Brownian motion keep the tiniest of particles in colloidal suspension, but it can not buoy those particles. That is, Archimedes principle shows you that the air can not lift but 1% of the structural steel UP. Brownian-motion suspended colloids will DIFFUSE outward in all directions slowly.

Even then, only so many tiny little particles can be maintained in a colloid in air. For a simple example, a bottle half full of talkom powder will not maintain a colloidal suspension since the air can not support that kind of density of colloid, no matter how much you shake it. What fraction, by weight, can the air support in the half empty bottle? It is much less than a few percent --- try it for yourself. In fact, you can combine the previous experiment and hold the bottle while you flap your arms.

So even if you consider colloids, the air can not buoy them based upon archimedes principle, and the mass of colloid the air can support is extremely small when comparing to the mass of the towers.

It is not physically possible. Another way you can tell that this is the case is by studying volcanic fall-out. Fine dust settles and is resuspended into the air just like at GZ. The transport mechanism is completely synonymous with low density flows, or pyroclastic surges. The Volcanic facies which settle from such flows are of a very fine variety, just lke on the streets surrounding GZ. The reason this ocurred is that it is not physically possible for the air to support a large density of colloid. It is not physicaly possible.

The weight of all the buildings was estimated (around 1.2 milliont tons), AND the weight of the debris which was removed was MEASURED to be 1.625 million tons of debris. One way they measured it is using.... you guessed it.... Archimedes priniciple when loading barges and judging how far down the barge sunk into the water:

Martin J. Bellew (Director of the Bureau of Waste Disposal), "Clearing the way for recovery at Ground Zero: The 9-11 role of the NYC Department of Sanitation", New York City Department of Sanitation; http://www.apwa.net/Publications/Reporter/ReporterOnline/index.asp?DISPL...

GW Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management, "Role of USACE at the WTC Response Operations"; http://www.gwu.edu/~icdrm/publications/usace911/usacerole.html
----------------------

Dirt:

Sand and soil were transported to ground zero. For instance, sand and soil were used to stabilize the bathtub wall. Sublevel collapses near the bathtub wall occurred which caused engineers concern that the bathtub wall may cave inward due to the external pressure with no opposing internal buttressing. A large trough on the southern edge by the South tower, for example, was filled in with sand and soil.
Much of the so-called ‘dirt’ which Dr. Wood refers to on her website was assuredly the crushed and pulverized building contents. To illustrate this point, while even the staunchest DEW-demolition proponents do not believe that WTC 7 was destroyed in this manner, the WTC 7 debris pile shows the same so-called ‘dirt’ constituents located throughout the rubble pile.

Most of the contents from the WTC 7 building were most likely crushed from the gravitational potential energy of the building falling onto itself. Even in the case of a standard controlled demolition, most of the energy from demolition explosives is focused upon shearing the steel columns. Little of the explosive energy is used to pulverize building contents. The energy released from explosives in a conventional controlled demolition of a tall building is tiny compared to the gravitational potential energy. Much more explosive energy above that necessary to shear steel columns would be necessary to match the pulverization energy associated with the gravitational potential energy of the building. The contents of WTC 7 were pulverized mainly due to the gravitational potential energy released upon impact.

Photographs of the WTC 7 rubble pile depict constituents resembling ‘dirt’ throughout the pile. However, it is actually crushed wallboard, concrete, and office furnishings which were subsequently watered down by rain and fire hoses. It basically looks like dirt and mud.

-------------------------------

Some dirt was hauled in. You think it was hundreds of thousands of tons worth? Why in the world would you think that? You have proof that a lot of dirt was hauled to GZ, then? Who did it? How long did it take them? Who paid them? Which trucking companies transported the large amounts of dirt?

All hot air, and no proof.

You lose. Can't violate Archimede's principle, colloidal suspension from Brownian motion won't save you, and no debris from GZ magically disappeared which is more than well established.

Got anymore fairy-tales you want to try out?

Many tons of water were poured on the debris. Have you any idea what happens when water and molten metal come together?
Steam

OSHA, http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/summary.html

[[Even as the steel cooled, there was concern that the girders had become so hot that they could crumble when lifted by overhead cranes. As a result, additional safeguards were put in place to limit the dangers associated with lifting the damaged steel and to protect the workers in the vicinity.

Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in Mohammad Ayub and Scott Jin, structural engineers from its national office, to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards.]]

Firefighters spray fires all the time which are 2000F with water. I have not seen one city block explode due to a steam explosion. Yeah, they are *real* dangerous ---- the entire GZ was lucky to survive spraying water on hot metal.... Also, people quench white hot steel all the time. Lots of steem, so what?

