corrosive ones...heat and water... post collapse... would you not consider this a more corrosive environment than normal? Would you expect the corrosion to be uniform through the debris or somewhat varied depending on the local conditions?

Yay, it's leading question day!
Considering that white hot metal was seen pouring out of WTC2 just prior too it's disintegration do you think that whatever was happening was a bit more melty than kerosene jet fuel and office fires?


Considering that there was a mix of chemicals, including corrosive ones...heat and water... post collapse... would you not consider this a more corrosive environment than normal? Would you expect the corrosion to be uniform through the debris or somewhat varied depending on the local conditions?[/QUOTE]
Stressing "liquefied steel" when the processes really is hot corrosion misrepresents willfully what the authors of the paper found, present and discuss.

Steel, as long as it's steel, "liquefies" near 1500 °C.
What Truthers allude to when they quote-mine witnesses using words such as "molten steel" (or Gross negating "molten steel") is the idea that steel was seen or otherwise observed on Ground Zero. You know, that things got so terribly hot it even "melted" the "steel".
None of that is true at all.

No molten steel flowed anywhere visibly. No lava, no pools, no pieces of steel deformed because it was previously "molten".


And you, ETB, deny that. Wilfully.

There was intergranular melting of a eutectic. Yes. The grain boundaries are not "the steel". A eutectic is not steel. And no one ever saw and observed this melting on Ground Zero, because it happened at a microscopic level and did not liquefy the steel sample, did not make it loose shape, did not cause it to flow like a liquid. All that was liquefied was a microscopic amount of a mix of iron and iron-compounds (sulfides, sulfates, oxides...) between the steel grains, detaching the grains from the steel sample - that's corrosion.

You know all that, ETB. But you choose to concentrate on a single sentence and ignore and deny everything else.
No one denies intergranular melting. Why do you lie? However, everybody except Truthers understands that this essentially was a corrosion process, not a melting-of-steel process.


Is it TRUE or UNTRUE that Biederman, Barnett and Sisson speak of corrosion and erosion throughout the entire paper? Please, give me a straight answer, I want to check whether you are able to write something that is essentially true!

TRUE or UNTRUE does FEMA appendix C say that the steel sampled in their report was 'liquefied'.
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Who cares what NIST or FEMA state... they could not have inventoried every cubic meter of the debris from the moment of collapse measuring what was taking place.

It's a safe assumption that chemical processes were taking place POST collapse because the conditions were conducive to such processes. One of the would be rapid corrosion. Eutectic corrosion is certainly possible of the conditions for it were present. And considering the a million plus tons of materials, steel. aluminum, copper and so on... it's not unreasonable to expect to find all sorts of unusual chemical reactions. I don't find it remarkable... Just look at how many different materials, crystals, and so forth the geological processes create.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
In the sense that you're insisting? 100% untrue.

The process being defined is a highly specific jargon term that includes the work liquefied. Jargon does not obey dictionary definitions, it carries its own meaning, and in this case, that meaning is mutually exclusive with the particular form of liquefy you're using.
 

ETB

New Member
Prof Richard Sisson Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
"Well it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as
a liquid that contained iron oxygen and sulfur."

 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Symmetry is not an accurate word to describe the collapse of 7wtc. One can clearly see the north facade is deformed and even that is not bilaterally symmetrical. By far the largest force... by orders of magnitude was the downward force of gravity. Because the structure... beams and girders which move axial loads to columns... gravity in some cases these axial forces were "resolved" in lateral forces... but of much smaller magnitude,
 

Oystein

Senior Member
...
FeS melting point 1194C
Fe3O4 FeO.Fe2O3 melting point 1,538 °C
Now about that melted s


So iron oxides and sulfides melted?
No.
A eutectic - this is a mixture - of iron, iron sulfides, iron oxides, plus smaller amounts of of manganese and copper with their respective oxides, sulfides, sulfates melted.
As you correctly quoted earlier: The melting point of the eutectic is lower than the melting points of its constituent substances.

