why the aluminum cladding of the perimeter columns did not melt?

[bio]

Basic technical information:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/col_dimensions.gif
This diagram shows horizontal sections of the Twin Towers' perimeter columns. The leftmost figure shows a section of a column, its enveloping insulation, and the aluminum cladding with window frame connections. (...)

The official theory:

The fire was so hot, that it has heat up steel-columns over 600 degree C.

... if it is true ...

question:

Why did not the aluminum cladding of the perimeter columns melt?
... or do you have any photo- or video-evidence?

I am talking about the time-period before collapse of course.

[WildCat]

What makes you think none of it did melt?

[bio]

What makes you think none of it did melt?

Do you think, it had to melt in accordance with the official NIST-theory?

[beachnut]

Cladding, is that the outside of the building, like the outside of a door on an oven?

For so much pure biased dumbed-down common sense you sure ask the dumbest questions

[Travis]

Basic technical information:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/col_dimensions.gif
This diagram shows horizontal sections of the Twin Towers' perimeter columns. The leftmost figure shows a section of a column, its enveloping insulation, and the aluminum cladding with window frame connections. (...)

The official theory:

The fire was so hot, that it has heat up steel-columns over 600 degree C.

... if it is true ...

question:

Why did not the aluminum cladding of the perimeter columns melt?
... or do you have any photo- or video-evidence?

I am talking about the time-period before collapse of course.

I believe only internal columns and floor trusses were heated to such a degree. Distentions of the external columns was caused by the deformed trusses pulling on them and not by heat directly.

[bio]

well - I see fires very close to the perimeter columns...
http://911stories.googlepages.com/WTC1BowingNIST.jpg/WTC1BowingNIST-full.jpg

Is your basic claim correct?
The fires closer to the core were hotter than the fires closer to the perimeter columns.

[WildCat]

Do you think, it had to melt in accordance with the official NIST-theory?
No, because the aluminum cladding was not structural. It's irrelevant.

[bio]

No, because the aluminum cladding was not structural. It's irrelevant.

No - I do not mean it in that way ...

if the core columns were heated up over 600 degree C, then the perimeter columns had to heat up over 600 degree C, too.

[WildCat]

There's certainly lots of cladding missing from this pic, whether it melted/burned off or the fasteners failed before that could happen I don't know.

http://home.mindspring.com/~a.lo/wtc_01.jpg

[WildCat]

if the core columns were heated up over 600 degree C, then the perimeter columns had to heat up over 600 degree C, too.
Uh, no. That's a non-sequitur.

[mrbaracuda]

Meh, beat me to it!
What the cat said.

[bio]

Uh, no. That's a non-sequitur.

can you prove that, by showing that the fires and heat were much closer to the core than to the perimeter columns?

[beachnut]

My grandkids have some cladding pictures, I will go them. Never fear, the cladding, like paint had nothing to do with WTC failure.

[bio]

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/floortemps_f6_36.jpg

Rather the heat were closer to the perimeter columns than to the core.

Explanations debunkers? why the aluminum cladding did not melt down?

[Loss Leader]

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/docs/floortemps_f6_36.jpg

Rather the heat were closer to the perimeter columns than to the core.

Explanations debunkers? why the aluminum cladding did not melt down?


Exposed to the wind, the perimeter aluminum cladding had an easy way to rid itself of excess heat.

I have to say, I'm hardly a 9/11 expert. I'm not on the B or even the C team. But this seems so obvious that I'm a little confused as to why you would even ask.

[bio]

Exposed to the wind, the perimeter aluminum cladding had an easy way to rid itself of excess heat.

I have to say, I'm hardly a 9/11 expert. I'm not on the B or even the C team. But this seems so obvious that I'm a little confused as to why you would even ask.

on foot away from the perimeter column there is 1000 degree C. and one foot on the other direction a breeze is able to cool the perimeter column down under 600 degree C.?

[ktesibios]

Looking at the predicted building thermal response from the NIST fire simulations (NCSTAR1-5, pp.144-157), it appears that the perimeter columns didn't get hot enough to melt aluminum. Only a relatively small number of columns reached temperatures approaching the melting point of aluminum, and those only on two or three floors.

There's also the question of how close the thermal coupling between the steel columns and the aluminum cladding was. If the aluminum was mounted on standoffs, heat transfer by conduction would have been limited and the primary heat transfer mechanisms would be radiation and convection.

NIST doesn't examine the fate of the aluminum in detail, and I wouldn't expect them to, as the stuff was pretty irrelevant to the buildings' structural integrity.

[CurtC]

on foot away from the perimeter column there is 1000 degree C. and one foot on the other direction a breeze is able to cool the perimeter column down under 600 degree C.?

Well, the cladding is not the perimeter column, but sure - one side has 1000 degrees, the other side is 20 degrees. My first-pass estimate would be 510 degrees. But the cladding has cool air on one side, and a column of unknown temp on the other. I don't see why it would get to over 600 C.

[Sunstealer]

Jet engine turbine blades often operate at temperatures close to or greater than the materials melting point. Why don't they melt? When you have answered that question you will then understand why the aluminium cladding didn't melt.

If you can't do that, which incidentally is a very easy concept to understand, then you will forever be in the dark. Can you answer that question?

