FEMA had conducted a preliminary, very limited investigation of the collapses of all three WTC towers on 9/11. In Appendix C they discuss "two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field." In their conclusion, they stated:
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. [My emphasis] A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
FEMA makes clear that they had found samples of structural steel from WTC1 or 2 and from WTC7, and that they did not know if these samples "accelerated the weakening of the steel structure" prior to collapse. In other words, FEMA had uncovered what may have been relevant evidence in an explanation of the collapses of the WTC buildings. A proper investigation would have tried to determine what caused the corrosion of these samples, when it occurred, and whether it accelerated the weakening of the steel structures prior to collapse.
What sort of investigation did NIST perform relevant to these samples? None whatsoever. Zip. Zero. Nada.
Someone does not need to be an expert to see that NIST's failure to investigate what caused the corrosion of FEMA's steel samples is an example of ignoring relevant evidence.
Professional engineer Jonathan Cole did conduct experiments related to FEMA's samples. The first involved an attempt to reproduce it using materials that would have been present in a normal office fire: 9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel, but Cole was unable to produce similar samples:
However, when Cole performed his 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate, by using thermate he was able to produce samples that looked eerily similar to FEMA's samples:
No microscopic or metallurgic analysis has been done of Cole's samples, but his experiments are far more than anything NIST was willing to do to solve the mystery of FEMA's corroded steel. A person would need to be willfully blind to complain that a layperson has no reason to doubt that the NIST's official investigation included all the relevant evidence.
22 comments:
If there were any significance to the "mystery" of FEMA's corroded steel, would we expect a government agency like FEMA to have reported it in the first place?
Do you have any reason to think that the corroded steel is what we'd expect to see if the WTC buildings were destroyed with explosives or incendiaries?
Hi Mr.Hambre,
The question I was answering in this post was whether a layperson should have reasonable doubt that a proper investigation of the WTC collapses was performed.
FEMA pointed out that the samples were caused by a very unusual event,and noted that it was possible that corroded steel led to the weakening of the structures priorto collapse, and that a detailed study was needed. NIST performed no such study. Therefore, it is reasonable for a layperson to believe that no proper investigation of the WTC collapses was performed.
If you watch the second video above, The Great Thermate Debate, it ends showing steel that looks very much like the FEMA samples, produced by the use of thermate on a steel column. So yes, we have reason "to think that the corroded steel is what we'd expect to see if the WTC buildings were destroyed with explosives or incendiaries?"
The full quote from me was as follows:
"Seeing oneself as able to engage in a self-directed research program on a particular question within a discipline, sans even minimal mentorship or training in that discipline, and moreover at a level where one takes one's own judgments to be better than a large number of experts, is a kind of intellectual arrogance that I would find troubling in myself, and disappointing in others."
This is not accurately paraphrased as the question "whether a layperson should have reasonable doubt that a proper investigation of the WTC collapses was performed." (One could in theory, after all, come to this conclusion in a way independent of technical questions.)
Despite the irrelevant point being made in posting it, the passage from FEMA nevertheless illustrates my point relatively well, in at least the following two ways.
(1) The FEMA experts you cite see the apparent anomaly as being of interest with respect to building safety from long-burning fires. They apparently do not see it as a special threat to their theory of the collapse itself (that is, a threat above the level of anomalies typical of science, especially regarding complex historical events not taking place in an experimental setting). Those epistemically responsible inquirers who are not experts, and not willing to become experts, should seek some mentorship in evaluating what the implications of this anomaly are, why the overwhelming majority of experts haven't said this is a problem (again, beyond a typical anomaly worthy of further inquiry for independent reasons), and so on.
(2) As for the truther position on the eutectic steel question itself, evaluating this dispute is just straightforwardly an instance of my point, and so probably doesn't need further elaboration. Of course, on this and related topics one can find reams of discussion online, by experts and by apparently informed laypersons, e.g.:
On topic: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6744794#post6744794
Related and similar (but somewhat dated): https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb
Now while I could Google each term being used, selectively research each claim made about what's deceiving in science, normal in science, etc., this would constitute precisely the kind of irresponsible and "arrogant" self-guided research I have in mind (again, unless one becomes an expert or seeks the mentorship of one or many not involved in the dispute). (Notice, importantly, that laypeople copy-pasting the statements of truthers at the statements of non-truthers, and vice versa, is not a version of the sort of good epistemic practice I have in mind.)