The iron would not have melted.
The steel would not have melted.
The iron oxides would not have melted.
The iron sulfide would not have melted.
(At 900-1000 °C any hypothetic elemental sulfur that you fantasize about in dreams helped into existence in dreamlland by your utter lack of understanding could not have existed at all - it vaporizes at 445 °C! And long before that, it would have oxidized metals and/or reduced oxygen)

Instead, all the evidence points to a liquefied eutectic (mix) of mostly iron [compounds], sulfur [compounds] and oxygen [compounds] penetrating between the steel grain boundaries from the surface on inwards, where it reacts with the iron (that's corrosion) to form more eutectic mix that's prone to melt. Result: The steel erodes.

TRUE or UNTRUE does FEMA appendix C say that the steel sampled in their report was 'liquefied'.
Alright, great - like any good truther, you had to insist on NOT answering my question honestly, thereby demonstarting that you are fundamentally unable to give straight honest answer to straight honest questions.

To answer your question straight and honestly:
No, UNTRUE. Essentially, FEMA appendix C does not say that the steel sampled in their report was 'liquefied'. "The steel sampled" would be EITHER the two actual macro steel samples that they had in their hands - those samples remained entirely solid ever since the day they were produced in the steel mill, with only tiny microscopic amounts between the grains very near the surface (micrometers) corroding (reacting with aggressive chemicals, i.e. turning into a mix of chemicals that is NOT steel any longer) and then melting as a eutectic; - OR "the steel" might refer to that portion on the surface that was already victim of a hot corrosion attack: Most of that steel (the grains) did NOT melt. All that melted was some eutectic that had penetrated between the steel grains. See caption to Fig. C-7: "Hot corrosion of the steel can produce 'islands' of steel surrounded by liquid, which will make erosion of the steel much easier". Note that what is liquid is NOT the steel - the steel grains remain solid!
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
Prof Richard Sisson Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
"Well it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as
a liquid that contained iron oxygen and sulfur."
Is slag = steel? YES or NO?
Please give a straight, honest answer.

I'll give you a hint: There is only one possible answer that is both straight and honest:

"NO." (The liquid slag is NOT steel.)

Prediction: You will never ever give a straight and honest answer, because you are a Truther - if Truthers ever gave straight and honest answers, they would immedieately cease to be Truthers.



Next question - please give me straight and honest answer:
When Sisson says "a liquid that contained iron, oxygen and sulfur" (note: I added a comma that you left out), does he mean elemental iron, elemental oxygen and elemental sulfur, or does he mean chemical compounds containing Fe, O and S - such as FeO and FeS?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Symmetry is not an accurate word to describe the collapse of 7wtc. One can clearly see the north facade is deformed and even that is not bilaterally symmetrical. By far the largest force... by orders of magnitude was the downward force of gravity. Because the structure... beams and girders which move axial loads to columns... gravity in some cases these axial forces were "resolved" in lateral forces... but of much smaller magnitude,
This is not a thread discussing WTC7. Please stay on topic.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
...
TRUE or UNTRUE does FEMA appendix C say that the steel sampled in their report was 'liquefied'.
Not the steel, you can't get melt steel at 800 to 1000 C. The steel was corroded as the report explains. And the report defines what was liquid.
...
So iron oxides and sulfides melted?
No, the iron oxide did not melt, the sulfides did not melt, the paper makes it clear. Don't quote mine the paper, it is an entire report, it explains. There is no point quote mining out of context, and leaving out what the liquid was which "liquefied" the steel.

I find it cool, quote-mined liquefied. 6 times, when the report sticks with one time, and the report goes further and explains the liquid...

"liquefied the steel"

The ducks were "creamed" by the crimson tide. ... cream duck; bet that was a tasty victory.

We could quote mine the way to ... victory, as "we crushed" our opponent. WE "liquified" the Pittsburgh Steelers defense.

They melted the Steelers, at field temperature...

The report was written by engineers, quote mined by 911 truth.

What is the mysterious liquid stuff...

This is what creamed the steel, corroded the steel, liquified the steel. But the steel did no melt at 1000 C, it says so in the report and it says so due to chemistry, the physical properties of steel. The mixture is not steel. The stuff, the "liquid stuff", did not melt the steel, it corroded it. As the paper explains.

What is the mysterious liquid stuff...



Reading the report "crushes" the 911 truth fantasy thermite was used on 911, with respect to this steel.

