FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC - The Tower Collapses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:30 pm    Post subject: More metal... Reply with quote

Quote:
The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes.
A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.


A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.

From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.

The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples. They are continuing their microscopic studies on the samples prepared by graduate student Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio, the 2001–02 Helen E. Stoddard Materials Science and Engineering Fellow. (Next year's Stoddard Fellow, Erin Sullivan, will take up this work as part of her graduate studies.) Publication of their results may clear up some mysteries that have confounded the scientific community.

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

This, of course, ties in with Jones et al's 'thermite' theories. I'll try and dig up the follow-up report that was supposed to be in the pipeline.

Here was a follow-up talk from 2004:

Quote:
Metallographic Examination of Heavily Eroded Structural Steel from World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 and 7
George F. Vander Voort, Ronald R. Biederman, Rick Sisson and Erin Sullivan
Buehler Ltd, Lake Bluff, Illinois USA
December 14, 2004 5:30 PM
Abstract

The collapse of the World Trade Center buildings after the September 11, 2001 attach was unexpected, sudden and dramatic. The attack destroy buildings 1 and 2, each hit by a Boeing 767 (each ~200 ton, at ~300 mph, carrying ~60,000 pounds of jet fuel), and also building 7, which housed the fuel oil for heating the center. During the subsequent clean up of the site, several severely eroded structural steel beams were observed and saved for examination. They were made from A 36 structural steel and from Cu-strengthened HSLA steel. These beams, about 12 mm thick originally, were eroded to perforation.

The talk will describe the microstructural features observed in specimens of A 36 and the HSLA beams from these buildings, particularly building 7.
from http://dunand.northwestern.edu/news/wtc-talk.htm

Apologies if this is old news to everyone, but I don't think I've come across this particular study before. It says that it's part of the Appendix C of the official report, and that it was performed on official, known samples from the WTC buildings as opposed to Jones' unsubstantiated samples with no chain of custody.

Here's what a welder had to say in a forum in response to someone posting this study:

Quote:
'm a welder, a little bit anyway, and I really think that steel is cool stuff. I have studied it (steel) and know for sure that your are not going to get these reactions from acid rain, for heaven's sake.

I think that they are full of baloney on the eutectic point thing with with sulfur in coal used by blacksmiths too. My understanding is that blacksmiths burned the sulfur out before putting steel in the forge. The "eutectic point" is where the carbon and iron melt together.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
unsubstantiated samples with no chain of custody

Exactly... this is exactly how they will dismantle all skeptics.

Without the 'chain of custody' (which, correct me if I am wrong) SJ has not brought forth...) the entire Thermite idea is as useless as tits on a bull.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eutectic reactions:



Also: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

It may be me, but I cannot see how eutectic reactions could account for the uniformity and "explosiveness" of the collapse, straight down as it were. If this happened and weakend the steel, the top portion would maybe cause a "pancaking" of a few floors then come to a halt or tip over. I think the more likely scenario is that this happened as a secondary phenomenon on the ground after the collapse.



As a post in the PhysOrg.com forum says
Quote:
Just because the materials may exist, does not mean that they are in a form ready for such a mixture. Nor does it mean that the physical requirements needed to produce such effects exist.

If I can give you a comparison...

That's like like trying to say you will get the contents of a bakery if you set your kitchen on fire.

The scientific material must be placed in its appropriate context.


Also:
Quote:
Firstly, the Eutectic reaction beginning "naturally" inside the building is unlikely. The same compounds that are meant to produce this reaction would have covered the people inside the building during the impact. The same Eutectic reaction would begin on their skin leaving mild chemical burns and lung damage. Both people and the central columns were exposed for the same length of time.

Secondly, whilst a Eutectic reaction may lower the boiling point, it does not change the temperature indicated by colour. The metal beams observed on my site are still too hot for their surrounding environment by several hundred degrees.

http://www.gieis.uni.cc/

Eutectic reactions of this nature require it to be evenly mixed in specific ratios to progress. Too little or too much will slow or halt the progression of the reaction. Additional compounds will also effect the spread of the Eutectic mixture, inhibiting it. Add to that what I said earlier, about no supporting material evidence and that Occam's razor would suggest it is a result of exposure after the collapse. Plus, statistically speaking, given a choice between less than 2 hours inside or several weeks outside, the latter scenario would be more plausible.

