Johnny come lately?

[Boone 870]

Has anyone seen this yet?http://www.rense.com/general80/comprooms.htm

Christopher Bollyn article on Rense.com regarding the UPS batteries in World Trade Center one and two.

I must admit that I didn't read it carefully, radio control homing devices make me sleepy.

[Gravy]

"Molten iron was blown out of the tower when the explosives went off."

Bollyn's my favorite fugitive Nazi.

It has been proposed that UPS batteries were a source of the molten metal dripping from the NE corner of the south tower, but I tend to think that aluminum is more likely, simply because there was so much of it there.

[gumboot]

To be honest I think the most likely source of the "molten metal" dripping from the NE corner is molten glass (http://srnl.doe.gov/images/pour.jpg).

-Gumboot

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, jeez, I lost count of the brain cells lost reading that article.


He had confirmed my primary suspicion, i.e. that the plane that struck the north tower appears to have been "homed in" or targeted on a secure computer center on the 95th floor ­ exactly like the plane that struck the south tower some 16 minutes later.


Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, anyone?


While we know that the Fuji Bank was the tenant on floors 79-82 of WTC 2, the NIST report fails to describe the "tenant layout" of floors 79, 81, and 82.


Since when are they supposed to?


So, what really was on the 81st floor of WTC 2? What was in these heavy "battery-looking things?" Were they batteries, or were they Thermite?


So, all the thermite was on the 81st floor? What the hell'd the NWO use to sever the supports below then?

I can't take it anymore. Someone else do a point-by-point. I've already done enough mental damage to myself by reading yet another stupid Rense article.

[Sizzler]

"Molten iron was blown out of the tower when the explosives went off."

Bollyn's my favorite fugitive Nazi.

It has been proposed that UPS batteries were a source of the molten metal dripping from the NE corner of the south tower, but I tend to think that aluminum is more likely, simply because there was so much of it there.



Gravy, why do you think it was aluminum?

NIST said the color was due to particles of other matter mixing in with the luquid aluminum. Glass, carpet, wood chips, etc. That gave it the observed color.

I heard Jones attempted to duplicate this by mixing small particle in with molten aluminum. he was unable to produce the observed color. The aluminum poored grey and the materials would not mix. I also heard a NIST employee (?!?) tried with Jones and was shocked that he was unable to do it too.

but I have an idea;

What about red hot steel mixed with molten aluminum, crushed gypsum board and a good gust of wind?

That would explain observed molten steel/iron, microspheres, and "thermate like" by products.

I'm sure someone could test that out quite easily actually.

[beachnut]

Gravy, why do you think it was aluminum?

NIST said the color was due to particles of other matter mixing in with the luquid aluminum. Glass, carpet, wood chips, etc. That gave it the observed color.

I heard Jones attempted to duplicate this by mixing small particle in with molten aluminum. he was unable to produce the observed color. The aluminum poored grey and the materials would not mix. I also heard a NIST employee (?!?) tried with Jones and was shocked that he was unable to do it too.

but I have an idea;

What about red hot steel mixed with molten aluminum, crushed gypsum board and a good gust of wind?

That would explain observed molten steel/iron, microspheres, and "thermate like" by products.

I'm sure someone could test that out quite easily actually.
Jones is incompetent and unable to get anything right. Remember he made up thermite out of the blue 4 years after 9/11, now he makes up a new lie to keep his fantasy alive. But if you want, a lot of dumb people believe Jones' ideas. So do not feel alone.

Who was the NIST employee?

Have you done the experiment?

What happen to the Oxygen generators on the JETS? 6i_l_ux3R-4 There are a lot of these on all planes, what did these do on 9/11?

[Gravy]

Gravy, why do you think it was aluminum?Because there was a great deal of aluminum piled up there, because the temperature was high enough to melt aluminum and make it glow but almost certainly not high enough to melt structural steel (and if it were high enough to melt steel it would have melted all the aluminum around long before), because the material turned silvery as it fell, which steel doesn't do, and because a good deal of formerly molten aluminum was found at the site, some of which appeared to have cooled in mid-air. I've held such pieces in my hands.

[gumboot]

Because there was a great deal of aluminum piled up there, because the temperature was high enough to melt aluminum and make it glow but almost certainly not high enough to melt structural steel (and if it were high enough to melt steel it would have melted all the aluminum around long before), because the material turned silvery as it fell, which steel doesn't do, and because a good deal of formerly molten aluminum was found at the site, some of which appeared to have cooled in mid-air. I've held such pieces in my hands.


The only problem with it being just aluminium is that the colour is wrong.

-Gumboot

[uk_dave]

I heard Jones attempted to duplicate this by mixing small particle in with molten aluminum. he was unable to produce the observed color.
Not really in his interests to either

The aluminum poored grey and the materials would not mix. I also heard a NIST employee (?!?) tried with Jones and was shocked that he was unable to do it too.

I'm fairly certain that many professionals and academics who witness Jones' 9-11 studies would express shock and surprise. Just not for the reasons he would like to think.


I'm sure someone could test that out quite easily actually.

Well, there's your weekend project.:D

[Mangoose]

Didn't look silvery to me when it fell.

Problem with glass is that this was the location (near?) where the debris of Flight 175 exploded out the building. Shouldn't the glass have been blown away? Also there were plenty of other locations where the fire burned very hotly in the two towers, but no other instances of molten ???? dripping out. I think it had something peculiar to do with that location. Plane debris is one possibility, the UPS batteries maybe another.