What caused the corroded steel? What is the point for quote mining the report for the one occurrence of the simile, liquefied, six times. A great tool for learning, repetition, but it will not make melted steel a reality at 1000 C. The steel was liquefied (corroded) by the attack, and the steel was corroded, liquefied. Not melted. The report explains why it could occur more rapidly... the report is a complete product, and fails to have meaning if it is quote mined out of context.

Looking up the melting point of the different things, was for what purpose, those thing did not melt, they were formed after the eutectic cooled. This really is chemical engineering, and the eutectic in question was not a simple one, it involved several elements. The report is a whole product, not a gold mine for quotes.

I did not mean to bait you to quote mine the one occurrence of liquefied. I think I did mention the report is a super source for out of context quote mining by 911 truth. It is.
Melt - 5 times
Liquid - 6 times
liquefied - 1 time
 
Last edited:

Cube Radio

Member
Here's a study done on that steel after FEMA recommended there be more study:
View attachment 2411

Here's a 2006 Discussion of the WPI work.
View attachment 2412
What's interesting is that neither this further study nor the discussion advance the understanding of the source of the eutectic attack and so does absolutely nothing to
Sullivan et al merely repeat FEMA's observation that the steel was subject to a
but offer no suggestions as to how this may have occurred.

Biederman's 2006 discussion is most significant at the outset, when he says:
The word "appears" reveals just how limited and unscientific his research is.

WTC 7 "appears" to be a controlled and deliberately engineered collapse, as demolition using explosives is the only known cause of rapid total tall building failure.

This fact is confirmed by simple observation, side-by-side comparison and expert opinion.

But Biederman is wholly unable to acknowledge this obvious possibility, which any genuine scientist would not ignore.

Instead he is forced to make desperate suggestions that the source of the sulfur was acid rain.
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
...
WTC 7 "appears" to be a controlled and deliberately engineered collapse, as demolition using explosives is the only known cause of rapid total tall building failure. ...
Is that in a science book, or what? You are joking, right?
Related to the corroded steel how? A fantasy of CD. Appears to be CD, based on zero evidence. Where as, appears to be fire, has many joules of heat energy evidence, photos, fire, and steel fails in fire, and steel structure fail in fire.
What engineering book says explosives are the only know cause for "rapid" slower than freefall, over 16 seconds, building failure like WTC 7. Page number and source please.

Not one building on 911 was a rapid failure. The towers fell at a rate consistent with the structures engineering and design - the Chief Structural Engineer agrees with me. WTC 7, took over 16 seconds to collapse, which is very slow. Ignoring the interior collapse in the WTC for 10 to 12 seconds before the single tracked point of a roof line begins to fall is called what? Ignoring evidence is what in science? Fraud, dishonesty, what is it?

The reality of CD, primary energy is gravity; E=mgh released by tiny amount of explosives, which means gravity is the main driver. Thus, the only known cause of rapid total tall building failure is gravity. This is in science books, where as the process of CD being the only way for building to fall down is not in science books, it is made up by 911 truth. And how do we relate this to corroded steel, most likely occurring after 911 in the debris piles.

The only engineers on earth who claim the evidence free CD nonsense are in 911 truth, and represent less than 0.1 percent of all engineers. Much less, because no 911 truth source has polled every so called engineer 911 truth claims to have support from. Which means 911 truth is backed for the fantasy of CD at much less than 0.01 percent of all earth's engineers.

The interest in the corroded steel is for safety, and was not a cause of the collapse. The corrosion most likely happened after 911. The acid rain is a valid assumption to study. Reading the report shows steel already corroded would be more likely to suffer the corrosion attack in the fires after the collapse. Steel with no prior corrosion would have primer/coatings to protect from corrosion. Acid rain is a valid research tangent, whereas CD is not; and not supported by this report.

Where does 911 truth fantasy CD plot purchase silent no blast effects magic explosives which cause corrosion to steel which mimics what the study found? Magical explosives, where does 911 truth get them.