As for the jet fuel, it burnt off in minutes according to NIST's report. Copper has a melting point of 1083C, the temperature colour chart reading of the molten copper, also agrees with 1080C. The autoignition point of jet fuel is around 425°C with a maximum temperature in an oxygen deficient fire of around 800C. According to NIST, most places saw temperatures of around 250C and no sample was exposed to a fire of more than 600C.

There is simply no evidence to support temperatures that can melt copper prior to the collapse nor produce the temperatures recorded in the steel.

An accelerant is a logical solution to the paradox.


Cursory link: http://mjndeweb.ms.ornl.gov/Babu/Teaching/Brazil/NiTalk/sld028.htm

Thermite:

As for thermite:
D.P. Grimmer wrote:
Grimmer: if a coating slightly less than 2" thick of a thermite coating were applied to the outer surface of any box column, that is sufficient chemical compound to melt that column section. A protective, insulating and cosmetic/disguising layer (e.g. fiberglass/foam) 1" or less would also be helpful.
Did you catch that this compound would have to be applied directly to the steel superstructure? Are you going to overlook the fact that such structures were not publicly accessible?


Grimmer: http://www.physics911.ca/Grimmer:_Possible_Use_Of_Thermite_in_WTC

Again, could thermite (Thermite was invented in 1893 and patented in 1895) have been applied at the time of construction? Do we know of any of the thousands of construction workers may have info on this? Are they among the 63 that died during construction? (haven't checked out, just feeling conspiratorial... Wink)

A calculation of how many people it would take to place the thermite:
www.gieis.uni.cc wrote:
Independent Analysis of Scientific Evidence Relating to 9/11
All The Latest Information...


Let's examine the logistical requirements of planting 20,000lbs of thermite or conventional explosive. We must first determine that the physical transportation of materials onto the site is possible and that method is portable.

We'll begin by converting our units to metric for easier reading:

20,000 lbs
= 9090.9 kg
= 9.0909 Tonnes

9 tonnes may seem a lot, but as I'll soon show you, many hands do indeed make light work. Assuming 50 people were involved, that would require each to plant:

181.818 Kg

That would require 3 trips, carrying approximately 60kg per trip. Assuming a generic device size of around 3kg, that would be 20 devices per trip, or 60 devices per man in total. For a mental reference, the average weight for a male adult in the US is around 76-83 kg according to Wikipedia.

60 Devices * 50 people = 3000 devices

As each building had 110 floors, that gives us 220 floors in total. We can spread these 50 people so that we have 1 person for every 4 floors, across both buildings and ignore the bottom 10 floors, leaving us with 200 floors to cover.

Each man would then place 15 devices on each of the 4 floors assigned to him.

50 peopele * 4 floors = 200 floors
(15 devices x 4 floors) * 50 people = 3000 locations/devices

So, that's 1500 devices and 25 men per building.

Thus, it is feasible for there to be as little as 33 people involved if each carried 90kg. Gaining access has numerous plausible scenarios and only requires a window of 5 minutes. Given a good hiding spot for the devices, 1 person could move across 4 floors, positioning 60 devices, in 3-4 hours.

So, here is a quick table:

50 people - about 3-4 hours
100 people - about 1.5-2 hours
150 people - about an hour

Numerous other variations of this basic analysis will also function just as well. As you can see, it would be pretty easy for any organisation of sufficent size involved in organised crime.


http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/ad1/index.html

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."



Last edited by DeepLogos on Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:42 pm    Post subject: ... Reply with quote

DeepLogos said:
Quote:
It may be me, but I cannot see how eutectic reactions could account for the uniformity and "explosiveness" of the collapse, straight down as it were. If this happened and weakend the steel, the top portion would maybe cause a "pancaking" of a few floors then come to a halt or tip over. I think the more likely scenario is that this happened as a secondary phenomenon on the ground after the collapse.

For sure, I don't think that eutectic reactions *alone* would be able to account for a lot of what was seen in the Towers that day.

But - how about that the eutectic reactions weakened the structure, to the point where a realatively much smaller amount, of possibly exotic explosives could have caused the rest of the collapse?

