Heard this? "Magnetic forces to blame for 9/11 tower collapse"

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

From: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/magnetic-forces-to-blame-for-911-tower-collapse-924509.html

Magnetic forces to blame for 9/11 tower collapse
By Steve Connor
Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Scientists can finally explain why the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, despite the temperature of the fires being well below the 1,500C melting point of the steel girders holding up the buildings.

The discovery that unusual magnetic forces within the girders made them weak at temperatures of about 500C explains away the conspiracy theories that have spread like wildfire since the disaster.

Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, found that steel loses its strength above 500C because its molecules undergo a physical transition from one state to another due to magnetic fluctuations. "The steel didn't melt, it just became soft. It is an unusual state and the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough to cause it because the thermal insulation was knocked off the girders through the impact with the aircraft," he said.

"Understanding how materials behave means we can find the right 'medicine' to make steel stronger at high temperatures... and if our work can be used for other applications, such as safeguarding tall buildings against disasters, so much the better," he said.
_______________

I think it is just the latest BS they are throwing, seeing if it will stick.
Guess I'll write AE911Truth.org just so they can debunk it.

[LARED]

1. So what do you think this means?

How does this impact the theories about what happened that day?

[wildbilln864]

2. duplicate thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x222895

[salvorhardin]

3. Magnetic forces to blame for 9/11 tower collapse

No, I'm not suddenly turning into a no-planer. Rather, Sergei Dudarev with the UK Atomic Energy Agency says unusual magnetic properties of steel are why steel becomes very weak at temperatures as low as 500 degrees Celcius:

The discovery that unusual magnetic forces within the girders made them weak at temperatures of about 500C explains away the conspiracy theories that have spread like wildfire since the disaster.

Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, found that steel loses its strength above 500C because its molecules undergo a physical transition from one state to another due to magnetic fluctuations. "The steel didn't melt, it just became soft. It is an unusual state and the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough to cause it because the thermal insulation was knocked off the girders through the impact with the aircraft," he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/magnetic-forces-to-blame-for-911-tower-collapse-924509.html

There's not much more at the link than those two paragraphs. It was more of a blurb than an article, but I thought it was interesting. Any of our resident scientists or engineers know anything more about Dudarev's work?

[whatchamacallit]

4. You didn't need any magnetic mumbo jumbo to buy and defend the original shit theory

Why is it useful now?

[salvorhardin]

5. Do you think that Sergei Dudarev and the UK Atomic Energy Agency are part of the cover-up too? n/t

[petgoat]

6. NIST has no core steel showing heating above 480 degrees F.

There's no evidence of heating to 500 C.

[whatchamacallit]

8. No I'm just saying

Why would you need a new theory to explain something you already believed without it? If heretofore unknown mystery magnetism is the culprit, you never should have been so quick to buy the original theory.

[LARED]

10. There is no mystery magnetism that caused the towers to collapse

The article is just poorly written. The paper referred to in the OP is about research into intermolecular interactions in steel that loose strength at higher temperatures.

In short it's a research paper that touches on why steel starts to soften significantly after 500 deg F.

[wildbilln864]

12. the key words being "after 500 deg."!

Which did not happen!

[Flatulo]

13. Yes it did...

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

[wildbilln864]

16. Yes, you're right. Looks like the steel melted.

"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge."


on lunch break now but will discuss later...

[Flatulo]

17. I think the implication was that the sulfer eroded the beam, not so much melted.

Exactly how this happened is still something of a mystery, although several theories have been put forth as to where the sulfer came from.

[wildbilln864]

18. implication!?

""Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur...."

[SDuderstadt]

19. I'm willing to bet that Bill doesn't understand what "intergranular melting" means, so...

he just uses it interchangeably with "melting". Typical "truther" lack of comprehension.

[wildbilln864]

20. Mysterious indeed!

"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."
link

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

22. Check ae911truth.org

http://www.ae911truth.org/

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1.
Rapid onset of “collapse”
2.
Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3.
Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4.
“Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
5.
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6.
Tons of molten metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor).
7.
Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8.
FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9.
Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10.
Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1.
Slow onset with large visible deformations
2.
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3.
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4.
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

[AZCat]

23. "pyroclastic", huh?

I didn't realize Gage was still misusing this term. Not surprising, considering his track record on accuracy.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

24. so, should he have said "pyroclastic like" dust clouds?

