So you have all these photos and speculation about what you are looking at but where are your standards for comparisons for said conclusion? Right now you are sounding like Adam Schiff!
Adam Schiff has more integrity RARiddell. I'll bet Adam Schiff knows a lot more about steel too.
But what you said is very true, which means you may soon be a target of the Preacher's wrath and blasphemies.
I don't have time to elaborate tonight, but what I said earlier is being proven over and over:
All these impressive pictures of photomicrographs of steel that the Preacher keeps posting while running away from his silly and false statements like;
Oxidized debris = burned steel
Well, they only serve to show us how little the Preacher knows about this subject. Of course, he also thought that lengthening the chambers in vintage shotgun barrels could actually increase the barrel wall thickness at the end of the longer chamber. An eighth grade geometry student with a straight edge and no precision measuring tools could see the sheer foolishness of that goofy statement. But the Preacher went on and on in a similar frantic manner such as this for days, attempting to ridicule anyone who attempted to show his error.
Ask him to show you a real photomicrograph or Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) image of steel WITHOUT any inclusions.
All steel has inclusions. So anyone could show us pics with these important and serious looking structures embedded within the matrix. I really like it when identical appearing structure keeps showing up at different times with totally different descriptions.
All steel is an alloy... which is another thing that the Preacher has shown us he didn't comprehend. And we just keep going back and forth on manganese sulfide inclusions too. Are they good or bad when found in gun barrel steel? The Preacher has been all over the map on them. Baffle them with Bullshit!
The photomicrograph that is purportedly from the hull of the Titanic raises many questions. How was it acquired? Did it come from the section that was fatally damaged by the iceberg? How can we know that for certain when the Titanic wreckage is over 12,500 feet deep? Has this been independently verified?
Most important of all is this... The Titanic weighed 46,328 tons. If we assume that the steel mill that supplied that steel had converters capable of even 100 tons per heat, that would be over 400 heats of steel. The furnaces were likely much smaller, so the number of heats would probably be much greater.
Does anyone with even half a brain think that one SEM photo or metallurgical analysis, or even a few, can accurately represent a true analysis of what was in over 400 heats of steel?