I can't think of many plausible reasons for the eutactic reactions to 'just happen' secondarily, while they're just lying around - I mean, 'acid rain'? Come on. Wink

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A few pictures to point out oddeties:

1) Explotions:

www.explosive911analysis.com wrote:
Possibly White Aluminum Oxide Smoke From A Possible Thermite Reaction Emerging From The Base Of WTC 2 During The Onset Of It's Collapse, 9/11/2001:



Possibly White Aluminum Oxide Smoke Bursting From The WTC 2 Structure During It's Collapse, Possibly Due To Collapse Related Air Pressure Changes, 9/11/2001:



Falling Core Columns Of WTC 1 Post Collapse, With Possibly White Aluminum Oxide Smoke Streaming From Potentially Still Super-Heated Severed Column Ends, 9/11/2001:



2) Thermite:

www.explosive911analysis.com also wrote:
Severed WTC Steel Column End Exhibiting Signs Of Possible High Temperature Thermite Reaction:



WTC Steel From WTC Monument Exhibiting Signs Of High Temperature Thermite Cutting:



-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An open e-mail from David Hawkins to the "king and the prince" of 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
David Hawkins, forensic economist wrote:
Did 9/11 war game contractors rig up WTC elevators like rockets?
Open e-mail sent August 1, 2001

Jim Fetzer,
Distinguished McKnight University Professor (retired) of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota Co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://www.st911.org/

Steven Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University
Co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://www.st911.org/

From:
David Hawkins, Forensic Economist at Hawks' CAFE
Foundation Scholar, Cambridge University
British Columbia, Canada Tel: 604-542-0891

http://valis.cjb.cc/HawksCAFE/

Ccs, bcc

Dear Professor Jones and Professor Fetzer:

I am asking if the Teachers (TIAA-CREF) two main sub-contractors for the 'Global Guardian' 9/11 war games, AMEC and Boeing, could have quickly re-rigged the World Trade Center towers with explosives or incendiaries and thereby changed the style of demolition (WTC# 1 and 2 collapsed top down - WTC# 7 collapsed bottom up) to achieve the maximum of 'shock and awe'.

AMEC could have used selected freight or passsenger elevators, with sub-basement access, to position small rocket engines supplied by Boeing or Raytheon (1997 director being the disgraced ex-CIA boss and MIT professor of chemistry, John Deutch).

Boeing's or Raytheon's rocket engines would have been initiated with shock-tube detonators wired in a harness carrying elevator-control cabling though the basement levels to the Mayor's Office of Emergency Managment on the 23rd floor of WTC#7.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html

The demolition team, assembled in the OEM of WTC#7, would have a bird's eye view to monitor what Dr. Thomas Barnett, the ex-professor of Marxism at Harvard and the organizer of bogus war games atop the North Tower, called the "first live-broadcast mass snuff film in history".
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/wsj.htm

With clear lines of sight, the 9/11 assassination and demolition teams could then run the elevators in each building up or down to the levels from where they wanted ignition of the rockets initiated - that's why certain elevators were locked off from the public.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-wtc7-lg.jpg

The war-game contractors could thereby simulate immediate collapse or a delayed collapse from the aircraft or a classical bottom-up demolition as in WTC#7.

N.B. they would have wanted to trap and kill victims who might otherwise bear expert witness to the use of arson to destroy evidene of securities and insurance scams e.g. the doomed New York firefighters with the apparently-jammed Motorola analog radios.

Mike Zafirowski, president of the Personal Communications Sector of Motorola which - in my opinion - helped the New York firefighters to die on 9/11, became a Boeing director in 2004 and Nortel's president and CEO in 2005.

In the same year (2004) that Zafirowski joined Boeing, Lockheed sued Boeing, alleging a violation of the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and referred to a separate federal grand jury probe involving Boeing in Los Angeles which Lockheed maintains show a 14-year "pattern" of illegal activity by Boeing.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0448/041126_news_lockheed.php

The next year, "Motorola Corp. filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent Mike Zafirovski from taking the helm of Nortel Networks Corp .. According to the complaint, Zafirovski is unable to perform without disclosing Motorola trade secrets"

I would be grateful for your thoughts.