He has 474 other Architectural and Engineering professionals signing on to support him.

With all the evidence they produce you just act like a rethuglican finding any point to spin? I guess you believe the liars... and are trying to corral everyone else into that box of nonsense.

[AZCat]

25. That's a stupid fucking argument.

Labeling someone a "rethuglican" because you don't like the way they behave is a pretty stupid tactic. I don't expect much from those who swallow Gage's crap, but perhaps on a forum composed of Democrats I expected too much to think we would all refrain from such devices, as they have no real value in an argument.

[William Seger]

27. "474 other Architectural and Engineering professionals"

... absolutely none of whom have contributed anything significant to the "debate" for some strange reason. Gage's presentation is a regurgitation of people like Griffin, Hoffman, Jones, and Ryan, none of whom are architects or engineers. All AE911truth proves is that you don't really need to be very smart to get a degree.

But no, "pryoclastic" is exactly what Gage means -- it's a theory created by computer programmer Hoffman that the dust cloud was expanding due to heat. Hoffman went on to calculate the amount of TNT that would be needed to create that much heat, completely unconcerned that if the cloud had been that hot, everyone it engulfed would have been cooked, and that an explosion that large would have leveled every building around and been heard maybe 50 miles away. But unlike scientific theories, contrary evidence can never quite kill a conspiracy theory, not when you have crackpots like AE911truth to keep promoting them.

[salvorhardin]

14. Please don't play this game

I know this has been explained to you many times. Even in typical residential fires reach the 500 C to 650 C range. The WTC fires burned much hotter than that.

This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

[petgoat]

26. 650 degree C fires doesn't mean 650 degree C steel.

NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees C.

[AZCat]

28. No it doesn't.

It really depends on duration of exposure and the specific assembly of the space. It also can get a little tricky if the Biot number of the steel object is greater than ~0.1, because significant temperature gradients can exist within the steel itself. What, then, is considered the "temperature" of the steel? The surface temperature? The average temperature? Core temperature?

[petgoat]

29. Ask Dr. Eagar, if you can think of any reason to care what he thinks. nt

[AZCat]

32. I was agreeing with you, petgoat.

I may not have made that clear.

That said, I guess I have to reiterate that there is no such thing as a such-and-such temperature fire. One can speak of the energy release (total or as a rate) of the fire, or the temperature of the gases, but the fire itself doesn't have a specific temperature.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

30. What is this about soot?

When a fire gives off black smoke it is an indication of incomplete burn, the fire is not getting hotter, it is oxygen starved. I am a firefighter and get trained in this. Listen to Jesse Ventura talk about it here, he was trained as a Navy Seal in demolition.
http://thestateoftruth.com/2008/09/jesse-ventura-body-slams-911-conspiracy-debunkers-for-30-minutes/

[AZCat]

33. Then your training was incorrect. n/t

[LARED]

15. Will you ever grow up?

A child knows what you posted is BS.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

31. yes a child, like you evidently....

would be ignorant of the physics involved and not know that kerosene cannot melt steel. So what did?

[MrMickeysMom]

7. Saw this on BBC news website today

Frankly, I don't understand the apoplexy when someone tries to bring up an article and ask a question, especially since DU has a thread devoted to this.

Anyone whose response to discussion is so nasty on said article should save getting your rocks off after you WEIGH IN on the question. Anything less shows what a giant carrot stroker you are.

[LARED]

9. I found about five papers published in

Various journals.

This one seems to be from

Materials Design. Vol. 14, Supplement 1, pp. 129-140; 141. Dec. 2007

Titled: Interatomic potentials for materials with interacting electrons. Dudarev, S L; Derlet, P M

Abstract:

Abstract Evidence for the significant part played by magnetism in the picture of
interatomic interactions in iron and iron-based alloys has recently emerged from density
functional studies of the structure of radiation induced defects. In this paper we examine the
range of validity of the currently available model interatomic potentials for magnetic iron,
investigate the effect of electron–electron interaction on the strength of chemical bonding
between atoms, follow the link between the multi-band Hubbard and the Stoner models,
and review the concepts underlying the recent development of a semi-empirical magnetic
interatomic potential.

[wildbilln864]

11. Thanks, that is interesting. nt