We do know the source of the eutectic attack, it is in the paper; albeit you want different level of abstraction (does your cause of the corrosion have match scientifically); I understand we don't know what in the WTC contributed to the, Oxygen (oops, thousands of things, ignore air, it will help to ignore the report conclusion, of corrosion), and the things with sulfur compounds in them (oops, thousands more, but ignore them). You can't dismiss possible pre 911 corrosion from acid rain (what did you call it), or leaks of substances, which could corrode the steel before 911, which help contribute to a more rapid corrosion in the pile after 911.

The report clearly shows no signs of CD for the steel studied; and no damage from explosives found on any steel. The scientist were hot to study any interesting steel, where is the evidence for CD? Not in this thread. NOt in this report.
You posted videos of gravity collapses started by explosives, debunking CD is the only way buildings fall. The explosives don't make the building fall rapid, gravity does, and explosives don't leave corrosion at 1000 and 800 C. Then the 67 percent right, 33 percent wrong "expert", who says no CD on the towers. Explosives start the collapse in seconds, gravity does the rest; fire caused failure of steel, gravity does the rest. Why are the fantasy explosives so slow on 911 to make the building collapse? Where do you find explosives which are not cooked off in fire? Another magical feature of fantasy CD, explosives which are fire proof, and fuses, fireproof.


What caused the corrosion in the CD fantasy 911 truth version of 911? What is your cause for the corrosion?
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf
 

ETB

New Member
Is that in a science book, or what? You are joking, right?
Related to the corroded steel how? A fantasy of CD. Appears to be CD, based on zero evidence. Where as, appears to be fire, has many joules of heat energy evidence, photos, fire, and steel fails in fire, and steel structure fail in fire.
What engineering book says explosives are the only know cause for "rapid" slower than freefall, over 16 seconds, building failure like WTC 7. Page number and source please.

Not one building on 911 was a rapid failure. The towers fell at a rate consistent with the structures engineering and design - the Chief Structural Engineer agrees with me. WTC 7, took over 16 seconds to collapse, which is very slow. Ignoring the interior collapse in the WTC for 10 to 12 seconds before the single tracked point of a roof line begins to fall is called what? Ignoring evidence is what in science? Fraud, dishonesty, what is it?

The reality of CD, primary energy is gravity; E=mgh released by tiny amount of explosives, which means gravity is the main driver. Thus, the only known cause of rapid total tall building failure is gravity. This is in science books, where as the process of CD being the only way for building to fall down is not in science books, it is made up by 911 truth. And how do we relate this to corroded steel, most likely occurring after 911 in the debris piles.

The only engineers on earth who claim the evidence free CD nonsense are in 911 truth, and represent less than 0.1 percent of all engineers. Much less, because no 911 truth source has polled every so called engineer 911 truth claims to have support from. Which means 911 truth is backed for the fantasy of CD at much less than 0.01 percent of all earth's engineers.

The interest in the corroded steel is for safety, and was not a cause of the collapse. The corrosion most likely happened after 911. The acid rain is a valid assumption to study. Reading the report shows steel already corroded would be more likely to suffer the corrosion attack in the fires after the collapse. Steel with no prior corrosion would have primer/coatings to protect from corrosion. Acid rain is a valid research tangent, whereas CD is not; and not supported by this report.

Where does 911 truth fantasy CD plot purchase silent no blast effects magic explosives which cause corrosion to steel which mimics what the study found? Magical explosives, where does 911 truth get them.

We do know the source of the eutectic attack, it is in the paper; albeit you want different level of abstraction (does your cause of the corrosion have match scientifically); I understand we don't know what in the WTC contributed to the, Oxygen (oops, thousands of things, ignore air, it will help to ignore the report conclusion, of corrosion), and the things with sulfur compounds in them (oops, thousands more, but ignore them). You can't dismiss possible pre 911 corrosion from acid rain (what did you call it), or leaks of substances, which could corrode the steel before 911, which help contribute to a more rapid corrosion in the pile after 911.

The report clearly shows no signs of CD for the steel studied; and no damage from explosives found on any steel. The scientist were hot to study any interesting steel, where is the evidence for CD? Not in this thread. NOt in this report.
You posted videos of gravity collapses started by explosives, debunking CD is the only way buildings fall. The explosives don't make the building fall rapid, gravity does, and explosives don't leave corrosion at 1000 and 800 C. Then the 67 percent right, 33 percent wrong "expert", who says no CD on the towers. Explosives start the collapse in seconds, gravity does the rest; fire caused failure of steel, gravity does the rest. Why are the fantasy explosives so slow on 911 to make the building collapse? Where do you find explosives which are not cooked off in fire? Another magical feature of fantasy CD, explosives which are fire proof, and fuses, fireproof.


