Scientists, Military Officers, and Actors are among new 9/11 research organizations

Originally posted by pteridine
The steel was eroded by high temperature corrosion. No mention is made of a bulk liquid phase. The report concluded

And the iron in the steel was rendered to a liquid. What do you call that again?

"The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation."

Do you agree with this statement?

Melting is a form of high temperature corrosion. So yes, that is accurate.

reply to post by bsbray11


Corrosion, as described by your reference, was oxidation and sulfidation. When iron rusts, it is corrosion. You might not realize it, but melting is very different from corrosion.

reply to post by Wolfenz


I think were wasting our time trying to talk sense with this guy. You could honestly waste half your life on here arguing with shills...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Melting is a form of high temperature corrosion. So yes, that is accurate.

In no way is this accurate. Melting is the breaking of bonds due to thermal energy. Corrosion is a chemical bonding process generally involving oxidation.

They are in no sense comparable.

And yet nobody has sufficiently explained where the sulfidation came from. That is damning in and of itself.

Originally posted by pteridine
Corrosion, as described by your reference, was oxidation and sulfidation.

Which was also associated with the intergranular melting that FEMA describes. You are apparently totally incapable of linking these two thoughts together. You know psychologists have terms for this problem.

Every time you leave this information out you are effectively lying.


Why do you repeatedly deny that melting was involved, after you've already been forced to admit it did occur, and FEMA even states it explicitly?:

...A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting

www.fema.gov...



Again.... every time you INTENTIONALLY leave out the melting... YOU ARE LYING.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
Melting is a form of high temperature corrosion. So yes, that is accurate.

In no way is this accurate. Melting is the breaking of bonds due to thermal energy. Corrosion is a chemical bonding process generally involving oxidation.

They are in no sense comparable.

Please consult the FEMA report as shown above.

If you don't think this "corrosion" had anything to do with the intergranular melting according to the FEMA report then you either can't read or are lying as well.

The truth hurts when you're dead wrong, doesn't it?


To reiterate because I know you need it desperately...

"high temperature corrosion...INCLUDING...subsequent intergranular melting."

Next your denial is going to force you to rewrite your understanding of English grammar and the definition of the word "including" isn't it? You guys are doing a huge disservice to your cause by even being reduced to making such ignorant arguments instead of just admitting what I'm posting is completely validated by the government's own reports.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Please consult the FEMA report as shown above.

If you don't think this "corrosion" had anything to do with the intergranular melting according to the FEMA report then you either can't read or are lying as well.

The truth hurts when you're dead wrong, doesn't it?

We've all read the FEMA and NIST reports on the issue, and we know what they say. The difference is you seem to think that the existence of any melting of anything iron based in any way is somehow damning to the 'official story'.

It isn't, and melting isn't corrosion. Happy to help.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And yet nobody has sufficiently explained where the sulfidation came from. That is damning in and of itself.

Wall board is CaSO4.2H2O. A 4'x10' section of 5/8' wall board weighs about 110 pounds. Of that, about 20 pounds is sulfur. Every 4' of single sided wall is 20 pounds of sulfur. Double sided partition walls are 40# of sulfur. Conservatively estimating about 400 sheets per floor gives 8,000 pounds of sulfur per floor. About 100 stories gives 800,000 pounds of sulfur for WTC-1. Allow another 800,000 pounds for WTC2 and you get about 1.6 million pounds of sulfur for those buildings alone.

Where do you think all the sulfur came from?

Originally posted by exponent
We've all read the FEMA and NIST reports on the issue, and we know what they say.

Everyone knows what they say except you and pteridine apparently.

The difference is you seem to think that the existence of any melting of anything iron based in any way is somehow damning to the 'official story'.

Look, you just proved that you understand that melting was part of this process, exactly as FEMA says.

You need to learn how to admit you're wrong instead of intentionally destroying your own credibility to deny deny deny the blatantly obvious, that even the government is telling you.

reply to post by bsbray11


Are you are claiming that intergranular melting results in pools of bulk metal? It is just part of a mechanism that speeds up the corrosion. Do you understand what corrosion is?
Why would you worry about this anyway? Are you saying that the molten metal seen by the firefighters was the iron-oxide-sulfide eutectic?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Look, you just proved that you understand that melting was part of this process, exactly as FEMA says.