[CurtC]

Sunstealer, I'd like to know!

[Loss Leader]

on foot away from the perimeter column there is 1000 degree C. and one foot on the other direction a breeze is able to cool the perimeter column down under 600 degree C.?


There's a bigger temperature difference when I'm standing a foot away from my barbeque grill.

Is common sense going to play any part in your questions? I'm just asking for time-management purposes.

[Sunstealer]

Sunstealer, I'd like to know!Sorry I didn't aim that post at you but it might look that way. The question was posed to the OP. You've already alluded to the answer in post #18 so the OP should be able to get it.

[bio]

Well, the cladding is not the perimeter column, but sure - one side has 1000 degrees, the other side is 20 degrees. My first-pass estimate would be 510 degrees. But the cladding has cool air on one side, and a column of unknown temp on the other. I don't see why it would get to over 600 C.

thank you.:)

The same explanation is valid for the core columns, inside the core it is was cool, too. See my graphic. This effect has cooled down the core columns so they could not reach 600 degree C.

[WildCat]

Well, the cladding is not the perimeter column, but sure - one side has 1000 degrees, the other side is 20 degrees. My first-pass estimate would be 510 degrees. But the cladding has cool air on one side, and a column of unknown temp on the other. I don't see why it would get to over 600 C.
In some areas the flames were licking outside the windows, I see no reason why that wouldn't have melted some of the aluminum. I've personally seen aluminum storm windows that had melted into a blob from an apartment fire confined to a single unit.

[bio]

(...)

There's also the question of how close the thermal coupling between the steel columns and the aluminum cladding was. If the aluminum was mounted on standoffs, heat transfer by conduction would have been limited and the primary heat transfer mechanisms would be radiation and convection.
(...)

As you know steel with a temperature of 600 degree C. is glowing red. Do you see glowing red perimeter columns without aluminum cladding?

[applecorped]

As you know steel with a temperature of 600 degree C. is glowing red. Do you see glowing red perimeter columns without aluminum cladding?

I'm sorry, I don't know that. Do you have a reference by chance?

[Myriad]

Just out of curiosity, why would you expect aluminum cladding to melt at 600 degrees C?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Rika]

The core didnt' have as much ventilation as the outside colums did.

[bio]

I'm sorry, I don't know that. Do you have a reference by chance?
are you serious?
reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence

[phunk]

Did you read that link bio? It doesn't mention steel, or even any specific temperatures.

And by the way, aluminum is a solid at 600C.

[WildCat]

As you know steel with a temperature of 600 degree C. is glowing red.
And is this glow equally visible in bright sunlight as it is in darkness?

[scissorhands]

thank you.:)

The same explanation is valid for the core columns, inside the core it is was cool, too. See my graphic. This effect has cooled down the core columns so they could not reach 600 degree C.

Thats interesting, because the same NIST document your graphic came from, shows numerous outer core columns at high temperatures only two floors above floor 94, the graphic you are using to try to show low temperatures in the core.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004FireSimulation.pdf

Maybe the fire travelled upwards after impact?
Who would have imagined that?

Did you look at the NIST document at all before posting?

WTC 1, Floor 96, 30 min after impact shows temps of upto 1000 degrees C affecting numerous columns in the core.
Do you think things would have improved after 30mins or maybe got worse?
The spread of the fire over time was inward.

[ktesibios]

thank you.:)

The same explanation is valid for the core columns, inside the core it is was cool, too. See my graphic. This effect has cooled down the core columns so they could not reach 600 degree C.

Umm, wrong. If you take the time to study the thermal response graphics in NCSTAR1-5, you'll see that the predicted temperatures of some core columns on some floors in both towers are in the 600C range at some times during the fires while some other core columns never got hotter than the 200-300C range.

The fires weren't uniform over space or time like some idealized representation of an oven. They developed and changed over time and the temperature of a given structural element would depend on where it was and at what time you took the measurement.

As for whether we see perimeter columns glowing red, unless there are photographs of exactly the right parts of the buildings at exactly the right times, AND the exterior is shaded enough that the dull red color isn't swamped by the illumination from sunlight, I wouldn't expect to see that.

It's really a meaningless point anyway, since the existing theory of collapse initiation isn't dependent on perimeter columns reaching such high temperatures.

[ElMondoHummus]

First of all, who said that some of the aluminum didn't melt? I recall Gravy discussing the fact that he actually held some examples that had molten and resolidified (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1611592&postcount=2268):


I have held peices of cooled molten aluminum from the south tower in my hand. And not from the bottom of the debris pile, either.


So some did. That alone negates your thesis as stated in the OP.

Secondly:

The same explanation is valid for the core columns, inside the core it is was cool, too. See my graphic. This effect has cooled down the core columns so they could not reach 600 degree C.

... how can you seriously argue that sections of columns surrounded by flames could be the same temperature as material on the outside of the building, with the entire outside atmosphere as a source for the heat to escape to? Look at the image from the NIST report you yourself have posted. Compare what columns on the interior and which ones on the exterior reached what temperatures. What matters is where the fire is.