What caused the corrosion in the CD fantasy 911 truth version of 911? What is your cause for the corrosion?
https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf

Well as stated, yet unpopular, at the near surface as the front of crystalline transformation, inter-granular melting, proceeded into the WTC steel. According to the FEMA Appendix C report.
C.3Summary for Sample 1
1.The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of
oxidation and sulfidation.
2.Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3.The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

According to professor Prof Richard Sisson Worcester Polytechnic Institute the agent that manifested this liquefaction.

"Well it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as
a liquid that contained iron oxygen and sulfur."

As for what 'slag' is it simply an undesirable byproduct of a smelting process, can it melt steel, obviously why are slag buckets lined with refractory ceramics? Within the context of iron production does it contain molten iron, of course it does. Within the context of 9/11 it is clear what it did and it begs the question how did it get there.

Again just to clear up any confusion about what an iron sulfur and oxygen bearing slag looks like.

 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
...
Again just to clear up any confusion about what an iron sulfur and oxygen bearing slag looks like.

Which is not melted steel, it is slag. Good work, you proved it was not melted steel again, the same as the paper.

Slag is not steel. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_&_steel_slag/islagmyb02.pdf

Let us define slag...
Steel slag, a by-product of steel making, is produced during the separation of the molten steel from impurities in steel-making furnaces. The slag occurs as a molten liquid melt and is a complex solution of silicates and oxides that solidifies upon cooling.
Let us clear up any confusion about what steel is, it is not slag.

No melted steel on 911, and the steel in the report was corroded, no matter how many times liquified is quote mined out of context, without the supporting text of the paper. Which clearly explains, at least to chemical engineers and laypeople who can comprehend what they read.

""a liquid that contained iron oxygen and sulfur"" at those temperatures and concentrations is not steel. No big deal, but what is the point?

Are you saying slag is steel? Why is slag waste?

What are you saying, besides nothing but repeating liquefied; you made no point, no conclusion. What do you suspect the cause of the corrosion? The corrosion you seem to think is melted steel at 1000 C. What is the point. Explain.

Ironically, the slag stays liquid below the melting point of steel. More proof of no melted steel, and proof it is not steel, it is slag.
Your slag video might of been hotter slag, than the china video...
Slag, more proof no melted steel. How much oxygen is in your melted steel?
 

ETB

New Member
Which is not melted steel, it is slag. Good work, you proved it was not melted steel again, the same as the paper.

Slag is not steel. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/iron_&_steel_slag/islagmyb02.pdf

Let us define slag...
Steel slag, a by-product of steel making, is produced during the separation of the molten steel from impurities in steel-making furnaces. The slag occurs as a molten liquid melt and is a complex solution of silicates and oxides that solidifies upon cooling.
Let us clear up any confusion about what steel is, it is not slag.

No melted steel on 911, and the steel in the report was corroded, no matter how many times liquified is quote mined out of context, without the supporting text of the paper. Which clearly explains, at least to chemical engineers and laypeople who can comprehend what they read.

""a liquid that contained iron oxygen and sulfur"" at those temperatures and concentrations is not steel. No big deal, but what is the point?

Are you saying slag is steel? Why is slag waste?

What are you saying, besides nothing but repeating liquefied; you made no point, no conclusion. What do you suspect the cause of the corrosion? The corrosion you seem to think is melted steel at 1000 C. What is the point. Explain.

Ironically, the slag stays liquid below the melting point of steel. More proof of no melted steel, and proof it is not steel, it is slag.