[gumboot]

Didn't look silvery to me when it fell.

Problem with glass is that this was the location (near?) where the debris of Flight 175 exploded out the building. Shouldn't the glass have been blown away? Also there were plenty of other locations where the fire burned very hotly in the two towers, but no other instances of molten ???? dripping out.

All we know is that we're not aware of any other instances of something molten dripping from the tower. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. We know that hundreds of people leaped from the towers, yet there is very little video footage of this happening. Any small object or objects falling from the towers would only register on video if:

A) It was quite a tightly framed shot
or
B) The camera was running at a very high shutter speed

While glass in the immediate impact floors would be smashed clear, that's not necessarily the case for glass several floors above where the aircraft hit. As debris burned in the corner and the fires and heat rose upwards, the glass panes above the impact point would be exposed to the heat.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

The only problem with it being just aluminium is that the colour is wrong.I have no doubt that other material was entrained, but why is the color wrong for aluminum?

Didn't look silvery to me when it fell.Not when it first comes out and it's glowing, but farther down, when it's cooling. Seems to cool quite quickly, and seems silvery.

[gumboot]

I have no doubt that other material was entrained, but why is the color wrong for aluminum?

Aluminium has a very low incandescence, so although it would give off yellowy blackbody radiation at around 1,000 degrees C you would be unlikely to be able to see it in direct sunlight, much less captured on video.

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

Aluminium has a very low incandescence, so although it would give off yellowy blackbody radiation at around 1,000 degrees C you would be unlikely to be able to see it in direct sunlight, much less captured on video.

-Gumboot
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244745b6c300ddac7.jpg
It was wood. Sorry, I have been holding out!

Do not pay attention to the white thermite flame at the top.

[T.A.M.]

Sizzler:

Did you actually watch the videos of S. Jones alleged "experiments" to test the aluminum + Contaminants Theory?

He took a pot full of molten aluminum and added a handful of wood chips.

Yes that sounds like an experiment carefully designed to mimic what may have contaminated the aluminum at the WTC doesn't it?

TAM:)

[Sizzler]

Sizzler:

Did you actually watch the videos of S. Jones alleged "experiments" to test the aluminum + Contaminants Theory?

He took a pot full of molten aluminum and added a handful of wood chips.

Yes that sounds like an experiment carefully designed to mimic what may have contaminated the aluminum at the WTC doesn't it?

TAM:)
i've seen the video and read the report.

more than wood chips were added.

can you find me a video or a report of someone successfully mixing materials into molten aluminum such that it glows orange when poured in daylight?

Jones is the only one i am aware of that has even tried to do this.

Why do people deny molen steel/iron anyway? JOM and FEMA reported intergranular melting of steel due to a lowered melting point because of the presence of sulfur (1000degrees C). It is recorded in the official report done by FEMA.

Why the denial when JOM and FEMA cleary report that it happened?

The denial of molten steel/iron is so silly.

Why do debunkers claim no steel melted when we cleary know that certain pieces of steel that were preserved were turned to "swiss cheese".

Are both sides guilty of disinformation?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Did anyone try mixing the Aluminum below the oxide layer, with other materials such as aluminum silicate, or ferris dusts, or other compounds that can only be induced into the aluminum under the oxide layer by very forceful impact?
You know you can not just stir the stuff in under the oxide layer do you not?
The oxide layer is the problem to getting aluminum to both flow and glow, forceful impacts can overcome that do to forming inclusions.
Under the oxide layer.

[e^n]

Why do people deny molen steel/iron anyway? JOM and FEMA reported intergranular melting of steel due to a lowered melting point because of the presence of sulfur (1000degrees C). It is recorded in the official report done by FEMA.

Why the denial when JOM and FEMA cleary report that it happened?
It happened in the rubble pile, and 'molten steel' is actually used as evidence that temperatures above what an office fire is capable of achieving were seen. Unfortunately the sulfidation occured at around 1000C which is well within office fire range.

The denial of molten steel/iron is so silly.

Why do debunkers claim no steel melted when we cleary know that certain pieces of steel that were preserved were turned to "swiss cheese".
To be fair this steel hardly melted, it's structure was broken down by sulfur but I doubt it ever became molten.

[Par]

can you find me a video or a report of someone successfully mixing materials into molten aluminum such that it glows orange when poured in daylight?


That’s a rather narrow request. In any event, here is some pure aluminium glowing when poured in daylight.

http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html

[Par]

Why do people deny molen steel/iron anyway? JOM and FEMA reported intergranular melting of steel due to a lowered melting point because of the presence of sulfur (1000degrees C). It is recorded in the official report done by FEMA.... Why do debunkers claim no steel melted when we cleary know that certain pieces of steel that were preserved were turned to "swiss cheese".


As I understand it, the corrosion exhibited by certain structural steel members is entirely compatible with the aircraft/damage/fire explanations for the collapses.

[LastChild]

That’s a rather narrow request. In any event, here is some pure aluminium glowing when poured in daylight.

http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html

http://8real.proboards104.com/index.cgi?board=phony&action=display&thread=1155285629

[Par]

http://8real.proboards104.com/index.cgi?board=phony&action=display&thread=1155285629


What point are you trying to make?

[T.A.M.]

i've seen the video and read the report.

more than wood chips were added.

can you find me a video or a report of someone successfully mixing materials into molten aluminum such that it glows orange when poured in daylight?