JDB states:
"(1) The FEMA experts you cite see the apparent anomaly as being of interest with respect to building safety from long-burning fires. They apparently do not see it as a special threat to their theory of the collapse itself (that is, a threat above the level of anomalies typical of science, especially regarding complex historical events not taking place in an experimental setting)."
JDB, you state in this in direct contradiction to what FEMA stated. I'll re-quote them for your benefit:
"buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
In other words, FEMA is leaving open the possibility that corroded steel contributed to the collapse of the building. They would not say that a detailed study into this phenomenon is needed to determine the risk to existing standing steel structures, unless they suspected that it may have already contributed to the collapses of the WTC buildings.
Next, JDB, you say, "Those epistemically responsible inquirers who are not experts, and not willing to become experts, should seek some mentorship in evaluating what the implications of this anomaly are, why the overwhelming majority of experts haven't said this is a problem (again, beyond a typical anomaly worthy of further inquiry for independent reasons), and so on."
Epistemically responsible inquirers would carefully read what FEMA said and realize that no proper investigation was carried out by NIST.
As far as online discussions by experts and laypersons, have any of them carried out a detailed study of the phenomenon? Have any of them conducted the relevant experiments that would need to be done? Or do we just get discussions? You see, JDB, what the epistemically responsible inquirer would realize is that science is a field where actual experiments need to be performed in order to be considered science, and that discussions are not a substitute.
One more point, JDB: Have you queried "the overwhelming majority of experts," to see what they think the implications of the anomaly are? Or are you just assuming you know what the overwhelming majority of experts would say? I'm getting extremely tired of your quoting the silent majority in support of your position. Though you're too young to remember, that's exactly what Nixon and Agnew did.
Thanks for the reply to a subset of my comment. A few comments in reply to yours:
"you state in this in direct contradiction to what FEMA stated"
I was referring to their recommendation for further study, which was in the context of building safety, not in the context of providing a different overall theory. But you're right that I glossed over what you're referring to - which is FEMA stating that this phenomenon may have contributed to the collapse in the context of their overall theory. (In my defense: I didn't entirely gloss over it, because my use of "anomaly" presupposes its relevance to the collapse theory, which you apparently didn't notice.) Again, apparently they don't see the significance of the phenomenon in the way that you do. So my statement was correct: "They apparently do not see it as a special threat to their theory of the collapse itself." Thus, once again, this is just an instance of my main point, to which your post was supposed to be a response - not simply an illustration of the instances to which it applies.
"Epistemically responsible inquirers would carefully read what FEMA said and realize that no proper investigation was carried out by NIST."
As a response to what you quoted from me, this begs the question. Charitably I assume you're just engaging in a piece of rhetoric, ignoring what I said while using one of my phrases against me. But then it's just not a genuine response to what I said. It's obvious that you either (i) simply reject my principle of epistemic humility, as I've stated it many times, and just don't see the need for yourself to have mentorship in navigating technical disputes in which you aren't expert; or (ii) you feel some pull toward my principle, perhaps acknowledging its reasonableness in other domains or for other people (like Coyne in philosophy), but are simply unwilling in your own case to abstain from pontificating and to take time being in the sort of subordinate, tedious role I describe. If you're capable of stating where you stand on this (perhaps with some friendlier third option), without simply restating your position, that might be helpful.
"have any of [the experts and layperson in online discussions] carried out a detailed study of the phenomenon?"
Not sure what kind of question this is: as you know, some of them have done research, in varying levels of "detail", and some have merely provided informed commentary. Of course when I mention discussions, I'm referring to just that - discussions by informed people of the significance or interpretation of this or that phenomenon or study. This is a very important part of scientific practice, and a very important part of the lay understanding of science. Not sure what the confusion is here, but maybe I'm missing something and you can clarify.
"science is a field where actual experiments need to be performed"
I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with a superficial statement like this - although this does reflect some of the superficiality of at least Gage's public appeals, and maybe it comes from that. Of course, "actual experiments" are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for science. Much scientific work - especially when about uncontrolled (pardon the pun) historical events - is, e.g., explanatory rather than experimental. But plenty of experiments are certainly available and worth doing even in these contexts. Which are worth doing, which problems are worth pursuing, what is the value of the experiments that have been performed, etc., are of course themselves judgments within the domain in question. And so this topic is itself well-captured by the point I was originally making.
JDB wrote: "Again, apparently they [FEMA] don't see the significance of the phenomenon in the way that you do...."