BTW, even OSHA knows something about this effect, and explicitly states it in their publications! Do you honestly thing the firemen would not know about it, and just ignorantly spray a hot place in the pile with a bunch of construction guys standing around waiting for a steam burn?

And how do you know there was no steam? I see an awful lot of white vapor, and it looks an awful lot like steam to me. In fact, the plume aerosol measuremetns performed by EPA, OSHA, and UCDAVIS show that a miniscule amount of the building by weight was in the plume during the weeks and months following 9/11.

Let me resummarize the pertinent points:
The debris did not go up since no photographic evidence exists showing quantitatively that a significant amount of the building went up --- and stupidly pointing to photographs with no analysis is the same thing as pointing to a cloud in the sky. Archimedes principle states that less than 1% of the building by weight could be buoyed by the thin-air during and immediately after collapse (big suprise to most readers, I'm sure --- the thin-air can not support the weight of the towers). ALL dust sample studies, literally every single one of them, quantitatively show no structural steel was dissociated into Fe (much less than 1%). ALL quantitative aerosol studies, literally every single one of them, show that much less than a tiny fraction of 1% of the steel was located in the plume during the days, weeks, and months after 9-11.

The steel did not go up, did not turn to dust, and did not spontaneously vaporize in the plume.

Where, oh where, could all the steel have gone? Yeah.... REAL big mystery. Do you think that the measured 1.625 million tons of debris removal may, just perhaps, tell you where it went?

Hello Ningen. It is a good point. Officially, WPI group does not say the steel evaporated though I do not doubt your sourced quote. officially, I believe they say that the beam was eroded via massive corrosion. The temperature of the beam they analyzed could not have physically been at the steel vaporization temperature (basically the same as iron since steel is 98% iron, ~2800C.) ---- various signatures would have been present in the steel's physical structure if this had occurred. Their research directly contradict the quote, so I would think he mis-spoke. I only state this not to be an apologist or pretend to know his intent, but the research they report flatly contradict his statement. They find evidence of a eutectic (FeO and FeS) which, in the right ratio, becomes a liquid at a minimum of 940C, and the measured ratio precludes temperatures in excess of around 1000-1100C (as reported).

I originally saw Barnett's work appear as a supplemental report in Appendix C of the FEMA report. Since that time, I have seen a slightly more in-depth report put out by WPI (something like Worcester Polytech Institute if memory serves), and a very in-depth power point slide presentation (no audio, just slides) on the work which covers quite a lot of material which is useful.

The upshot is that they see high 'sulfidation' and 'oxidation' of steel beams which were pulled from the rubble pile underneath WTC 7 and a WTC tower. An appreciable amount of the metal on these pieces were gone. In the original FEMA report supplement, they state the beam was exposed to high temperatures for 'prolonged periods of time'. Intergranular melting place the 'annealing' temperature at around 1000C. The story they outline is basically that the eutectic formation caused by the presence of sulfer and the high temperatures drastically increased the iron->iron oxide reaction (Fe2O3) aka rust. Rust breaks apart steel since the conversion from Fe crystal structure to Fe2O3 causes dislocations in the local crystal structure (Fe2O3 grains do not fit well within the Fe crystal structure) and basically split it apart. This is why you get 'flaking' when your car rusts --- at least the old ones which used to be made of steel ;)

Before anyone becomes confused, let me state that a few isolated beams showing massive rusting should not be conflated with evidence of massive amounts of steel turning to dust. These steel beams were definitively exposed to exceedingly high temperatures for long periods of time, and is recorded in the phases of the material. This is NOT evidence of a magic dissociation machine, and much evidence shows that this phenomena did not happen on a massive scale. Furthermore, all the hard evidence shows that the erosion was caused by high temperatures >940C & <1100C from the infusion/diffusion of sulfur into the steel. Also note that all evidence of the dust and aerosols show no significantly elevated levels of iron. Recall, for instance, that the NIST tests on the steel beams based upon the metallurgical tests looking at the phase of the material show temperatures did not reach 600C, and paint-peel tests only showed isolated patches on 3 steel beams which showed temperatures in excess of 250C (even though these beams were SELECTED due to their vicinity to impact and subsequent fire). All the evidence appears consistent with small, localized, extremely hot spots within the rubble piles.

OK, back to Barnett. I had not seen the specific quote you have stated. WPI group was tasked by FEMA to do the following:
1)Can we determine the maximum temperature that this A36 steel beam [from WTC7] encountered?
2) What caused the observed severe erosion of the steel?

