Sulfidated and evaporated steel

Some of the major inconsistencies with the official story, reported not by the "tin-foil brigade", but the NYT and FEMA, barely got any attention. They should.

New York Times: "But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures"

Steel boils at approximately 3000°C (5400°F)

FEMA: "Evidence of a severe high temperature attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting"


So...most pressing question: How could steel evaporate from fires? Second, What caused sulfidation? Third, why weren't these highly intriguing questions not investigated any further?

You're just going to get an answer from Roark saying that the sulfidation was from the gypsum board (drywall) in the buildings. Which may be possible at very high temperatures. Not at normal fire temperatures because gypsum is actually used for fireproofing. So, IMO that is NOT where it comes from. Anyone else want to try?

Yeah, I'm expecting some pretty far-fetched theories explaining the sulfidation, but even more than that, I'm looking forward to explanations for evaporated steel and thus >3000°C temperatures.

Looks like this won't even be touched by hardcore debunkers. It's just too hot, figuratively and literally.



I'm somewhat disappointed...was hoping for some laughs.

It disappeared cause in the laws of government science Steel is like water, it tends to just go away.. Kinda like the WHOLE airplane at the pentagon and PA crashes.

There has to be no real reasoning behind why it happens it just does.. you know like how NO STEEL BUILDING in human history has ever fell due to fire except on that weird day when the Government decided to make its own science class were all normal science was rushed out the window and theirs was king for a day.

Originally posted by Lumos
Some of the major inconsistencies with the official story, reported not by the "tin-foil brigade", but the NYT and FEMA, barely got any attention. They should.

New York Times: "But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures"

Steel boils at approximately 3000°C (5400°F)

FEMA: "Evidence of a severe high temperature attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting"


So...most pressing question: How could steel evaporate from fires? Second, What caused sulfidation? Third, why weren't these highly intriguing questions not investigated any further?

Lumos, would it be possible to copy and paste the NYT article? That is, for those of us without a subscription at the moment (honestly, I'm flat broke at the moment...I know, I'm using the poor college student excuse)

Edit: Nevermind, I found the copy + paste version of the article online.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by noto]

Originally posted by Lumos
Yeah, I'm expecting some pretty far-fetched theories explaining the sulfidation, but even more than that, I'm looking forward to explanations for evaporated steel and thus >3000°C temperatures.

Eutectic mixtures (i.e. hot corrosion) occur at relatively low temperatures. Generally less than 1000 C.


www.me.wpi.edu...



All of those steel pieces were pulled out of the rubble weeks after the collapse.

Prehaps many have pointed Jones errors out before, but when Jones quotes Barnett "Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated"
And then states "5,000+ F needed to “evaporate” steel", he (Jones) fails to notice that the same steel Barnett is talking about is mentioned elsewhere in Jones own paper. This is under section 2 right before Jones starts misquoting Eagar.

The sulfur as I'm sure many here know, can come from gyp wallboard dust, heating oil and acid rain.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

So, as you see it, Jones reference to this evaporated steel, stemming from Barnett, is in error? How?

Besides, I'd still like to hear a conventional explanation for evaporation.

Originally posted by Lumos
So, as you see it, Jones reference to this evaporated steel, stemming from Barnett, is in error? How?

Besides, I'd still like to hear a conventional explanation for evaporation.

Its simply dishonest. Or very sloppy.

Here's Jones quote:
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel.

But its not since we know what Barnett is talking about didn't get nearly that hot.
Its a false dilemma.

For more detail I would suggest reading the articles or contacting those who are working on it (like those in the articles) or Barnett. I doubt anyone who believes against this theory will be convinced by some anonymous internet poster.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

No, you're being dishonest or sloppy.

But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

So you put up an unrelated quote from Barnett and proceed to claim Jones' reference regarding evaporated steel, stemming directly from the above quote from Barnett, was "a false dilemma". New to the biz?



PS: I doubt anyone will be convinced of the falsity of the above quote by the New York Times through contrary statements by some anonymous internet poster posing as Superman.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Lumos]

Originally posted by Lumos
No, you're being dishonest or sloppy.

But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

So you put up an unrelated quote from Barnett and proceed to claim Jones' reference regarding evaporated steel, stemming directly from the above quote from Barnett, was "a false dilemma". New to the biz?