Jones is the only one i am aware of that has even tried to do this.

Why do people deny molen steel/iron anyway? JOM and FEMA reported intergranular melting of steel due to a lowered melting point because of the presence of sulfur (1000degrees C). It is recorded in the official report done by FEMA.

Why the denial when JOM and FEMA cleary report that it happened?

The denial of molten steel/iron is so silly.

Why do debunkers claim no steel melted when we cleary know that certain pieces of steel that were preserved were turned to "swiss cheese".

Are both sides guilty of disinformation?

Yes, but IIRC he only added one thing to one pot (wood chips) and I believe bits of plastic to another. Something tells me there were many, many different contaminants in ANY molten metal at GZ.

Show me evidence of POOLS of molten STEEL, and I will be glad to take a look.

As for finding you a video, I guess I cannot, so that means if it isn't on you tube, no one has done it right?

I am glad to see that in this short time since you left your truther readings, you have read both JOM and FEMA. You must be doing a lot of reading since coming here, or did you read those reports prior to your arrival here as well (I had thought you said your exposure to the arguments before coming here was the truther positions etc...).

I for one, am not denying the existence of molten steel, in some form, at GZ. I am sure the friction of the collapses may have causes small bits of steel to turn molten. As well, the under-debris fires and embers likely could have heated the metal, regardless of type, hot enough to make small elements of it molten.

Nice strawman by the way...your slip is showing a little more.

TAM:)

[e^n]

http://8real.proboards104.com/index.cgi?board=phony&action=display&thread=1155285629

This is little more than speculation, nobody is claiming the material is any specific substance, only that there are lots of materials that can be melted at that temperature.

Aluminium is very reflective and not very emissive, however there are several different types and aluminium oxide is quite a bit more emissive iirc.

Please find pictures of molten glass.

[Sizzler]

Strawman???

Intergranualr melting is recorded.

Molten metal resembling molten iron/steel is observed on video.

GZ rubble piles support temperatures hot enought to melt steel.

GZ workers report seeing molten steel.

Pieces of steel with melted parts are recorded in the history.

So what is with the denial?

Sulfur was present, temperatures were hot, steel melted. So what?


By the way, what is the difference between melting and intergranular melting?

[T.A.M.]

Strawman...yes.

Your claim that we debunkers deny the melting of ANY steel is a strawman argument.

Resembling molten iron/steel? based on what? A video where the color and or brightness of the video (a product of camera type, lighting, video tape, etc...) can dramatically alter what is seen and hence the interpretation?

Like I said, where have I denied it????

As for your last question, ****ed if I know.

TAM:)

[Sizzler]

Strawman...yes.

Your claim that we debunkers deny the melting of ANY steel is a strawman argument.

Resembling molten iron/steel? based on what? A video where the color and or brightness of the video (a product of camera type, lighting, video tape, etc...) can dramatically alter what is seen and hence the interpretation?

Like I said, where have I denied it????

As for your last question, ****ed if I know.

TAM:)

So why do so many debunkers try to discredit molten steel/iron?

I mean, all that was needed was sulfur and 1000 degrees C. So why is so much time spent trying to show that molten metal is NOT steel?

Even NIST attempts to debunk molten steel claims.

Why waste energy debunking it when molten steel is perfectly ok under the official hypothesis?

This question is not specifically for you, but more for the debuning movement.

[T.A.M.]

I think the debunkers do not try to discredit it. They simply argue that there is no proof of POOLS of MOLTEN STEEL. There is little proof of MOLTEN STEEL at all. The exception, would be that around the sulfidation issue. This is why I accused you of making a strawman argument.

Oh, and regarding your claim that GZ workers saw Molten STEEL, please show me a report from one GZ worker, who is qualified to differentiate based on observation alone whether the metal was steel or not, who said they saw MOLTEN STEEL. (A Paramedic does not qualify, unless they were a metalurgist before they became a first responder).

TAM:)

[Par]

Intergranualr melting is recorded... Sulfur was present, temperatures were hot, steel melted. So what?


The temperatures at which this type of corrosion can take place are significantly lower than the melting point of steel.

[Par]

Molten metal resembling molten iron/steel is observed on video.


Be careful not to assume a contested conclusion. Whether or not the substance in question resembles steel or iron any more than it does other metals or amalgams is precisely the question at issue.

[Sizzler]

The temperatures at which this type of corrosion can take place are significantly lower than the melting point of steel.

1000 degrees C...right?

[e^n]

GZ rubble piles support temperatures hot enought to melt steel.
Please cite.

edit:
1000 degrees C...right?
Steel melts at approximately 1500C

[Sizzler]

I think the debunkers do not try to discredit it. They simply argue that there is no proof of POOLS of MOLTEN STEEL. There is little proof of MOLTEN STEEL at all. The exception, would be that around the sulfidation issue. This is why I accused you of making a strawman argument.

Oh, and regarding your claim that GZ workers saw Molten STEEL, please show me a report from one GZ worker, who is qualified to differentiate based on observation alone whether the metal was steel or not, who said they saw MOLTEN STEEL. (A Paramedic does not qualify, unless they were a metalurgist before they became a first responder).

TAM:)

the best i've seen is a demolition expert who reported molten steel.

but, yeah, no metalurgist report other than FEMA tests on a few pieces of steel.

but i mean, the surface temperatures of GZ support melted steel below.

so why deny?

steel was in the rubble. sulfur was in the rubble. hot fire above 1000 degrees C was in the rubble.

steel melted.

who cares if they were pools? it doesn't prove anything, does it?