Third, why do you show one single image from the NIST report showing one single floor's situation at one single point in time? The whole issue is what column received the most heat over the duration of the fires. Look over all the data, not just a single instance at one point in time. Read NCSTAR 1-5 and 1-6 for the fires and failure mode descriptions. For example, regarding WTC 1:


In the early stages of the fire, temperatures of structural components in the core rose between 500 C and 700 C over a 10 min to 20 min time inteval (where fireproofing was damaged), and the thermal expansion of the core was greater than the thermal expansion of the exterior walls.


Again, what matters is what column received the most heat. That is a function of the amount of heat over time. If you go on to read the above quoted section of NCSTAR 1-6, you'll note a section where in WTC 2, it described that the east side of that building was on fire the longest. Now, does that mean that's also where the columns got the hottest? Again, heat delivery over time. You have to consider the whole system over the whole duration of the fire. It is absolutely insufficient to take a single snapshot of a single point in time and say "the fires were hottest here".


In summary:
Some aluminum did melt.
Your description of the fire progression is insufficient to draw conclusions from. You're treating it as if it was a static situation, not one where the fire burned and progressed through an area. And that matters when you try to determine how much heat any given section of column received.
ETA: The two posters immediately before me provided detail important to understanding the point, which is that you, Bio, have drawn an incomplete picture of the fires and have demonstrated an incomplete understanding of the event.

Thats interesting, because the same NIST document your graphic came from, shows numerous outer core columns at high temperatures only two floors above floor 94, the graphic you are using to try to show low temperatures in the core.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004FireSimulation.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004FireSimulation.pdf)

Maybe the fire travelled upwards after impact?
Who would have imagined that?

Did you look at the NIST document at all before posting?

WTC 1, Floor 96, 30 min after impact shows temps of upto 1000 degrees C affecting numerous columns in the core.
Do you think things would have improved after 30mins or maybe got worse?
The spread of the fire over time was inward.

Umm, wrong. If you take the time to study the thermal response graphics in NCSTAR1-5, you'll see that the predicted temperatures of some core columns on some floors in both towers are in the 600C range at some times during the fires while some other core columns never got hotter than the 200-300C range.

The fires weren't uniform over space or time like some idealized representation of an oven. They developed and changed over time and the temperature of a given structural element would depend on where it was and at what time you took the measurement.

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTCcladdingflying.jpg
Cladding being blown off WTC due to kinetic energy impact from aircraft.

The red hot steel would be see at night, but in daylight the sun is too bright. At night when I have metal in the fire, it glows red hot, but when the fire flared up it looks like ash, but in the day, it looks like a piece of steel in a fire. Looks like the most light wins. Just like in this debate, you have the least amount of light on the subject of 9/11, if fact you can shine no light on the issue.

Why did Al cladding not melt. I doubt it was hot enough being on the outside of the building. I large aircraft fires some of the plane does not melt, it must be distance and how heat drops off with distance. You could look that up.

This is a real 3 year old level question type of thread. Why such a dumbing down of questions?


The cladding as pointed out, is not needed to support the WTC. But your tangent is indicative of how 9/11 truth is interested in the real important factors of 9/11 and have turned over all their evidence to the authorities to catch those really responsible. Right?

[Alferd_Packer]

the NISTNCSTAR1-5A reports show ample evidence that the exterior cladding in the vicinity of the fires melted from the heat of the fires.

[beachnut]

the NISTNCSTAR1-5A reports show ample evidence that the exterior cladding in the vicinity of the fires melted from the heat of the fires.
You had to go read NIST!

Yep, it says, in that big NIST thing!...


Strong heating of the façade at the base of the 83rd floor… lower portions of the aluminum covers on columns 83-256 to 83-259 are missing, and the bottom edges of the remaining aluminum have an inverted "v" shape. These observations indicate that these aluminum column covers have been melted by the intense heat coming from below.


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtcnorthfacemeltedal.jpg
Reading, shines light on ignorance. I can see the melted Al.

OP; the answer, the Al did melt. What is the 9/11 truth party line on this? That is one hot fire.

[WildCat]

You know, it's funny. I used to live near a steel plant, and would often drive down a street between 2 of their buildings. There was a railroad track they'd bring the massive ingots of red-hot steel from one building to the other. But you'd only notice that they were red-hot at night or in dim light, in broad daylight they would look grey-black. Touch one though and you'd lose your hand!

[beachnut]

You know, it's funny. I used to live near a steel plant, and would often drive down a street between 2 of their buildings. There was a railroad track they'd bring the massive ingots of red-hot steel from one building to the other. But you'd only notice that they were red-hot at night or in dim light, in broad daylight they would look grey-black. Touch one though and you'd lose your hand!
I hear all this red hot stuff, but my experience is like yours. Ash color, unless the light is right.

If 9/11 had taken place at night, not a single person would doubt the fires were massive.

Do the truthers know the stars are up all night and all day? I doubt it.

[Loss Leader]

... how can you seriously argue that sections of columns surrounded by flames could be the same temperature as material on the outside of the building, with the entire outside atmosphere as a source for the heat to escape to?




Sorry, EMH, but you're wrong. In this case, the atmosphere wouldn't be a heat source, it would be a heat sink.


Yeah, I know. I'm a jerk.