PS: I doubt anyone will be convinced of the falsity of the above quote by the New York Times through contrary statements by some anonymous internet poster posing as Superman.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Lumos]

I think it was spelled out perfectly. Jones put up the quote

Jones quote:
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel.

But since we know the piece didn't get that hot Jones is incorrect.
How hard is that to understand

Your quote was from Barnett. I don't have a problem with it

Also see the link was posted above.
So its a false dilemma.

I even asked Barnett if it was the same steel. Its really that easy.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

The Nature Of The Biz

Originally posted by Lumos
New to the biz?

What "biz" would that be? The most common "biz" I see going on around here these days is people using ATS threads to promote commercial websites that push all sorts of outlandish theories about 9-11 and other "alternative topics" for profit.

As for this particular thread, the agenda seems to be posting a question, then bagging on anyone who tries to answer it honestly.

Maybe good for "some laughs", but utterly irrelevant to Denying Ignorance.

It's reasonable to have doubts and ask questions about 9-11. I know I have plenty myself.

But it is unreasonable to derogate others for having different opinions, and I recommend getting used to the idea that someone can disagree with you and not necessarily be wrong.

Oh, another one.

Do I promote a commercial website? No, unless the NYT and FEMA qualify.

Do I bag on anyone who tries to honestly answer questions? No. In fact, Clark_Kent was making false claims, intentional or not, which I pointed out. Is there anything wrong with that? Is that derogatory? Is that contrary to "denying ignorance"?

No, it's clearly not. So spare me your unfounded accusations, please.

Superman

But since we know the piece didn't get that hot Jones is incorrect.

"We know"? How? For that to be true, Barnett's quote regarding evaporated steel must be false, so show me it is. Right now your claim rests on the assumption that if there was some steel only reaching 1000°C, there couldn't have been some steel reaching 3000°C, which obviously is not convincing.

How hard is that to understand?

Unfoundering

Originally posted by Lumos
No, it's clearly not. So spare me your unfounded accusations, please.

Perhaps I am misreading the thread.

What is the "biz" you referred to above?

This is classified information for reasons of forum security.



C'mon, you can figure it out yourself...

Forum Security

Originally posted by Lumos
C'mon, you can figure it out yourself...

That's what I'm trying to do, but I'm obviously having difficulty doing so.

Hence my reliance on you for assistance.

What do you mean by "the biz"?

Originally posted by Lumos

Superman

But since we know the piece didn't get that hot Jones is incorrect.

"We know"? How? For that to be true, Barnett's quote regarding evaporated steel must be false, so show me it is. Right now your claim rests on the assumption that if there was some steel only reaching 1000°C, there couldn't have been some steel reaching 3000°C, which obviously is not convincing.

How hard is that to understand?

As I mentioned I simply asked Barnett. When I first read Jones paper it semed obvious that it was the same steel. I'm not saying Barnetts quote is false at all. I asked Barnett if the steel he was refering to was the ones in the links we mentioned. The answer was yes.
The tests on that steel show it didn't reach 1000C.

As far as your other claim "Right now your claim rests on the assumption that if there was some steel only reaching 1000°C, there couldn't have been some steel reaching 3000°C, which obviously is not convincing."

That's something else. If you have something that shows 3000C then show me.
The specific steel Barnett was talking about didn't reach 1000C.
Maybe you can tell me why Jones bring up 5,000 degree temps when we know the steel Barnett was talking about didn't get close.

Again not sure how much more clear I can be.

When Barnett stated
"But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures"

This was the very specific steel he was refering to linked below
www.me.wpi.edu...
911research.wtc7.net...

If you don't believe me, then ask Barnett. Barnett will also tell you the likely sources of sulfer.








[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

[edit on 11-3-2006 by Clark_Kent]

Originally posted by Majic
Forum Security

Originally posted by Lumos
C'mon, you can figure it out yourself...

That's what I'm trying to do, but I'm obviously having difficulty doing so.

Hence my reliance on you for assistance.

What do you mean by "the biz"?

may i?

'the biz' is the discussion of conspiracy theory on forums.

it's really not rocket science to figure that out, majic. it kinda looks like you're making a mountain out of 'mole'hill.

and, besides that, isn't the reality of evaporated metal much more important to mankind, justice, truth, and plain good manners(ie. not murdering innocents in a vast powerplay)?