[Sizzler]

Please cite.

edit:

Steel melts at approximately 1500C


right but sulfur lowers it to 1000 C

[adoucette]

Par, the author of the book that the picture came from stated that the material pouring out is Iron, not Aluminum.

[Myriad]

Par, the author of the book that the picture came from stated that the material pouring out is Iron, not Aluminum.


Hi adoucette, and welcome to the forum!

I'd be interested to read that author's explanation of how he determined the composition of the material.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[kookbreaker]

the best i've seen is a demolition expert who reported molten steel.


But did not actually see it himself.

[adoucette]

While I don't believe we can precisely determine what the material is, I believe the videos offer pretty compelling evidence for what it is not.

This video:

h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1035128522922802395&q=thermite+stabilized&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

shows large amounts of the material striking the Aluminum cladding, but the cladding appears unharmed by this repeated encounter.

It would thus appear that the material has to be at a temp less than the melting point of Aluminum (don't know the alloy of the cladding but the max melting temp it could be is ~ 659 C)

NIST points out that the alloys used in the plane melt between 475 C and 640 C, so the lower temp alloy might still be a candidate but the higher temp alloy seems more problematic.

Lead melts at 327 C so it remains a candidate.

The typical working temp for glass (when its soft but doesn't flow) is between 1121 C and 1150 C, plate glass is a tad higher, so it does not seem to be a candidate.

Melted Iron, at ~ 1500 C, seems to clearly not be a candidate.

Arthur

[adoucette]

Hi adoucette, and welcome to the forum!

I'd be interested to read that author's explanation of how he determined the composition of the material.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thanks, as they say, "long time Reader, first time Poster" :)

The picture is found on a website on making Aluminum, so many thought that the picture was of an Aluminum pour.

The actual photo however is of an Iron pour as the actual builder of the home foundry points out on his web site.

h ttp://stephenchastain.com/metaltalk.htm

Scroll to second page under "Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion"

Arthur

[Par]

Par, the author of the book that the picture came from stated that the material pouring out is Iron, not Aluminum.


Banger. Thanks for the information, Adoucette.

[e^n]

right but sulfur lowers it to 1000 C

Not exactly but like I pointed out before, molten steel is used as evidence of thermite because of the temperatures involved. If the steel 'melted' through sulfidation at 1000C then it is no evidence of thermite and irrelevant to the claim.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

While I don't believe we can precisely determine what the material is, I believe the videos offer pretty compelling evidence for what it is not.

This video:

h ttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1035128522922802395&q=thermite+stabilized&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

shows large amounts of the material striking the Aluminum cladding, but the cladding appears unharmed by this repeated encounter.

It would thus appear that the material has to be at a temp less than the melting point of Aluminum (don't know the alloy of the cladding but the max melting temp it could be is ~ 659 C)

NIST points out that the alloys used in the plane melt between 475 C and 640 C

Lead melts at 327 C so it remains a candidate.

The typical working temp for glass (when its soft but doesn't flow) is between 1121 C and 1150 C, plate glass is a tad higher, so it does not seem to be a candidate.

Melted Iron, at ~ 1500 C, seems to clearly not be a candidate.

Arthur

This might give some evidence, at 520c sulfur oxidizes out of FeS.

Bed Material Agglomeration During " _-.._J
Fluidized Bed Combustion _° _l
Technical Progress Report for the Period
April 1, 1993 - June 30 1993
Robert C. Brown, M. Robert Dawson, and Shawn D. Noble
#
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011

The most likely cause of tbrmation of the deposits is the interaction of an iron compound with
aluminosilicates. The iron probably originated as pyrite or iron sulfides in the teed. The
aluminosilicates were probably present as clays in the teed. Iron in the form of FeS 2 is a strong
fluxing agent in a neutral or mildly reducing atmosphere. In oxidizing zones, FeS 2 will t),pically
produce SO 2 and form ferric oxide iFe203) at temperatures near 520°C. In reducing zones,
pyrite (FeS 2) forms a partial melt of ferrous sulfide (FeS) beginning at about 280°C and
continuing to about 600°C. Iron oxides may also be reduced to the ferrous state at 540 °C. At
lower temperatures, FeS may react with aluminosilicates to form a relatively low-melting ferrous
If it is in oxygen we should see sulfide melts solidifying on contact with oxygen that is not the case in the substance seen.

However aluminum and lead with inclusions is very likely the substance, and temperatures of black body radiation have to be accounted for.

You can create inclusions below the oxide layer only though forceful impacts, the oxide layer is the key get below it and the inclusions will not separate from the melt.

[Myriad]

Thanks, as they say, "long time Reader, first time Poster" :)

The picture is found on a website on making Aluminum, so many thought that the picture was of an Aluminum pour.

The actual photo however is of an Iron pour as the actual builder of the home foundry points out on his web site.

h ttp://stephenchastain.com/metaltalk.htm

Scroll to second page under "Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion"

Arthur


Arthur, thanks for answering my question. I apologize that it was a stupid question. I was confused about which photo and author you were referring to, which I wouldn't have been had I simply re-checked the post by Par that you were commenting on.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[A W Smith]

Thanks, as they say, "long time Reader, first time Poster" :)

The picture is found on a website on making Aluminum, so many thought that the picture was of an Aluminum pour.