[Mancman]

The fires on the 92nd floor have caused some interesting effects on the surrounding façade. The variations in the types of smoke marks on the column covers adjacent to the windows have already been mentioned. Inspection shows that in the area immediately above windows 92-223 to 92-228, the aluminum spandrel covers have partially disappeared. The shapes of the missing areas indicate that they mostly likely melted due to heating from the hot fire gases flowing from below. In fact, spots of what appear to be solidified drops of aluminum can be seen on windows below this floor. Based on the melting temperature of aluminum, the fire gases leaving these windows must have been well in excess of 600 ºC.

Can be seen here:
http://i34.tinypic.com/jze2vq.jpg

[ElMondoHummus]

Sorry, EMH, but you're wrong. In this case, the atmosphere wouldn't be a heat source, it would be a heat sink.


"... as a source for the heat to escape to". To. TO. Implicit in that is that it is indeed a heat sink. Tooooooooooooooooooooo...

:D

(Shades of the Counting Count... "One, TOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...")


Yeah, I know. I'm a jerk.

In response:

:p Phfttttttttttttttt!!!

[cyclonic]

What heat did to the corner column wtc2:

NBYnUyx4kw8

note missing aluminum cladding.


WTC 1
"1007-1008 AM > NYPD helicopter pilots report that the North Tower is "glowing red" in the impact zone and that collapse appears "inevitable." The reports are transmitted to police, but Fire Department radios can't pick up police transmissions"


"1019 AM > A police helicopter reports that the top of the North Tower is buckling and leaning"
http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/911/911.htm

[R.Mackey]

Thats interesting, because the same NIST document your graphic came from, shows numerous outer core columns at high temperatures only two floors above floor 94, the graphic you are using to try to show low temperatures in the core.

Umm, wrong. If you take the time to study the thermal response graphics in NCSTAR1-5, you'll see that the predicted temperatures of some core columns on some floors in both towers are in the 600C range at some times during the fires while some other core columns never got hotter than the 200-300C range.

the NISTNCSTAR1-5A reports show ample evidence that the exterior cladding in the vicinity of the fires melted from the heat of the fires.

Well done, one and all.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the information that the Truth Movement demands, by and large, is available. They just refuse to read it.

Even many of the "leaders" of the Truth Movement don't appear to have read the NIST Report. Why not, I have no idea. One would think they would be interested.

bio, that goes for you too. Read the reports. There's no point making up "facts" that aren't true, when the real facts are so readily available, for free.

[~enigma~]

on foot away from the perimeter column there is 1000 degree C. and one foot on the other direction a breeze is able to cool the perimeter column down under 600 degree C.?
Think for a second bio. Was there steel perimeter columns between the fire and the aluminum cladding? Do you know anything about heat sinks? That and what Loss Leader said would account for alot less temperature reaching the aluminum cladding. But in any case, cladding isn't structural so what does it matter?

[pomeroo]

Exposed to the wind, the perimeter aluminum cladding had an easy way to rid itself of excess heat.

I have to say, I'm hardly a 9/11 expert. I'm not on the B or even the C team. But this seems so obvious that I'm a little confused as to why you would even ask.



He asks because his evil movement is dead and he has invested far too much emotional energy on his absurd fantasy to return to a normal existence. He hasn't the slightest idea of what he's trying to imply. He is randomly scattering pointless factoids in the desperate hope that something will make some sort of vague sense to someone. The fires are either too hot or too cold. The liars don't care one way or the other.

[bio]

i agree, that the alu-cladding had to melt on some places in accordance with the official NIST report... NIST claim it, too. ... but I am unable to see any melting flow of silvery alu in the photo-evidences.
The perimeter columns had to glow red in daylight, do not mix it with aluminum, which appears to be silvery in the daylight.

[beachnut]

You know, it's funny. I used to live near a steel plant, and would often drive down a street between 2 of their buildings. There was a railroad track they'd bring the massive ingots of red-hot steel from one building to the other. But you'd only notice that they were red-hot at night or in dim light, in broad daylight they would look grey-black. Touch one though and you'd lose your hand!

You speak of reality, the truth movement fails to use reality.

[cyclonic]

Bio look again at the video i posted, the oval shape in the cladding shows it has melted on the corner column and stop it at 14-15 secs to see the columns on the right of the corner column are a dull red in places.

[bio]

Bio look again at the video i posted, the oval shape in the cladding shows it has melted on the corner column and stop it at 14-15 secs to see the columns on the right of the corner column are a dull red in places.

I see no glowing red columns, I see no melting alu-cladding, I see reddish dust from inside the floors, which is very hot and puffed out from inside the tower. It happened during the collapse. Interesting, I was searching this video. Thank you.

[Travis]

The perimeter columns had to glow red in daylight, do not mix it with aluminum, which appears to be silvery in the daylight.

Had to glow red according to who? You?

[mrbaracuda]

Bio look again at the video i posted, the oval shape in the cladding shows it has melted on the corner column and stop it at 14-15 secs to see the columns on the right of the corner column are a dull red in places.
I see no melting alu-cladding

http://c.imagehost.org/0504/Image7.jpg

He didn't say it is in the process of melting but has melted already. What I think he means is the area marked by me. Compare to the glaring white part underneath.
I can't identify the dull red places as being hot cladding or other material though. Looks more like fire. Then again, the footage is pretty blurry.