How would anyone {FEMA, NIST, Truthers, non-
Truthers, you or I] know what level of significance to give to the corroded steel without doing a detailed study?
Bilbo: "Epistemically responsible inquirers would carefully read what FEMA said and realize that no proper investigation was carried out by NIST."
JDB: "As a response to what you quoted from me, this begs the question."
No. You're assumption that a detailed study of the corroded steel wouldn't change the explanation of the collapses is what begs the question.
Bilbo: "have any of [the experts and layperson in online discussions] carried out a detailed study of the phenomenon?"
JDB: "I'm referring to just that - discussions by informed people of the significance or interpretation of this or that phenomenon or study."
Again, how could anyone give an informed opinion of the phenomenon without a detailed study, as recommended by FEMA? Please clarify.
Bilbo: "science is a field where actual experiments need to be performed"
JDB: "I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with a superficial statement like this...."
It's not superficial in the least. I'm trying to get you to wake up and smell the coffee. People are saying that the corroded steel is not significant, even though no detailed study of it has been performed. Such people are full of it, and can be taken seriously by people won't think for themselves.
Thanks again for the reply. Some comments:
"How would anyone {FEMA, NIST, Truthers, non-
Truthers, you or I] know what level of significance to give to the corroded steel without doing a detailed study?"
In fact, a view on the significance of the corroded steel is presupposed by the view that there should be further study. I'll try to be as clear as possible: FEMA experts (and many other experts and informed laypersons) have a different view on the significance of the steel than you do - but you both have views, prior to further study. Interestingly, both you and FEMA think further study should be done, but for different reasons. That's the sort of stage in your judgments that I'm talking about (and the steel thing is just one example of this).
"No. You're assumption that a detailed study of the corroded steel wouldn't change the explanation of the collapses is what begs the question."
This isn't an assumption I make, so it's not a way in which I'm begging the question. (It is, however, an assumption FEMA makes, which you failed to notice and so incorrectly cited them in favor of your position.) But putting that aside: in this portion of my reply, I went on to make clear the level at which I was offering my criticism, including a straightforward request, which you skipped over, a clear answer to which could go quite far in clarifying the difference between us. To be precise: the "level" I have in mind is what one might call "second-order", and you can't cite the very first-order judgments in question when dealing with a critique of how these judgments are arrived at in the first place. This is a fairly banal epistemological point, so maybe I've been unclear.
"Again, how could anyone give an informed opinion of the phenomenon without a detailed study, as recommended by FEMA? Please clarify."
I did clarify a little, after the sentence you quote. But to elaborate on what you skip over: people rightly give informed opinions without detailed studies all the time - again, this is part of how scientists determine things like whether an additional study is even worth doing in the first place and, if so, why it is worth doing.
Accordingly, part of my point was that informed commentary on things like the FEMA study - even without further study - is an important part of science, and the public understanding of science (I'm thinking of us as part of the public). This is of course presupposed even by the truther movement (and yourself) which frequently offers commentary on things without doing further studies, commentary which they hope laypersons will endorse. I have a hard time believing that you reject the fairly obvious thing I have in mind here; so again, maybe I'm being unclear?
"It's not superficial in the least."
I explained in what way I thought the statement was superficial. Since you didn't respond to my (pretty straightforward) explanation, but instead merely repeated one of the questions at issue (and attached a helpful insult), there's not much additional to say here.
JDB wrote:
Interestingly, both you and FEMA think further study should be done, but for different reasons. That's the sort of stage in your judgments that I'm talking about (and the steel thing is just one example of this).
Yes, FEMA thinks the corroded steel might have accelerated a collapse that would have happened anyway. I suspect it caused a collapse that wouldn't have happened otherwise. But my point is that nobody knows what to make of the corroded steel without FEMA's recommended detailed study. I don't need experts telling me that Swiss cheese steel might have relevance to a building collapse. Neither should you.
Bilbo: "No. You're assumption that a detailed study of the corroded steel wouldn't change the explanation of the collapses is what begs the question."
JDB: This isn't an assumption I make, so it's not a way in which I'm begging the question.
The point, JDB, is that your remonstrating with me to become informed of expert opinion on this matter is ill-guided. Until someone does a detailed study of the corroded steel, there really isn't any informed opinion regarding it. I don't understand why you don't understand that.