The actual photo however is of an Iron pour as the actual builder of the home foundry points out on his web site.

http://stephenchastain.com/metaltalk.htm

Scroll to second page under "Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion"

Arthur

Fixed your link. also from that site on page two of the message board. Theres a thread titled

Trade center, Molten flows & Structural failure (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=)

steve
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Jacksonville, FL
http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=361#361)Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:53 pm Post subject: Trade Center - Molten Flows & Structural Failurehttp://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/posting.php?mode=quote&p=361) Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperture of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calulations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissitivty of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relaltive to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered conderable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you dont believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similay and likey to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tensionis so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likey.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. ChastainBack to top (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85#top)http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_profile.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_pm.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/privmsg.php?mode=post&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif (stevechastain@hotmail.com) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_www.gif (http://www.stephenchastain.com/)


http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gifRick Rowlands



Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 7

http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=362#362)Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/posting.php?mode=quote&p=362) Any links to where this photo might be viewed online? Never heard of this pic before.Back to top (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85#top)http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_profile.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=90) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_pm.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/privmsg.php?mode=post&u=90)


http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gifsteve
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Jacksonville, FL
http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=363#363)Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject: http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/posting.php?mode=quote&p=363) There must be a link because I have received so many questions regarding the photo. However I do not have a current link. I received a copy of the photo by email....Deleted it a few months ago.

SteveBack to top (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85#top)http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_profile.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_pm.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/privmsg.php?mode=post&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif (stevechastain@hotmail.com) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_www.gif (http://www.stephenchastain.com/)


http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gifsteve
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Jacksonville, FL
http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=474#474)Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/posting.php?mode=quote&p=474) I missed the crucible and dropped an aluminum ingot into the furnace the other day. It melted and ran out looking a bright orange in strong daylight. I scraped away the oxide layer and found shiney molten aluminum underneath. It cooled to a grey mass that looked like cast iron.

Just like in the Trade Center photo.

SteveBack to top (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85#top)http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_profile.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_pm.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/privmsg.php?mode=post&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif (stevechastain@hotmail.com) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_www.gif (http://www.stephenchastain.com/)


http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif

[Jonnyclueless]

the best i've seen is a demolition expert who reported molten steel.

but, yeah, no metalurgist report other than FEMA tests on a few pieces of steel.

but i mean, the surface temperatures of GZ support melted steel below.

so why deny?

steel was in the rubble. sulfur was in the rubble. hot fire above 1000 degrees C was in the rubble.

steel melted.

who cares if they were pools? it doesn't prove anything, does it?


Please prove this claim that steel melted. If you do, you will be the first person in the world to do so.

[Par]

The picture is found on a website on making Aluminum, so many thought that the picture was of an Aluminum pour. The actual photo however is of an Iron pour as the actual builder of the home foundry points out on his web site.


Direct link: http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=83

[T.A.M.]

the best i've seen is a demolition expert who reported molten steel.

but, yeah, no metalurgist report other than FEMA tests on a few pieces of steel.

but i mean, the surface temperatures of GZ support melted steel below.

so why deny?

steel was in the rubble. sulfur was in the rubble. hot fire above 1000 degrees C was in the rubble.

steel melted.

who cares if they were pools? it doesn't prove anything, does it?

1. Stop saying people are denying the PRESENCE of MOLTEN STEEL/IRON at GZ, unless you want to give specific examples. You have done it 3 or 4 times now, despite my explaining to you that it is the POOLS of molten STEEL that people contest, and the reason they do so is due to a lack of physical evidence supporting POOLS of molten STEEL. Asking for evidence to prove your claim is not the same as denying what you have put forth is true.

2. The reason the "Pools" aspect of it is important, is because the truthers opine that the presence of such large quantities of MOLTEN STEEL is evidence of THERMITE, because only THERMITE use at GZ could explain the presence of such large quantities.

3. I expect now that this has been addressed, you will soon begin some questioning of what processes existing in the WTC rubble could have lead to Sulfidation, Socrates?

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

the best i've seen is a demolition expert who reported molten steel.

You're referring to Mark Loizeaux. He did not report molten steel. He was misquoted by (dun-da-dah!) Chris Bollyn. See here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2806320#post2806320).

There are, in fact, exactly zero credible reports of molten steel. Leslie Robertson was similarly misquoted by a reporter covering one of his talks, and he has personally stated that he did not claim and could not have determined molten steel. The other fleeting references are second-hand reports from people with no relevant expertise whatsoever.


but, yeah, no metalurgist report other than FEMA tests on a few pieces of steel.

Not true. See the WPI reports (http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html). They have nearly all of the few sulfidized steel pieces recovered. Only one piece from the Towers -- both of them -- was sulfidized. A handful came from WTC 7.

The WPI reports also describe sulfidized steel that did not melt. Had it melted, it would have dissociated. The WPI steel has a maximum temperature, at any time, of about 850oC, which is totally consistent with an office building fire, and well below steel melting temperature. Any hotter and the metallurgical structures they detected would have been destroyed.


but i mean, the surface temperatures of GZ support melted steel below.

so why deny?

We deny because there's no evidence. But you're right, if the Pile had gotten hot enough to melt steel, it would have been unusual yet not at all impossible. The existence of melted steel after collapse does not challenge the NIST hypothesis. Still, since we don't see it, for sake of thoroughness we are bound to report that it didn't hapen.


steel was in the rubble. sulfur was in the rubble. hot fire above 1000 degrees C was in the rubble.

steel melted.

who cares if they were pools? it doesn't prove anything, does it?