Your down to trying to split hairs length ways the professor used the term 'slag' as a convenient term to define a phenomena present at the 9/11 WTC site, not as a description of industrial steel production. A phenomena that the FEMA Appendix C report stated acted on WTC structural members so as to have acted on it's re-solidified near surface layers in which the steel's as milled state had decayed through inter-granular melting, yet deeper layers remained as milled, quote "Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel." The same steel members that Dr John L Gross was photographed with in 2002, who later denied the presence of molten steel at the 9/11 WTC site in 2006. The technical composition of the nature of steel refinery slag isn't the point, the chemistry of the 'slag' at the 9/11 WTC site is well understood and it's action clear, yet totally inexplicable within the official conspiracy narrative. Perhaps they flew steel refineries into the towers and some of it flew 200 yards into WTC7, what do you think? http://s1222.photobucket.com/user/danp5648/media/swisscheese2.jpg.html
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I won my own bet:

I asked two simple, straight questions.
Addressed directly at ETB:
  1. "Is slag = steel? YES or NO?"
  2. "When Sisson says "a liquid that contained iron, oxygen and sulfur" (note: I added a comma that you left out), does he mean elemental iron, elemental oxygen and elemental sulfur, or does he mean chemical compounds containing Fe, O and S - such as FeO and FeS?"
I asked him to answer them straight and honestly.
I predicted that he would never ever give straight and honest answers.
ETB completely ignored my questions.
And did not answer them.
At all.
Not straight.
Not honest.
ETB is a "Truther".

I won my own bet.



Oh - and ETB, please, please pleeeeeaaaase learn to use the QUOTE tags - it's easy! You're failing to do what every fool can do makes you look like you are dumb or just don't care!
 

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
MY POST WOULD BE HERE, BUT I MESSED UP THE QOUTE... MORE QUOTE MINING, AND NO EVIDENCE FOR MELTED STEEL...
You mixed my post with your post... fix the quote, you are making me look bad.

What is the point? There was no melted steel; steel was corroded at 1000 C, down to 800 C. Steel did not melt, you don't understand chemical engineering, get some help from an engineer. I am an engineer; from an engineering viewpoint, the paper clearly presents evidence there was no melted steel; steel does not melt at 1000 C.

What is your point? No matter how many times you show corroded steel, it remains corroded steel, not melted steel. There was no pools of melted steel, no rivers of melted steel, no melted steel.

You like to look up melting points, what is the melting point of steel? - look it up -
What is the typical maximum temperature of office fires? (1100 C)

What is the high temperatures which the steel corroded at? 800 - 1000 C


No. Insensitive munitions of some kind are at least as likely a source of the sulfur as acid rain. Can you point to a single case of the rapid total failure of a steel-framed high-rise where explosives were not involved? I do not think you can.
No evidence yet?
What munitions? Fantasy munitions which are fire proof, and munitions which are silent, quieter than collapsing buildings. Munitions which form a eutectic at or below 1000 C, is this magic or what. Magic munitions which leave no blast damage? Where do you find explosives that are fire proof? Please reference them.

How do your munitions make steel look like corrosion in fire at 1000 C? Is this a new secret weapon, which makes steel look like it was corroded? Makes a eutectic to fool chemical engineers into thinking the steel was corroded?

The acid rain attack prior to 911 is a valid tangent, the insensitive munitions is a fantasy not supported by evidence.

Fire destroys the strength of steel. The "rapid" total failure? LOL, WTC 7 burned for hours, that is not a rapid collapse, it is a many hours total failure caused by fire. Please don't say the 911 truth tag line of "own foot print".

There were no rapid total failure on 911.
Where can I buy the fire proof silent explosives that corrode steel?
 
Last edited:

ETB

New Member
You mixed my post with your post... fix the quote, you are making me look bad.

What is the point? There was no melted steel; steel was corroded at 1000 C, down to 800 C. Steel did not melt, you don't understand chemical engineering, get some help from an engineer. I am an engineer; from an engineering viewpoint, the paper clearly presents evidence there was no melted steel; steel does not melt at 1000 C.

What is your point? No matter how many times you show corroded steel, it remains corroded steel, not melted steel. There was no pools of melted steel, no rivers of melted steel, no melted steel.

You like to look up melting points, what is the melting point of steel? - look it up -
What is the typical maximum temperature of office fires? (1100 C)

What is the high temperatures which the steel corroded at? 800 - 1000 C


No evidence yet?
What munitions? Fantasy munitions which are fire proof, and munitions which are silent, quieter than collapsing buildings. Munitions which form a eutectic at or below 1000 C, is this magic or what. Magic munitions which leave no blast damage? Where do you find explosives that are fire proof? Please reference them.