Yours sincerely,


David Hawkins


Also:
Quote:
HawksCAFE @ ARG
Forensics on 9/11 flights into WTC, Pentagon; UA93
Co-hosts, S9/11T's David Hawkins and D’Anne Burley, invite you join them in the second episode of the “Black Hawk In” (Investigation) Show broadcast on www.rbnlive.com 10:00 pm – 12:00 pm Central Time, Saturday, June 3rd, 2006.

Program guests include Ross Aims, Aviation Expert and 30 yr Vet of United and American Airlines & Gary, Military Pilot and expert in avionics just back from Iraq and other experts in the field of investigation of 9/11

Archived MP3: Hour One | Hour Two
--------
A little intro to Hawkins financial theories (pluss other aspects relating to 9/11):
Dr. Joe Hawkins interviews David Hawkins (07/23/06)


Davids Hawkins' bio here >>

Check out David Hawkins at Hawks Café

Plenty of info regarding finances, wargames (contracters) and tech. I need to digest some of it... Wink

Much of his research relates to 'Qui Bono', and I will study his research a bit closer and post there when it is up and running.

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
moylan



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure if someone has raised this yet, but it seems another point against the notion that kerosine and kerosine-accelelerated fires would be able to raise the temperature of structural steel, and keep it there long enough for softening to occur.

The notion seems to rely on removing from the mind the rest of the steel in the buildings. In other words, one is invited to picture fire heating steel, the heat building up, and the steel loosening, as if what was under discussion was a sample in a laboratory, isolated in a 'closed system'.

But these were thousand-foot buildings, with steel girders welded and bolted together from top to bottom. So if heat were applied, owing to the excellent conductivity of steel, this heat would dissipate throughout the structure. Far from heat building up at one point in the structure, enough to weaken the steel at that point and trigger a collapse, the process could not even get started. What needs to be considered is not merely the point at which structural steel begins to weaken, but how much energy would need to be applied to raise the temperature of the entire structure far enough to cause a weakening.

It can be suggested immediately that the amount of energy required would be colossal. Under normal circumstances, a high-temperature flame must be applied to a steel joint so that it can fuse together. This flame needs to be created with compressed oxygen; the temperature of the flame needs to be far in excess of the actual melting point of steel, because the created heat will immediately dissipate to all parts of the steel.

What we are asked to believe is that kerosine applied to a 1,368-foot high structure was able to raise the temperature of the steel at certain points only, far enough to weaken the steel at those points, without this built-up heat dissipating into the rest of the structure. But this is physically impossible. What would be required for this would be for all the steel sections to be isolated/insulated from one another, thus preventing the spread of heat.

But this is also impossible, because one of the advantages of steel-framed structures is their ability to withstand high temperatures by bleeding off applied heat to all parts. The higher the building, the greater the heat-retaining capacity.

So the weakening of the steel could not even have started.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thermal conductivity of steel is worth considering in the research into the collapse, but I am uncertain as to which type of steel was used in WTC (stainless steel has low conductivity):
Outo Kumpu wrote:
Stainless steels are poor conductors of heat, and the thermal conductivity of all types of stainless steel falls off with increasing alloy, see table below.

Austenitic steels have the lowest thermal conductivity, while ferritic and martensitic steels have better conductivity.

The low thermal conductivity means that, for a given machining operation, the cutting edge temperatures are higher in stainless steel than in carbon steel. This naturally imposes severe requirements on the high-temperature hardness of the cutting edge and on its ability to withstand high temperatures.

http://www.outokumpu.com/pages/Page____5764.aspx

HyperTextBook on Physics wrote:
Copper is one of the best conductors of heat available (only silver has a higher thermal conductivity), while stainless steel is a relatively mediocre conductor (mercury is one of the few metals with a lower thermal conductivity).

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

Regardless, jet fuel/ carosine couldn't have attributed much to the collapses. Nor do i think other processes (eutectic reactions) had weakend the steel, as it was certified by Underwriters Laboratory.

Basic conductivity of a few basic metals:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html
Other materials:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

On a cursory note; quite intersting: http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD254401&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeepLogos said:
Quote:
The thermal conductivity of steel is worth considering in the research into the collapse, but I am uncertain as to which type of steel was used in WTC (stainless steel has low conductivity):

Awww, DL, *sniff*, don't you read my posts?