[mrbaracuda]

Bio look again at the video i posted, the oval shape in the cladding shows it has melted on the corner column and stop it at 14-15 secs to see the columns on the right of the corner column are a dull red in places.

I assume you mean the spot above the 'aPla' of 'The CameraPlanet' on the right-hand side of the screenshot I took at ~14 seconds?

[cyclonic]

I assume you mean the spot above the 'aPla' of 'The CameraPlanet' on the right-hand side of the screenshot I took at ~14 seconds?

That does look like fire, i was thinking the next level up above the 'apla'.

you got the cladding right, thanks.


look at the cladding in this brilliant rkowens4 video at 3.36.

bMZ-nkYr46w

[bio]

http://c.imagehost.org/0504/Image7.jpg

He didn't say it is in the process of melting but has melted already. What I think he means is the area marked by me. Compare to the glaring white part underneath.
I can't identify the dull red places as being hot cladding or other material though. Looks more like fire. Then again, the footage is pretty blurry.

thank you for your good service! ... but I see a black hole, which is framed by white cladding. What did cause the hole is a good question ... but it is wishful thinking to assume it was melted by the fire.

If I look the video carefully, I can see something like a "flow" seconds before the collapse ... but it comes from inside or?

[cyclonic]

This image seems to show the corner column glowing red.


http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/wtc2-corner/wtc2-corner-9-53-51.jpg


Here is another rkowens4 video explaining the likely cause of the molten metal pouring out of wtc 2 just before it collapsed.

DhHzMttUKO0&NR=1

RKOwens4 has 54 videos debunking conspiracy theories, these videos are excellent and are highly recommended for the real 9/11 truth.

http://youtube.com/user/RKOwens4

This video i also recommend for people who don't understand how the plane "sliced" through the steel columns, by slimebuster.

nbuEQpSNxiE

[bio]

This image seems to show the corner column glowing red.


http://baldur.globalsymmetry.com/fact911/wtc2-corner/wtc2-corner-9-53-51.jpg


Here is another rkowens4 video explaining the likely cause of the molten metal pouring out of wtc 2 just before it collapsed.

DhHzMttUKO0&NR=1

RKOwens4 has 54 videos debunking conspiracy theories, these videos are excellent and are highly recommended for the real 9/11 truth.

http://youtube.com/user/RKOwens4

This video i also recommend for people who don't understand how the plane "sliced" through the steel columns, by slimebuster.

nbuEQpSNxiE

The video is wrong:
- molten aluminum appears to glow silvery on daylight, because it reflects the light. Only in the nighttime your video-maker becomes a debunker, because without light alu "can" glow. But I hope, that we agree, that it was not nighttime.
-If it was -somehow- alu, then it was not pure, it was mixed with something different (as NIST claims). But nevertheless video-maker is wrong: the temperature of metal, which is glowing yellow (as we saw in the video) is around 1100-1300 degree C - but the heat of the fires was just 1000 C. With 1300 degree C it starts to glow white, under 1100 C it glows red.
-Steel, which is weakened by thermate, melts with 1200 C.

This video of the south tower is very interesting, without the silly propaganda content of course.

Beside from that, we claim both,
-that the material did not come from the alu-cladding of the perimeter columns. I came from inside.
-that it could be, that here we found really the first sign of glowing (dark red) perimeter columns, due to the heat.

[~enigma~]

-Steel, which is weakened by thermate, melts with 1200 C.
Steel melts at 1510 C. Steel isn't "weakened" by thermite. It is either cut vertically (with gravity) or not.

[WildCat]

The perimeter columns had to glow red in daylight
No, they didn't. This has been pointed out to you.

The only question is are you lying or mistaken?

[bio]

No, they didn't. This has been pointed out to you.

The only question is are you lying or mistaken?

we found a first indication of glowing red perimeter columns.

[~enigma~]

we found a first indication of glowing red perimeter columns.We?????? You were there?

[bio]

Steel melts at 1510 C. Steel isn't "weakened" by thermite. It is either cut vertically (with gravity) or not.

why do you say that?


Molten metal, White Smoke and the World Trade Center Collapses

STEVEN E. JONES / Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University

Abstract for a presentation at the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters at Snow College, Ephraim, Utah. 7apr2006

Dramatic video footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse on 9/11/2001. [1] (See: http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm ) The fact that this is indeed molten metal was confirmed in official FEMA and NIST 9/11 reports. [2, 3] Could this be molten aluminum (from the plane), or molten steel (due to fires), or molten iron (due to thermite reactions)?

(...)

However, molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video is consistent with a thermite-reaction occurring in the Tower, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures:

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), DH = - 853.5 kJ/mole.

Thus, the yellow-white hot molten metal seen on 9/11 could be molten iron from a thermite-derivative reaction; we have found no other reasonable explanations. Anomalous pools of red-to-yellow-hot molten metal observed under the rubble piles of both Towers and WTC 7 lend further evidence for the occurrence of highly-exothermic thermite reactions associated with the collapses of these WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/2001.[1]

1. S.E. Jones, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" available at: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.

[WildCat]

bio, are you lying or mistaken when you claim 600C steel will glow red in bright sunlight?

[~enigma~]

why do you say that?