Correct, it wouldn't prove anything. It is also correct that sulfur lowers the melting and working temperature of steel.

Since there's only one piece from the Towers that exhibits sulfidation, we assume this effect was negligible in the Towers. However, in WTC 7 it may have been more widespread. I am eagerly anticipating what NIST has to say about this in their WTC 7 final report, since it could be a factor there.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

1. Stop saying people are denying the PRESENCE of MOLTEN STEEL/IRON at GZ, unless you want to give specific examples. You have done it 3 or 4 times now, despite my explaining to you that it is the POOLS of molten STEEL that people contest, and the reason they do so is due to a lack of physical evidence supporting POOLS of molten STEEL. Asking for evidence to prove your claim is not the same as denying what you have put forth is true.

2. The reason the "Pools" aspect of it is important, is because the truthers opine that the presence of such large quantities of MOLTEN STEEL is evidence of THERMITE, because only THERMITE use at GZ could explain the presence of such large quantities.

3. I expect now that this has been addressed, you will soon begin some questioning of what processes existing in the WTC rubble could have lead to Sulfidation, Socrates?

TAM:)

Steel does not have to melt to be flowing from the towers, though that is the main problem with truthers arguments and steel flowing does not mean thermite.

Low melt ferris-es exist and one of them is ironIIIchlorate. Which by the way oxidizes at over 700C so it could be the compound seen.
The compound could also be aluminum with iron dust included inside the oxide layer, from impact, or lead and iron dust.
It could also be the plastic PVC covering of the lead acid batteries combined with lead going though chemical reactions.
Without a sample of the material it is impossible to say what it is, however it is definitely not molten steel.

[Norseman]

Regarding sulfidation of steel. As I understand it we are talking about something that occurred at micro level in the presence of a sulfur rich atmosphere at high temperature. From the WPI report (http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html) posted by Mackey.
A thermodynamic analysis of the Fe-S-O system is currently underway to determine the atmosphere that would form these sulfidation/oxidation products.

So as I understand it, this was a corrosive process eating away the steel over time, hours, not something that would in anyway whatsoever create flows of molten iron sulfide, or flows of molten steel as some truhters imagine. I can not see that this point have been stated clearly anywhere, and therefore this could easily lead to misunderstandings if you do not take the time to read up on the issue.

From Corrosive high temperature environments (http://www.corrosionsource.com/technicallibrary/corrdoctors/Modules/HotCorrosion/Frames.htm):

Sulfur containing Gases: Even in small amounts, sulfur in various forms can accelerate corrosion at high temperatures.

Combustion gases: The gas mixture arising from combustion of fuels contains for a large part carbon oxides and water vapor together with nitrogen. In situations with incomplete combustion hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and several hydrocarbons are present as well as oxygen. Most fuels contain sulfur compounds so that sulfur oxides and even hydrogen sulfide will be present in the combustion gases resulting in more severe corrosive conditions.

Underlining by me.

The question is if the diesel fuel stored in WTC 7 could be the source. I would expect with certainty that the structural steel was not made of steel alloys resistant to hot corrosion. It is also to be noted that diesel engines are protected by the motor oil (http://www.unitedoil.com.au/apiclass.htm) against among other things sulfur corrosion. There are of course also lots and lots of literature on protecting engines, turbines etc against hot corrosion. (Just to counter the claim, why aren't diesel engines, etc eaten away and so forth in advance)

It could be a possiblety that the diesel fuel stored inside WTC 7 had high sulfur content:
Before 1993, the allowable sulfur level in diesel fuel was 5,000 parts per million," he says. "From 1993 until earlier this year, allowable sulfur was 500 ppm. However, starting in June 2006, the ultra-low sulfur requirement was implemented, which means that the sulfur content must be no higher than 15 ppm for 'on-road' transportation fuel."
Source (http://www.environment.psu.edu/news/2007_news/jan_2007/diesel_sulfur.asp)

According to NIST (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf) all the underground fuel tanks were installed before 1993. Depending on how much the emergency generators were used, it is possible to speculate that they still contained large quantities of old high sulfur diesel. Based on this there could have been a diesel fuel fire, for instance in the south west corner generator room area, supplied by fuel from the tanks, burning throughout day and eating away on unprotected steel. This area, as we know, sustained heavy debris damage from WTC 1 that very likely knocked off the fire protection of the steel. There could also be other sources within the building for all what I know. The question is if this scenario is likely within the given timeframe? And if sulifdation, whatever fuel source, played any significant role in weakening the structure of WTC 7 prior to the collapse at all?

As Mackey mentioned it would be interesting to see if the WTC 7 report contains the results of more research on this by the WPI-team. Whatever role sulfidation played, however insignificant, it is desirable to get to the bottom of it just to prevent further speculation. It is also to be noted that NIST has narrowed out diesel fuel fire from the initiating event in their working hypothesis (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf), the working hypothesis now says ordinary office fire.

[adoucette]

So as I understand it, this was a corrosive process eating away the steel over time, hours, not something that would in anyway whatsoever create flows of molten iron sulfide, or flows of molten steel as some truhters imagine. I can not see that this point have been stated clearly anywhere, and therefore this could easily lead to misunderstandings if you do not take the time to read up on the issue.