The WTC7 steel was A36 carbon steel. "carbon spherodization" grains were observed which definitely show the steel was heated to at least 700C. The characteristic of the witnessed carbon diffusion from ferrite to austenite phases place the steel temperature at almost 1000C. The Eutectic mixture of FeO and FeS forms at a minimum temperature of 940C when the stoichiometric mixture is precisely ~FeO/FeS (%-mol wt) ~ 55%, and the eutectic only forms at higher temperatures if the mixture is not precise (too much or too little S or O present). The eutectic mixture is MELTED at this temperature, not evaporated. They summarize these points:
1) Rapid deterioration of the A36 steel was a result of hot corrosion.
2) Heating in an environment containing oxygen and sulfur resulted in intergranular melting which transformed to an Iron Oxide and Iron Sulfide eutectic mixture on cooling .
3) The reaction that results in the formation of this eutectic lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel to about 940C or lower depending on Silicon and Carbon effects at the reaction interfaces.

Note that the 940C is actually more of a minumum required temperature. It is much more likely that the actual temperature the steel endured was probably more like 1000C, but less than about 1100C based upon the eutectic phase diagram.

The WTC tower steel was HSLA (high strength) carbon steel. Their summary is a bit different for the HSLA erosion and less detailed:
1) The severe thinning of the HSLA steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
2) Sulfidation of the grain boundaries in the HSLA steel accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
3) The high concentration of sulfides in the grain boundaries in the corroded regions of the steel occurs due to copper diffusing from the HSLA steel combining with iron, manganese and sulfur making both discrete and continuous sulfides in the steel grain boundaries.

They explicitly state that they have no idea where the sulfur could have come from (although I have heard that sea water may be a good source, and a large amount of sulfer was measured in the dust although that was at least mostly bound up into SO4 analytes), or if these processes occurred in the rubble pile or before collapse. I should say that the likelyhood of 1000C anneal temperatures for steel in a diffuse flame fire in a massive interconnected steel frame structure (which includes the heat transport mechanisms wicking the heat away from the fire) is extremely unlikely. Also, the fuel load in an office fire does not burn in one local area for very long. For instance, even in the exaggerated NIST fire models, the hottest air temperatures were about 1000C, but the fuel load would be spent in that locale in about 15 minutes, and the fire would move on. Steel temperatures did not exceed 600C for any WTC tower steel in the NIST fire model.

That means that almost assuredly the temperatures occurred in the rubble pile. The eutectic mixture, BTW, was found in both samples so even NIST states the steel did not become hot enough in their model --- not even close --- to form the liquid eutectic.

The question then becomes by what mechanism did these pieces suffer these extreme temperatures if fires can not explain them? Well..... CD involving incendiaries might have heated the steel during collapse and then became well insulated. Possibly exothermic reactions occurring in the rubble pile caused heating in the rubble. In both cases, the conclusion is pretty much the same: energetic exothermic chemical reactions. There are some benign explanations floating around, but none I have read seem very convincing. The final conclusion I have drawn is that I have no clue what caused this, and do not take it for proof of CD, although a true investigation would have sought to understand this phenomena since the severe anomaly almost assuredly caused by exothermic reactions may have contributed to the demise of multiple buildings.

I had heard that the funding was not available to continue the metallurgical research to fully answer some of the fundamental questions tasked by FEMA. This fact is VERY disappointing...

As I told you before, steam, as defined by the Encyclopaedia Brittanica is invisible. The white vapor you see is not steam, by definition. If you have never observed a boiling kettle, I suggest you do so. You will learn that the first inch or so, coming out of the spout of the teakettle, is invisible; after that it IS visible as white vapor. That invisible first inch or so is steam, the white vapor is just that, vapor. Steam becomes visible as vapor when it cools a little and the water molecules coalesce into droplets that are visible.

This is elementary stuff and is familiar to most people with a fourth-grade education. It is simply a matter of using the correct terminology. For some reason this does not seem important to you. Not only do you confuse steam and vapor, you also use mistakenly refer to steam as "WHITE SMOKE".

The whole reason for this discussion is to try to point out that some of the anomalies of the WTC rubble pile, in this case the various rising vapors, that Dr. Wood has pointed out, simply are not explained by the theory that thermite kept large amounts of steel in a molten state for weeks on end, despite the tons of water dumped on it.

It seems that certain parties are intent on convincing us that the WTC rubble vapor was caused by impossibly high heat, and equally intent on convincing us not to consider any other possibilities, such as molecular dissociation devices. The problem is that the evidence does not support the high temperature theory.