Molten metal, White Smoke and the World Trade Center Collapses

STEVEN E. JONES / Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University

Abstract for a presentation at the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters at Snow College, Ephraim, Utah. 7apr2006

Dramatic video footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse on 9/11/2001. [1] (See: http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm ) The fact that this is indeed molten metal was confirmed in official FEMA and NIST 9/11 reports. [2, 3] Could this be molten aluminum (from the plane), or molten steel (due to fires), or molten iron (due to thermite reactions)?

(...)

However, molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video is consistent with a thermite-reaction occurring in the Tower, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures:

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), DH = - 853.5 kJ/mole.

Thus, the yellow-white hot molten metal seen on 9/11 could be molten iron from a thermite-derivative reaction; we have found no other reasonable explanations. Anomalous pools of red-to-yellow-hot molten metal observed under the rubble piles of both Towers and WTC 7 lend further evidence for the occurrence of highly-exothermic thermite reactions associated with the collapses of these WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/2001.[1]

1. S.E. Jones, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" available at: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.If 1510 C is not the melting point of structural steel, please show me with a citation of numbers and please don't try to use the fake scientist and piece of lying trash named Steven Jones?

[Lennart Hyland]

Steven Jones? The same Steven Jones that tried to disprove molting metal by using a lighter under a piece of steel for a few seconds?....jesus ****ing christ.

[bio]

bio, are you lying or mistaken when you claim 600C steel will glow red in bright sunlight?

show me your evidences, that it is not so!
For me "bright" sunlight is daylight.

[WildCat]

show me your evidences, that it is not so!
For me "bright" sunlight is daylight.
Your claim, you prove it.

But it's a funny thing, the truth movement hasn't proved a damn thing in nearly 7 years. I'm sure you won't disappoint me and prove your claim, even though it would be simple to do if what you claim is true. Maybe your buddies at the failed truthburn experiment can help you?

[bio]

If 1510 C is not the melting point of structural steel, please show me with a citation of numbers and please don't try to use the fake scientist and piece of lying trash named Steven Jones?

I wrote the reference, but this is not the topic here.

[Slayhamlet]

I'm sorry, has bio presented a single cogent thought in this entire thread? His posts are like a constant stream of non sequiturs. Would someone please tell me what the hell his point is? I'd ask him myself, but I doubt I'd receive an intelligible answer.

[~enigma~]

I wrote the reference, but this is not the topic here.
No but if you have the sheer idiocy to claim I am wrong, you will show a temperature that cites a different value otherwise I will call you a lying piece of trash.

ETA - BTW, if you really want to report this as off topic go right ahead but realize it was your post that first mentioned the melting point of steel. Why is it when truthers are caught in a lie elsewhere they wave their hands as if it will go away, here they think the MA will save them from their lies?

[Grizzly Bear]

Can any one answer to me why Jones tries to distinguish 'iron' from 'steel'? Steel in the first place is essentially processed iron... with 0.2-0.4% carbon alloy added. Or is Jones trying to confuse readers even more?

[bio]

Your claim, you prove it.

But it's a funny thing, the truth movement hasn't proved a damn thing in nearly 7 years. I'm sure you won't disappoint me and prove your claim, even though it would be simple to do if what you claim is true. Maybe your buddies at the failed truthburn experiment can help you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence

are you serious? You want to say, that heated steel does not appear red, yellow, ... and is not in accordance with above natural law during daylight? :jaw-dropp

[bio]

http://www.bushcraftuk.com/gallery/data/509/medium/forging.jpg
Steel in daylight.

[~enigma~]

http://monroemetalsmith.com/files/working_op_800x646.jpghttp://
Steel in daylight.
Where is the temperature citation to prove me wrong liar?

[mrbaracuda]

Can any one answer to me why Jones tries to distinguish 'iron' from 'steel'? Steel in the first place is essentially processed iron... with 0.2-0.4% carbon alloy added. Or is Jones trying to confuse readers even more?

I also had to scratch my head there for a second about what's that about. ;)

[bio]

Where is the temperature citation to prove me wrong liar?

There is a color heat chart in this photo, where you can get to know the temperature of the heated steel on night- as on daylight.
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4227/colorheatchartcrabclawag4.jpg

[~enigma~]

There is a color heat chart in this photo, where you can get to know the temperature of the heated steel on night- as on daylight.
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4227/colorheatchartcrabclawag4.jpg
Do you have any sense whatsoever? You claimed that I was wrong when I said steel melts at 1510 C. What the hell does a color chart have to do with that. Prove with a citation that I was wrong liar.

[Lennart Hyland]

There is a color heat chart in this photo, where you can get to know the temperature of the heated steel on night- as on daylight.
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4227/colorheatchartcrabclawag4.jpg

Yet you stated that 600 degrees was the case.

[Myriad]

A steel surface at 600 degrees C incandescently emits about one lux.

On a sunny day, the illuminance from the sky on a surface NOT in direct sunlight is about 10,000 lux. (In direct sunlight, the illuminance can easily exceed 100,000 lux).

So, even if the steel reflects only 10% of the incident light, that reflected light still exceeds the incandescence by a factor of 1,000.

That's why the incandescence is invisible in daylight.