Continuity said, from above:
Quote:
structural steel beams were observed and saved for examination. They were made from A 36 structural steel and from Cu-strengthened HSLA steel. These beams, about 12 mm thick originally, were eroded to perforation.


DeepLogos said:
Quote:
Nor do i think other processes (eutectic reactions) had weakend the steel, as it was certified by Underwriters Laboratory.

Unless I'm being *really* dumb, here, and missing somthing - the steel (or the samples used thereof. (1-in-5, 1-in-10, all of them?)) was gonna be OK when UL certified it, but the eutectic reactions happened sometime after construction, but before the collapse.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, Continuity...Embarassed I read you posts with great interest, and it was in the back of my head. The post was written just before I left work, and I was in somewhat of a hurry...

Arrrgh, too much info... Wink I try to read most of it, though, but...

I meant to reply to your post too, but it slipped my mind.. [Embarassed again...]

Apology accepted?

As for Cu-strengthened steel (alloy), now that would probably lead heat better (distribute it)?

I think I am being dumb here, eutactic reactions may have weakened the steel to a certain point (the phenomenon has been going back and forth in my head for a few days now), and I concur that acid rain is a not very likely contributor to this when on the ground. A smaller amount of explosives (of some sort) may have been needed to bring down the towers, but I don't think whoever did it was going to count on this process taking place?

Cursory on corrosion:
Science Directt wrote:
Hydrogen induced brittle crack growth in Cu-strengthened HSLA-100 steels

I. ChattorajCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, M. Tarafder, Swapan K. Das and S.Tarafder

National Metallurgical Laboratory, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Jamshedpur 831007, India

Received 17 May 2001; revised 1 February 2002. Available online 1 April 2002.


Abstract

The annular brittle cracking in notched samples of an HSLA-100 steel has been studied by crack interrupts. The average crack growth rate was found to be geometry and strain rate dependent. Suitable normalisation led to a generalised expression for crack growth rates that was strain rate and geometry independent. The crack growth rates were found to be directly proportional to a ‘critical product’ namely {KIcrack-tip·CHcrack-tip}. The crack initiation threshold for notched specimens showed an inverse exponential relationship with the notch tip hydrogen concentration. The crack tip hydrogen concentration was best represented by a hydrostatic stress equilibrated concentration for shallow notched specimens. Hydrogen deficiency in deep notches necessitated the use of a ‘frozen-in’ concentration approach for determining the crack tip hydrogen.
Link >>


Do anybody know the name of the 'critical product' mentioned above?

Corrosion Doctors wrote:
Hydrogen Embrittlement

This is a type of deterioration which can be linked to corrosion and corrosion-control processes. It involves the ingress of hydrogen into a component, an event that can seriously reduce the ductility and load-bearing capacity, cause cracking and catastrophic brittle failures at stresses below the yield stress of susceptible materials. Hydrogen embrittlement occurs in a number of forms but the common features are an applied tensile stress and hydrogen dissolved in the metal. Examples of hydrogen embrittlement are cracking of weldments or hardened steels when exposed to conditions which inject hydrogen into the component. Presently this phenomenon is not completely understood and hydrogen embrittlement detection, in particular, seems to be one of the most difficult aspects of the problem. Hydrogen embrittlement does not affect all metallic materials equally. The most vulnerable are high-strength steels, titanium alloys and aluminum alloys.
Sources of Hydrogen

Sources of hydrogen causing embrittlement have been encountered in the making of steel, in processing parts, in welding, in storage or containment of hydrogen gas, and related to hydrogen as a contaminant in the environment that is often a by-product of general corrosion. It is the latter that concerns the nuclear industry. Hydrogen may be produced by corrosion reactions such as rusting, cathodic protection, and electroplating. Hydrogen may also be added to reactor coolant to remove oxygen from reactor coolant systems. Hydrogen entry, the obvious pre-requisite of embrittlement, can be facilitated in a number of ways summarized below: (Defence Standard 03-30, October 2000)

1. by some manufacturing operations such as welding, electroplating, phosphating and pickling; if a material subject to such operations is susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement then a final, baking heat treatment to expel any hydrogen is employed
2. as a by-product of a corrosion reaction such as in circumstances when the hydrogen production reaction (Equation 2) acts as the cathodic reaction since some of the hydrogen produced may enter the metal in atomic form rather than be all evolved as a gas into the surrounding environment. In this situation, cracking failures can often be thought of as a type of stress corrosion cracking. If the presence of hydrogen sulfide causes entry of hydrogen into the component, the cracking phenomenon is often termed “sulphide stress cracking (SSC)”
3. the use of cathodic protection for corrosion protection if the process is not properly controlled.