How do your munitions make steel look like corrosion in fire at 1000 C? Is this a new secret weapon, which makes steel look like it was corroded? Makes a eutectic to fool chemical engineers into thinking the steel was corroded?

The acid rain attack prior to 911 is a valid tangent, the insensitive munitions is a fantasy not supported by evidence.

Fire destroys the strength of steel. The "rapid" total failure? LOL, WTC 7 burned for hours, that is not a rapid collapse, it is a many hours total failure caused by fire. Please don't say the 911 truth tag line of "own foot print".

There were no rapid total failure on 911.
Where can I buy the fire proof silent explosives that corrode steel?

Your off topic but as with molten iron/steel being present at the WTC 9/11 site you are left just like NIST with claims to marginalia which ignore not only the most profound forensics, the macro physics but also the chemical forensics, 1st hand witness and well known recordings. In this case it's like NIST's 'No explosive forensics to do here because their just wasn't any booms', nonsense. (1) As with the topic of this tread, trying to ignore the molten iron slag that liquefied WTC steel that Dr John L Gross 'No molten metal to see here.' (2) has to ignore by also ignoring his own left arm and as with all official 9/11 conspiracy believers as proposed by the 9/11 commission who have to totally ignore NYFD first responder witness (3).
1: 2: http://s1222.photobucket.com/user/danp5648/media/swisscheese2.jpg.html
3:
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
There is ZERO evidence for molten steel at the site. Corroded steel is not the same. The structure of steel changes with temp.
 

ETB

New Member
Yes, steel changes with temperature eventually it melts! However writing ZERO in upper caps in relation to a claim made to real world events without evidence proves ZERO.
There is ZERO evidence for molten steel at the site. Corroded steel is not the same. The structure of steel changes with temp.
 

ETB

New Member
How long have you been winning mass debates with yourself based on asking leading questions that establish false dichotomies? See what I did there that's why I simply answered your leading question with one of my own. Notice that I then went onto quote:

Prof Richard Sisson Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
"Well it was attacked by what we determined was a liquid slag. When we did the analysis we actually identified it as
a liquid that contained iron oxygen and sulfur."

Which naturally answered your question then you had to wriggle and squiggle around the word 'slag'. Slag is a common term used in a variety of metal smelting processes wherein floating waste and impurities are skimmed off the top of molten metal. In regards to steel production it is skimmed off the top of crucibles full of, guess what, molten steel! Slag as a waste byproduct of commercial steel production usually contains some molten steel however what prof Sisson is referring to is the agent which FEMA stated 'liquefied' 9/11 WTC steel, not industrial steel production waste. What Prof Sisson is referring to has no reason to have been present within the official 9/11 conspiracy narrative, however it sure does fit within the proposition that thermitic reactions occurred in the WTC buildings on 9/11.

Finally my own humble request please stop using ad-hominems such as 'truther' it makes it seem as if you've been reduced to school yard taunts.
I won my own bet:

I asked two simple, straight questions.
Addressed directly at ETB:
  1. "Is slag = steel? YES or NO?"
  2. "When Sisson says "a liquid that contained iron, oxygen and sulfur" (note: I added a comma that you left out), does he mean elemental iron, elemental oxygen and elemental sulfur, or does he mean chemical compounds containing Fe, O and S - such as FeO and FeS?"
I asked him to answer them straight and honestly.
I predicted that he would never ever give straight and honest answers.
ETB completely ignored my questions.
And did not answer them.
At all.
Not straight.
Not honest.
ETB is a "Truther".

I won my own bet.



Oh - and ETB, please, please pleeeeeaaaase learn to use the QUOTE tags - it's easy! You're failing to do what every fool can do makes you look like you are dumb or just don't care!
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
So you cherry pick his comments to fit your beliefs, instead of using his entire comments.

 

ETB

New Member
Agreed, in an environment hot enough to form iron sulfur and oxygen slag that liquefied steel yes a lot of chemical reactions could occur, however such temperatures simply don't fit in within the official 9/11 conspiracy narrative.

So you cherry pick his comments to fit your beliefs, instead of using his entire comments.

 

Related Articles

Top