Of course, anyone who has simply looked at a 600 degree C piece of steel in daylight already knows this is the case.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[beachnut]

why do you say that?

1. S.E. Jones, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" available at: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
Oops, they fired him (he retired in lieu of firing), no paper left. He made up the thermite, BYU fired him.

You have hooked your wagon to nut case ideas made up by Jones. Good job.

You have fantasy ideas on 9/11. Jones made them up for you.

[bio]

A steel surface at 600 degrees C incandescently emits about one lux.

On a sunny day, the illuminance from the sky on a surface NOT in direct sunlight is about 10,000 lux. (In direct sunlight, the illuminance can easily exceed 100,000 lux).

So, even if the steel reflects only 10% of the incident light, that reflected light still exceeds the incandescence by a factor of 1,000.

That's why the incandescence is invisible in daylight.

Of course, anyone who has simply looked at a 600 degree C piece of steel in daylight already knows this is the case.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I have not know that, therefore I am here. Do you have a source?

[beachnut]

I have not know that, therefore I am here. Do you have a source?
I will try to get a source.

Now you know the Al did melt in some places.

[bio]

Temperature when metal glows red

How to tell what temperature a glowing object (metals) might be:

Doesn’t really matter what the emitter is…stainless steel, cast iron, tungsten in your light bulb, the temps are about the same for a given color. Generally accepted colors/temps are:

C F Color

400 752 Red heat, visible in the dark
474 885 Red heat, visible in the twilight
525 975 Red heat, visible in the daylight
581 1077 Red heat, visible in the sunlight
700 1292 Dark red
800 1472 Dull cherry-red
900 1652 Cherry-red
1000 1832 Bright cherry-red
1100 2012 Orange-red

C= Centigrade
F= Farenheit

http://hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Temperature_when_metal_glows_red/
http://www.pennsylvaniasteel.com/heat-treatment.php
http://www.hotwatt.com/tempconv.htm
http://www.sizes.com/materls/colors_of_heated_metals.htm
more references after call possible ...

It seems, that you will have problems to locate a source for your claim.
... but I wait

[beachnut]

Temperature when metal glows red


It seems, that you will have problems to locate a source for your claim.
... but I wait
What does this have to do with 9/11 or the Al that melted? The OP is dead now, the Al panel, the covering on the WTC melted in areas due to the heat. Kind of proves the steel was weakened. Kind of proves the WTC fell due to impacts, fires and steel failing due to HEAT. That is what happens in fires.

The Al did melt, that answer the OP. Now you want to argue temperatures and if you can see them in the daylight.

I have put steel in fire, in the day it looks ash color, but at night it glows red hot looking! TRUE!!!! Proven by your own post! Duh

Did you know different temperature produce different effects. So what is your point?

You look up and post crap that does not explain anything about 9/11! Wait, oops…

Does your post mean DARK RED is not seen in sun light? What is your point? Wait, oops…

I still tell you the steel in my fire glows at night, is not visible in the day. So? The TRUTH…

The big key comes next, what does it mean for 9/11? Does it mean the red we saw through the window as Dull Red Cherry, was Steel in office fires at 1400 degrees? YES! Is this why the steel failed! YES

Seems you just proved to me why the WTC failed after giant impacts and MASSIVE FIRES!

Duh. You just proved it for me. I can see the Dull Red Cherry, at 1400 degrees. You know office fires get that hot!? YES, they can.

[Hokulele]

http://www.bushcraftuk.com/gallery/data/509/medium/forging.jpg
Steel in daylight.

There is a color heat chart in this photo, where you can get to know the temperature of the heated steel on night- as on daylight.
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4227/colorheatchartcrabclawag4.jpg


In these two images of yours, what color would you call the material you see in each? Now, look up those colors in your table. What temperatures do those correspond with?

Temperature when metal glows red

How to tell what temperature a glowing object (metals) might be:

Doesn’t really matter what the emitter is…stainless steel, cast iron, tungsten in your light bulb, the temps are about the same for a given color. Generally accepted colors/temps are:

C F Color

400 752 Red heat, visible in the dark
474 885 Red heat, visible in the twilight
525 975 Red heat, visible in the daylight
581 1077 Red heat, visible in the sunlight
700 1292 Dark red
800 1472 Dull cherry-red
900 1652 Cherry-red
1000 1832 Bright cherry-red
1100 2012 Orange-red

C= Centigrade
F= Farenheit

http://hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Temperature_when_metal_glows_red/
http://www.pennsylvaniasteel.com/heat-treatment.php
http://www.hotwatt.com/tempconv.htm
http://www.sizes.com/materls/colors_of_heated_metals.htm
more references after call possible ...

It seems, that you will have problems to locate a source for your claim.
... but I wait

[bio]

you are talking about "massive fires", steel, which is heat up far over 600 degree C, but all what you have in your hands is one single half-evidence of possible red glowing material, which could be perimeter columns (with a lot good will) - thanks to the last post of cyclonic!
... that is not much!

... and you have not a single photo- or video-evidence of melting alu-cladding! NIST only speculates about missing cladding, but it brings no hard evidence of real melting processes.