Yes, FEMA thinks the corroded steel might have accelerated a collapse that would have happened anyway. = my original point, which I'm glad is now acknowledged. Citing FEMA in the way you did is, because of this, not particularly helpful for trutherism. (Of course, one might in any case defer to their authority that an investigation into this matter is important for a better knowledge of building safety, and that seems reasonable, given the institutional function of FEMA.)
I suspect it caused a collapse that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
This is a clear case of you pitting your lay suspicions against the judgments of some experts. Thus it is just the sort of case I have in mind when I offer my general principles of certain things a layperson in your position should do. Earlier I offered a pretty clear request for a general statement of what you think of my general recommendations involving a certain kind of epistemic humility regarding controversial judgments in advanced subjects.
The point,... is just that I was not begging the question. I'm not sure what you think is gained by making accusations, having them falsified, and then making a different claim about "the point," when all I was doing in the bit you quoted was refuting the earlier accusation.
"Until someone does a detailed study of the corroded steel, there really isn't any informed opinion regarding it. I don't understand why you don't understand that."
This is curious, and suggests I haven't been clear enough in what I'm saying. I'm not saying that there are certain results of such a study, and expert opinion will tell you what those results would be somehow, without a study. That would be subject to your criticism. My point (on this narrow topic, but it's an instance of the general point) is that you already, pre-study(!), have a view on the significance of the phenomenon in question, a view that underwrites your additional view that (i) such a study ought to be performed and (ii) what it's significance would be if it came out in this or that way. I'm saying that judgments like that (remember: not just on this topic, but on several you've discussed on your blog) are themselves judgments within the scientific domain in question. I don't really want to repeat myself too much, so perhaps, with this clarification in mind, you could just review the several things I've already said about the multiple things involved in science, e.g. not just experimentation in your superficial characterization, but also explanation, the process of deciding what is worth pursuing, etc. On these and other topics I suggest going about things in the way I've described (many times, and fairly clearly).
Again, notice that this isn't subject to your criticism that "there really isn't any informed opinion regarding it", because the things I'm talking about are not things that the study you want would itself determine. To pick two examples from the issues I've mentioned: the question of why a study is worth pursuing, and certainly the question of whether a study is worth pursuing, are not themselves the target questions of the study in question. Otherwise, no one could ever rationally justify doing a study - neither that it should be done nor why it should be done. We could add to this the question of how such a study should be done in order to be relevant (a subject on which it seems there has been fairly widespread confusion in the truther blogosphere, including here, and on Youtube, which doesn't inspire confidence in non-truthers like myself).
JDB: "my original point, which I'm glad is now acknowledged. Citing FEMA in the way you did is, because of this, not particularly helpful for trutherism."
First, later studies (by NIST and others) disagreed with FEMA about what caused the collapses. That in itself should make us doubt FEMA's explanations.
But you fail to notice what FEMA said about the corroded steel:
"No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown."
So if it turned out that the source of the sulfur was thermate, and that the rate of corrosion was within a matter of a few seconds or minutes, then it's reasonable to think FEMA would change their mind about the cause of the collapse.
"This is a clear case of you pitting your lay suspicions against the judgments of some experts.."
My suspicions and the judgments of some other experts.
As to the rest of your discussion, basically, if FEMA doesn't know what caused the corroded steel, and if even other official studies disagree with FEMA's explanations of what caused the collapses, then obviously knowing what caused the corroded steel is in important in ascertaining what caused the collapses.
Thanks for the continuing discussion, however selective.
"First" = a new point; it would be better, I think, if you could respond more fully to the content of my comments. But as for the "disagreement" you cite in the new point, I'm not sure why you engage in this sort of obfuscation, at least with me. Differences between the FEMA and NIST theories constitute versions within a more general agreed theory of the collapse, itself inconsistent with the controlled demolition hypothesis. (And even if they didn't agree in this way, they would still agree on the negative judgment regarding controlled demolition.) So now I can update the comment you quoted: Citing FEMA and NIST in the way you did is, because of this, not particularly helpful for trutherism.
"you fail to notice what FEMA said about the corroded steel"
Since my comments are entirely consistent with and actually presuppose what FEMA had said, this isn't the case. Not sure what the confusion is here.
"So if it turned out that the source of the sulfur was thermate, and that the rate of corrosion was within a matter of a few seconds or minutes, then it's reasonable to think FEMA would change their mind about the cause of the collapse."
Just the sort of statement from a layperson that my original position - still not addressed - has in mind. Again, I'm not clear on why this is so confusing.
"My suspicions and the judgments of some other experts."