Correct. In NIST NCSTAR 1-3C pg 229, they point out that this was a UNIQUE piece of Perimeter Column. They also point out the various tests that they performed and add this important point as to why they have different conclusions then FEMA reported:

The present analyis led to different conclusions ..in part, due to the opportunity to examine the condition of the entire column as a whole instead of just an isolated portion.

NIST could not identify the specific as built location, but they could determine that it was a 50 ksi Type 143 column which would put it no higher than the 53rd floor. This pretty much precludes it from being damaged while in the tower.

Other findings and tests that NIST performed, which they discuss in detail in 1-3C, show the damage clearly occured, over time, in the rubble pile.

Arthur

[Norseman]

Correct. In NIST NCSTAR 1-3C pg 229, they point out that this was a UNIQUE piece of Perimeter Column. They also point out the various tests that they performed and add this important point as to why they have different conclusions then FEMA reported:

NIST could not identify the specific as built location, but they could determine that it was a 50 ksi Type 143 column which would put it no higher than the 53rd floor. This pretty much precludes it from being damaged while in the tower.

Other findings and tests that NIST performed, which they discuss in detail in 1-3C, show the damage clearly occured, over time, in the rubble pile.

Arthur

This also leads to the question of wether or not the corrosion in the WTC 7 samples occurred before or after the collapse. But we will have to wait for the WTC 7 report to get NIST's take on this. Thanks for clearing this up Arthur.

[Norseman]

Fixed your link. also from that site on page two of the message board. Theres a thread titled

Trade center, Molten flows & Structural failure (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=)

steve
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Jacksonville, FL
http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=361#361)Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:53 pm Post subject: Trade Center - Molten Flows & Structural Failurehttp://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/posting.php?mode=quote&p=361) Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperture of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calulations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissitivty of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relaltive to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered conderable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you dont believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similay and likey to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tensionis so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likey.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. ChastainBack to top (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85#top)http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_profile.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_pm.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/privmsg.php?mode=post&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif (stevechastain@hotmail.com) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_www.gif (http://www.stephenchastain.com/)


http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gifRick Rowlands



Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 7

http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=362#362)Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/posting.php?mode=quote&p=362) Any links to where this photo might be viewed online? Never heard of this pic before.Back to top (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85#top)http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_profile.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=90) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_pm.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/privmsg.php?mode=post&u=90)


http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gifsteve
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Jacksonville, FL
http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=363#363)Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject: http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/posting.php?mode=quote&p=363) There must be a link because I have received so many questions regarding the photo. However I do not have a current link. I received a copy of the photo by email....Deleted it a few months ago.

SteveBack to top (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85#top)http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_profile.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_pm.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/privmsg.php?mode=post&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif (stevechastain@hotmail.com) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_www.gif (http://www.stephenchastain.com/)


http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gifsteve
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 180
Location: Jacksonville, FL
http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=474#474)Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/posting.php?mode=quote&p=474) I missed the crucible and dropped an aluminum ingot into the furnace the other day. It melted and ran out looking a bright orange in strong daylight. I scraped away the oxide layer and found shiney molten aluminum underneath. It cooled to a grey mass that looked like cast iron.

Just like in the Trade Center photo.

SteveBack to top (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85#top)http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_profile.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_pm.gif (http://stephenchastain.com/bb/privmsg.php?mode=post&u=2) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif (stevechastain@hotmail.com) http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_www.gif (http://www.stephenchastain.com/)


http://stephenchastain.com/bb/templates/subSilver/images/spacer.gif

From the link above:
The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Here is a picture of orange glowing aluminum melted in a dirty environment as described in the quote above. Actually hard drives. Also contains pictures of red hot steel parts from the hard drives that of course did not melt. If you want a 100% secure method to delete sensitive data, this is the way to do it!

http://eecue.com/log_archive/eecue-log-533-Drive_Slagging_Repost.html

Some more pictures in the full photo album accompanying the blog article:
http://eecue.com/images_archive/eecue-album-1274-2-drive_slagging.html

[bio]

From the link above:


Here is a picture of orange glowing aluminum melted in a dirty environment as described in the quote above. Actually hard drives. Also contains pictures of red hot steel parts from the hard drives that of course did not melt. If you want a 100% secure method to delete sensitive data, this is the way to do it!

http://eecue.com/log_archive/eecue-log-533-Drive_Slagging_Repost.html

Some more pictures in the full photo album accompanying the blog article:
http://eecue.com/images_archive/eecue-album-1274-2-drive_slagging.html

where is the aluminum-boiler in the WTC?

Jones:
"If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal."
http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

[T.A.M.]

1. You initial question is just stupid.
2. Molten Aluminum, when contaminated with organic materials, can have a color different from its color when molten and pure. This is the point trying to be made, and you know it.
3. Jones' idea of a rebuttal to the above was to take some molten aluminum in a container, add a few woodchips to it, and when it didn't change color, declare victory.

Yah, really scientific.

TAM:)

[bio]

1. You initial question is just stupid.
2. Molten Aluminum, when contaminated with organic materials, can have a color different from its color when molten and pure. This is the point trying to be made, and you know it.
3. Jones' idea of a rebuttal to the above was to take some molten aluminum in a container, add a few woodchips to it, and when it didn't change color, declare victory.

Yah, really scientific.

TAM:)

please provide scientific reference for above claim. We are talking about "inpure" molten Aluminum, around 650-700 Celsius hot, with yellow-orange colour.