Hydrogen Embrittlement of Stainless Steel

Hydrogen diffuses along the grain boundaries and combines with the carbon, which is alloyed with the iron, to form methane gas. The methane gas is not mobile and collects in small voids along the grain boundaries where it builds up enormous pressures that initiate cracks. Hydrogen embrittlement is a primary reason that the reactor coolant is maintained at a neutral or basic pH in plants without aluminum components.

If the metal is under a high tensile stress, brittle failure can occur. At normal room temperatures, the hydrogen atoms are absorbed into the metal lattice and diffused through the grains, tending to gather at inclusions or other lattice defects. If stress induces cracking under these conditions, the path is transgranular. At high temperatures, the absorbed hydrogen tends to gather in the grain boundaries and stress-induced cracking is then intergranular. The cracking of martensitic and precipitation hardened steel alloys is believed to be a form of hydrogen stress corrosion cracking that results from the entry into the metal of a portion of the atomic hydrogen that is produced in the following corrosion reaction.

Hydrogen embrittlement is not a permanent condition. If cracking does not occur and the environmental conditions are changed so that no hydrogen is generated on the surface of the metal, the hydrogen can rediffuse from the steel, so that ductility is restored.

To address the problem of hydrogen embrittlement, emphasis is placed on controlling the amount of residual hydrogen in steel, controlling the amount of hydrogen pickup in processing, developing alloys with improved resistance to hydrogen embrittlement, developing low or no embrittlement plating or coating processes, and restricting the amount of in-situ (in position) hydrogen introduced during the service life of a part.


Hydrogen. Hmmm....
----

As for the explosions, if thermate was used, this does not account for the level of explosiveness witnessed in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, does it? (steel beams and debris being shot horizontally out at high speeds from the onset of the collapse and all the way down) Something else in addition?

Any thoughts on David Hawkins' ideas?

Have a listen at this show:
http://www.stoplying.ca/media/or/or072306.mp3

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did some study of hydrogen powered vehicles and I recall that these vehicles use specialized carbon or hydride tanks to prevent hydrogen embrittlement. For example, this site sells hydride tanks:

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2products.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8143

PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:29 am    Post subject: The Thermite Angle Reply with quote

If we follow a "deliberate misdirection" explanation for S. Jones and his
thermite theory, then it begs the question: From what and why is he
misdirecting.

Maybe this:

Quote:
DeepLogos: It may be me, but I cannot see how eutectic
reactions could account for the uniformity and "explosiveness" of the
collapse
, straight down as it were. If this happened and weakend the
steel, the top portion would maybe cause a "pancaking" of a few floors
then come to a halt or tip over. I think the more likely scenario is that
this happened as a secondary phenomenon on the ground after the
collapse
.


Let's review:

We have multiple accounts of molten metal in the deep levels of the rubble.
We have what the NYT called the deepest mystery: eutectic steel samples.

According to official reports, this eutectic reaction may have been caused
by immersion or proximity of the steel samples to very high temperatures
/ molten metal at the base of the rubble.

So is S. Jones coming up with a 'conspiracy explanation' to acount for both
the eutectic reaction and molten steel --as a cover to fog the issue?

It worth notng that we are dealing here with a unique type of structure,
so the dynamics of inducing a perfect collapse are unique to this type
of skyscraper design. It's nothing remotely like the approach taken
in a classic 'controlled demolition.

Would a 'heat bomb' planted in the basement levels weaken the
structure and pre-load the building for collapse? Such a device would
leave no seismic trace.

One possibility is that weakening the core low down will cause the building
to collapse at the weakest points above --without demolition charges. But
I'm not ruling that out. Just thinking aloud. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 11 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.