The position of mine in question is clearly, unequivocally, unmistakably, applicable to lay suspicions but not expert judgments (including dissident expert judgment). Again, I'm increasingly disheartened by the failure to understand here. Responding to my position shouldn't even be that hard. I even gave you options for how to respond above; albeit they were polemically constructed, but you can add options as epistemically self-aggrandizing as you like.
"if FEMA doesn't know what caused the corroded steel"
Please remember what I said about first- and second-order judgments, and how the position of mine in question targets the latter. Even though I gave examples, it's possible that you don't understand what I mean by this (one possible explanation for the somewhat weird failure here to respond to what I'm saying), in which case ask for clarification.
"and if even other official studies disagree with FEMA's explanations of what caused the collapses"
Notably, they disagree in a way that harms, rather than helps, trutherism.
"then obviously knowing what caused the corroded steel is in important in ascertaining what caused the collapses."
This of course is an instance of the sort of judgment I have in mind - and thus repeating it can't possible move the discussion forward.
Just because FEMA doesn't know doesn't mean it wasn't studied:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
And the FEMA building performance reports also cover it
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...WTC_apndxC.htm
Ironically, the real thing there that toofers grabbed on to is the high sulfur content. so toofers said it wsa thermate with sulphur...
of course now that they are on nanothermite, that sulphur claim seems to have evaporated. Derp.
Hi JDB,
Not obfuscation. You've assumed that FEMA's theory of collapse is somehow sancrosanct, when even NIST disagrees with it. So both FEMA and NIST offer theories of the collapse that don't rely upon controlled demolitions, though neither relies upon studying the actual physical evidence. So what they give us are theories based upon speculation. Meanwhile, FEMA found corroded steel that they admit they do not know when it corrode nor how long it took to corrode. But they did admit that it may have contributed to the acceleration of the weakening of the steel structure. In other words, instead of the intense fires in WTC1 and 2 taking several hours to weaken the steel, perhaps the corroded steel made it possible for the buildings to collapse in just over an hour. And instead of needing intense fires in WTC7, the corroded steel made it possible for the building to come down with small, non-intense, but long-lasting fires.
To act as if FEMA somehow knew that the corroded steel did not contribute to the collapses is laughable.
Just the sort of statement from a layperson that my original position - still not addressed - has in mind. Again, I'm not clear on why this is so confusing.
Regardless of my layperson status, it's clear to me that if it was discovered that the steel corroded quickly just prior to collapse because of thermate, then FEMA and NIST would need to revise their theories of collapse. I don't understand why that is so confusing to you.
The position of mine in question is clearly, unequivocally, unmistakably, applicable to lay suspicions but not expert judgments (including dissident expert judgment).
I have no idea what position you hold (nor why it's relevant), but the theories of FEMA and NIST have both been challenged by experts.
Please remember what I said about first- and second-order judgments, and how the position of mine in question targets the latter.
Why should I remember what you said? How is it relevant to my post?
Notably, they disagree in a way that harms, rather than helps, trutherism.
But they have no more facts to support their theory than FEMA did. Meanwhile, they ignored the physical evidence that they did have.
This of course is an instance of the sort of judgment I have in mind - and thus repeating it can't possible move the discussion forward.
As far as I can tell, you are the obfuscator, who wants to resist Trutherism at all costs, though I haven't the foggiest idea why. It's not as if you have blind faith in the motives and actions of our political leaders. But meanwhile, I fail to see how your comments move the discussion forward at all.
Hi Anon,
Uh, yes, FEMA did a preliminary but very helpful study of the corroded steel. And there conclusion, which I quoted in the opening post was:
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. [My emphasis] A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires."
of course now that they are on nanothermite, that sulphur claim seems to have evaporated
Uh, no it hasn't. Most of the leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement still think thermate played a role in collapses of the WTC buildings.
In the FEMA study, it shows the corroded steel (it was not melted), only reached temperatures of 800 to 1000 C. This is known by the eutectic of the corroded steel. This is in the FEMA report, and proves there was no thermite damage, no explosives. The eutectic tells all, and more can be learned in Chem-Eng 101.
What the FEMA study said was: " 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)...."
If FEMA is right, then the steel beam itself reached 1000 C. It's not clear that the use of thermate (with much higher temperatures) would have necessarily heated the steel higher than that. I assume that the only way to know is to do the detailed study and see what caused the steel to corrode.