[T.A.M.]

please provide scientific reference for above claim. We are talking about "inpure" molten Aluminum, around 650-700 Celsius hot, with yellow-orange colour.

No.

But This is good enough for me, and is the reason why I made the statement.


11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

TAM:)

[WildCat]

So why do so many debunkers try to discredit molten steel/iron?
Why do truthers keep claiming molten steel? Is molten steel something that occurs in controlled demolitions?

[bio]

No.

But This is good enough for me, and is the reason why I made the statement.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

TAM:)

These sentences sound vaguely, almost weird. Did NIST some tests and prove it? I think not, please feel free to correct me.
Dr. Jones tried it at least and failed (in your eyes). But Jones tried and NIST did not even try to prove their claim. What is more unscientific?

Furthermore Dr. Jones claims that, it cannot be Aluminum, because it is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures…:

Your response "Chief-Debunker".

quote from the paper of Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley, published in bentham, The Open Civil Engineering Journal:

NIST: “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out”.4

“NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower”.3

We agree and congratulate NIST for including these observations of an “unusual flame... which is generating a plume of white smoke” 4 “followed by the flow of a glowing liquid” having “an orange glow” [3]. With regard to the “very bright flame… which is generating a plume of white smoke”, NIST effectively rules out burning aluminum, because “Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures…”.3

[T.A.M.]

Chief Debunker? who the hell is that? Isn't he the guy who shoots the "baddies" in Halo?

TAM;)

[jberryhill]

the temperature was high enough to melt aluminum and make it glow but almost certainly not high enough to melt structural steel

Sigh....

Steel is soluble in aluminum. Many metals (and other materials) will dissolve in molten metal of a lower melting point. This is the basis for liquid phase epitaxial growth of semiconductor crystals.

Here is an Fe-Al phase diagram...

http://www.nims.go.jp/cmsc/pst/database/al-elem/alfe/alfe_sei.jpg

What this diagram says is that if you mix iron and Aluminum at 1000 deg C, then the liquid phase will equlibrate to about 10% Fe content.

To put your statement another way:

"While it was hot enough to melt ice, it could not have melted table salt."

Table salt has a very high melting temperature. But to get a liquid solution of water and salt, I only need liquid water. The salt will dissolve in the water.

Same thing with Aluminum and Iron.

[jberryhill]

Same story for copper, btw, which would be present in significant quantities in the plumbing and electrical systems.

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~msci301/AlCu%20phase%20diagram.jpg

A Cu-Al complex, btw, can be maintained in a liquid state below the melting point of either Aluminum or Copper.

(which is a consideration in Al-Cu electrical interface when the Copper and Aluminum Oxide junction heats up from having to overcome the Schottky barrier)

[AZCat]

Sigh....

Steel is soluble in aluminum. Many metals (and other materials) will dissolve in molten metal of a lower melting point. This is the basis for liquid phase epitaxial growth of semiconductor crystals.

Here is an Fe-Al phase diagram...

http://www.nims.go.jp/cmsc/pst/database/al-elem/alfe/alfe_sei.jpg

What this diagram says is that if you mix iron and Aluminum at 1000 deg C, then the liquid phase will equlibrate to about 10% Fe content.

To put your statement another way:

"While it was hot enough to melt ice, it could not have melted table salt."

Table salt has a very high melting temperature. But to get a liquid solution of water and salt, I only need liquid water. The salt will dissolve in the water.

Same thing with Aluminum and Iron.

You might as well get used to posting this - the truthers seem to be weak in the material sciences. It wouldn't be a bad idea to gloss a couple of the terms either (make them easy to cut and paste - saves the truthers time). For example, you could explain that Fcc and Bcc represent different lattice structures and correspond roughly to differing densities.

[jberryhill]

the truthers seem to be weak in the material sciences

...of course material science people are, in my experience, a bit nutty as well.

Anything that poured out of the WTC was a soup of anything that was in the WTC and the airplanes that hit the towers. There are lots of metals in an office building, and Aluminum turns out to be a good solvent. People just don't ordinarily think of molten metals as liquids like any other liquid, but they are fairly used to using, say, the same chemical to keep their radiator from freezing and from boiling over.

Then... there are the inane pictures of molten aluminum. Of course, if you are casting something out of aluminum, then you don't have a need or desire to heat the aluminum very far beyond its melting point, since the entire point is to simply get it into pourable condition. So, no, you don't find a whole lot of pictures of liquid aluminum much hotter than that in the first place.

The entire "what is this" argument over the hot material seen coming out of the tower is pointless. It's hot stuff coming out of the tower, and likely composed of anything and everything that might have been inside.

(It's even worse with folks from the UK, since they can neither spell nor pronounce "aluminum" correctly. A post-doc from Wales once corrected me and I pointed him to the periodic chart on the wall of the lab. After a moment he exclaimed, "My God, you've all spelt it wrong as well!")

[LashL]

Furthermore Dr. Jones claims that, it cannot be Aluminum, because it is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures…

We agree and congratulate NIST for including these observations of an “unusual flame... which is generating a plume of white smoke” 4 “followed by the flow of a glowing liquid” having “an orange glow” [3]. With regard to the “very bright flame… which is generating a plume of white smoke”, NIST effectively rules out burning aluminum, because “Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures…”.3

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly the obvious intellectual dishonesty, intellectual shortcomings, and deliberate cherrypicking on the part of the authors of that silly little letter you cited.

What part of "Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning." did you not understand?