You need to learn how to admit you're wrong instead of intentionally destroying your own credibility to deny deny deny the blatantly obvious, that even the government is telling you.

I don't think you have actually read my posts. Perhaps you should do before you tell me my credibility is being lost. I have already explained the 'melted steel' issue to you in detail.

I don't know why we have to keep repeating things, it's not like it takes a lot of work to understand this stuff.

Originally posted by pteridine
Are you are claiming that intergranular melting results in pools of bulk metal?

Are you aware that I realize you are desperately asking questions that have nothing to do with my posts to deflect from the fact that you are totally ignoring the damage to the steel caused by the intergranular melting?

Do you understand what corrosion is?

Do you understand what this says?

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting

www.fema.gov...

Originally posted by exponent
I don't think you have actually read my posts. Perhaps you should do before you tell me my credibility is being lost. I have already explained the 'melted steel' issue to you in detail.

I think have I read them perfectly. Your credibility was lost pages ago. I am repeatedly showing you why you are wrong.

I don't know why we have to keep repeating things

Apparently because you can't accept what the FEMA report says. Why that is, you'd have to ask a professional.

Look at the quote from the FEMA report I just posted for pteridine above and tell me where FEMA went wrong.

reply to post by bsbray11


You're just not reading at all are you. You're too busy shouting about how you're right and I'm wrong that you have forgotten I never supported what you think I have.

You should take a few minutes to relax and read back through the discussion, you've created these straw men you're so desperate to knock down that it doesn't matter to you what people have actually said or what's actually true.

Please bsbray, this is not worth this level of anger and self righteousness. Approach this in a dispassionate way and you will find that the truth is quite evident.

Originally posted by exponent
You're just not reading at all are you. You're too busy shouting about how you're right and I'm wrong that you have forgotten I never supported what you think I have.

I think you're smart enough to realize I'm reading your posts. You're too busy refusing to change your mind to actually use what's sitting on your shoulder. It's impossible to "yell" on the internet.

You should take a few minutes to relax and read back through the discussion

Ditto. Take a few days or weeks of contemplation, even.

you've created these straw men you're so desperate to knock down

Explain the straw-man. I have links ready to illustrate what a straw-man really is. Good luck.

Please bsbray, this is not worth this level of anger and self righteousness. Approach this in a dispassionate way and you will find that the truth is quite evident.

Please, the emotion is all yours my friend.

reply to post by bsbray11


Describe what you think happened and what you think it proves, other than that a hot corrosive atmosphere will corrode steel. Go into detail on your proposed mechanism so we can see what you think the report says.

Originally posted by pteridine
Describe what you think happened and what you think it proves

Describe what you think happened and what it proves.

What I think happened is exactly what FEMA says:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intragranular melting

www.fema.gov...


I have nothing to add to their own statement.

There was a "high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intragranular melting."

You keep arguing with this because you can't link the oxidation and sulfidation with the melting as part of the attack on the steel. You keep wanting to ignore the melting. Gee, how wrong I am for you doing this.

Keep arguing with FEMA. It makes it so easy to debunk you that it's actually fun.

reply to post by exponent

It is really counter-productive to spam threads. If you do not know what that means, look it up.
In fact, it would be nice if a mod read this latest reply of yours, and made a determination of that, because I see absolutely nothing but an incitement (that didn't work) for an angry response.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Explain the straw-man. I have links ready to illustrate what a straw-man really is. Good luck.

Where do you get the idea that I deny that any steel melted through these methods? Pretty sure I explained to you explicitly how I am not opposed to this theory.

Originally posted by Stewie
It is really counter-productive to spam threads. If you do not know what that means, look it up.
In fact, it would be nice if a mod read this latest reply of yours, and made a determination of that, because I see absolutely nothing but an incitement (that didn't work) for an angry response.

If you have a problem with my post please feel free to take it up with a mod. I'm just tired of being accused of all sorts when in reality I take issue with incorrect technical issues and don't involve myself in silly 'smoking gun' type proofs.