The eutectic would be different for thermite attacking the steel. You would also have iron all over the steel, fused to steel. Zero iron was fused to steel at the WTC. Only two samples of corrosion were found, corrosion was due to fire. The mystery is how it happened. Was it over time, acid (aka S2SO4...), or ?
There is evidence of thermite during 911. That was made up by Dr Jones at BYU, whose best work is about Christ in the New World, better evidence for that, than thermite. Cheers
A thermite attack on the steel would show a different eutectic. Feel free to check with another engineer who took more Chem-Eng course than I. Good luck.
BTW, engineers and scientist want money to study everything. Called "funding", we always make requests to, "study further" to find out why, and get the money. Show me the money. lol, to make up nonsense of thermite, explosives and expose some fantasy cover-up nonsense, is exposing ignorance of how it works in the competition for limited dollars. Getting funding for studies is what engineers do, at least the ones I worked with do. Not a surprise the request to study to find out why was added to the report - it is how many studies end, need to study "this" next. It is funny how 911 truth jumps on that as a "got to be a conspiracy" moment.
It is clear from the study, all ready done in appendix C of the FEMA report, there was no thermite. Checking with a Chemical Engineer will clear that up, or taking a course could. But to google up this topic, you get fantasy from 911 truth. Good luck
First, I know of at least three chemical engineers (all signers of the petition at ae911truth.org) who think the corroded steel was caused by thermate.
Second, if you look at the Jonathan Cole's Great Thermate Debate video, the sample he shows at the end (that he peels a carrot with), doesn't seem to have iron all over the steel.
I think it would be helpful if Cole had a similar metallurgical analysis done of his sample, to see how it compares to FEMA's.
But again, until someone does the detailed study of FEMA's samples, I'm not sure how useful it is debating this.
You claim that FEMA found only two samples of corrosion. It's not clear how much corrosion they found altogether, only that they took two samples. But apparently there was enough that they thought it could be significant and should be studied.
The great thermate debate clearly shows iron fused to the steel,something not found on any steel in the WTC. Not the steel studied in Appendix C, not on any sample. No piles of iron found. In addition the talk of iron micro spheres is a lie when the 911 truth clergy say on thermite/thermate can do the iron spheres. They are products in fires.
Only two samples were found, as scientist and engineers were looking for samples of interest.
The temperatures of both samples approached 800 to 1000 C, a temperature much less tburningring thermate/thermite, and much less than melted steel. There is no evidence of melted steel only corrosion of two samples due to fire, or something that happened over time before 911.
I can see iron fused to the steel in Cole's experiment.
Anon:
The great thermate debate clearly shows iron fused to the steel,something not found on any steel in the WTC.
If we are talking about the carrot peeler example, it isn't clear (at least to me) that iron is fused to the steel.
Not the steel studied in Appendix C, not on any sample. No piles of iron found.
We have lots of eyewitnesses referring to molten steel. It may just have easily been iron. We have video of some kind of yellow hot molten metal pouring from the South Tower shortly before it collapsed. We have a "meteor" made of molten steel or iron.
In addition the talk of iron micro spheres is a lie when the 911 truth clergy say on thermite/thermate can do the iron spheres. They are products in fires.
Do you really mean a "lie"? A purposefully false statement made to mislead or deceive? Or do you just mean that it is untrue?
Only two samples were found, as scientist and engineers were looking for samples of interest.
One of the lead engineers of FEMA, Jonathan Barnett, originally denied that WTC7 could have been brought down by fires, because of all the "evaporated" steel. When asked about this in correspondence he said he was referring to the kind of samples in Appendix C. So obviously there was more than just the two samples. For the sake of honesty, I will report that he also said (in the same correspondence) that he thought the gypsum wallboard would have been the source of the sulfur. I'll put up a separate post for the correspondence, which is worth reading in toto.
The temperatures of both samples approached 800 to 1000 C, a temperature much less tburningring [sic] thermate/thermite, and much less than melted steel.
We've covered this already.
There is no evidence of melted steel
I've addressed this in part, above. But it's worth addressing in more detail, which I hope to do later.
only corrosion of two samples
Jonathan Barnett would disagree with you.
due to fire, or something that happened over time before 911.
Perhaps. Why not just do the detailed study that FEMA recommended and know for sure?
I can see iron fused to the steel in Cole's experiment.
If you mean the "carrot peeler."
I can't. But a metallurgical analysis of Cole's sample would be helpful. Then wouldn't have to argue about whether or not there is iron fused to the steel or not.
Post a Comment