[beachnut]

you are talking about "massive fires", steel, which is heat up far over 600 degree C, but all what you have in your hands is one single half-evidence of possible red glowing material, which could be perimeter columns (with a lot good will) - thanks to the last post of cyclonic!
... that is not much!

... and you have not a single photo- or video-evidence of melting alu-cladding! NIST only speculates about missing cladding, but it brings no hard evidence of real melting processes.
WRONG!


the NISTNCSTAR1-5A reports show ample evidence that the exterior cladding in the vicinity of the fires melted from the heat of the fires.
Quote:
Strong heating of the façade at the base of the 83rd floor… lower portions of the aluminum covers on columns 83-256 to 83-259 are missing, and the bottom edges of the remaining aluminum have an inverted "v" shape. These observations indicate that these aluminum column covers have been melted by the intense heat coming from below.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtcnorthfacemeltedal.jpg
You missed it. Plus NIST tells you.

Many people have posted proof of AL cladding melting! You are not paying attention. You have no idea what you are doing.
columns 83-256 to 83-259 are missing, and the bottom edges of the remaining aluminum have an inverted "v" shape. These observations indicate that these aluminum column covers have been melted by the intense heat coming from below Take the time to look and see the Al was melted. Sorry, you are wrong, but you are not paying attention.

ONLY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.
ONLY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE (like you asked for)!?!!?!?. Showing the melted AL. You are really good at ignoring this stuff.

[bio]

WRONG!


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtcnorthfacemeltedal.jpg
You missed it. Plus NIST tells you.

Many people have posted proof of AL cladding melting! You are not paying attention. You have no idea what you are doing.
Take the time to look and see the Al was melted. Sorry, you are wrong, but you are not paying attention.

ONLY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE.
ONLY PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE (like you asked for)!?!!?!?. Showing the melted AL. You are really good at ignoring this stuff.

it indicates, it could have melted - according to NIST. NIST did not tell: It has melted.

Isn´t it strange, that the steel-columns do not glow reddish? This fire should be around 1000 degree C or is the fire not so hot?

[~enigma~]

it indicates, it could have melted - according to NIST. NIST did not tell: It has melted.

Isn´t it strange, that the steel-columns do not glow reddish? This fire should be around 1000 degree C or is the fire not so hot?
I take it you are unable to show any source that structural steel melts at less than 1510 C. So is it safe to say your a filthy liar for calling me wrong?

[Alferd_Packer]

it indicates, it could have melted - according to NIST. NIST did not tell: It has melted.


Go to the NIST report: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf

Go to page 52, Figure 5-10


Note the following:

The column covers present on on the 95th floor are badly sooted, but you can clearly make them out.
The white "carets" on the 96th floor (aluminum oxide)
The lack of column covers present above the "carets."


Basically, this photograph clearly shows at least 15 columns in a row where the column covers were burned away by the intensity of the fire.

[defaultdotxbe]

Temperature when metal glows red

How to tell what temperature a glowing object (metals) might be:

Doesn’t really matter what the emitter is…stainless steel, cast iron, tungsten in your light bulb, the temps are about the same for a given color. Generally accepted colors/temps are:

C F Color

400 752 Red heat, visible in the dark
474 885 Red heat, visible in the twilight
525 975 Red heat, visible in the daylight
581 1077 Red heat, visible in the sunlight
700 1292 Dark red
800 1472 Dull cherry-red
900 1652 Cherry-red
1000 1832 Bright cherry-red
1100 2012 Orange-red

C= Centigrade
F= Farenheit

http://hearth.com/econtent/index.php/wiki/Temperature_when_metal_glows_red/
http://www.pennsylvaniasteel.com/heat-treatment.php
http://www.hotwatt.com/tempconv.htm
http://www.sizes.com/materls/colors_of_heated_metals.htm
more references after call possible ...

It seems, that you will have problems to locate a source for your claim.
... but I wait
hmm, your source seems to indicate that aluminum should also glow visibly in sunlight at 600 degrees C, is this true?

[WildCat]

I'd just like to point out that "visible to the naked eye" does not necessarily mean "visible in a photograph". The eye is much more sensitive to light than even professional cameras are.

[WildCat]

bio, going by color what temp is this branding iron? @ 1:35

Vj8Ci9yfFb8

[R.Mackey]

So despite Hokulele's valiant efforts, there is still a need for education here.

There are two effects in play. One is color temperature, and the other is emissivity.

Color temperature is basically the same for any material. There's a standard blackbody curve that depends only on temperature. Different materials have only minor differences in this curve, so 1200oC copper will look like 1200oC zinc, and so on.

Emissivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity), however, varies radically between materials. This is a constant that governs the total energy emitted by the material. The spectra does not change, just the total. So a bucket of molten iron will be the same color as a bucket of molten aluminum at the same temperature (which is quite a bit higher than the minimum to melt aluminum, of course), but the iron will be much brighter.

This is important in daylight. In daylight, you have not only the emitted spectrum, but also the reflected spectrum. What the camera sees is the sum of the two. So aluminum, with its emissivity of about 0.05, won't appear the same as iron (e = 0.25 or so) even if they're at the same temperature. An optical pyrometer, which is harder to fool with reflected sunlight, is less sensitive to this effect. A video camera will have a tough time of it.

Total emitted energy also climbs rapidly with temperature. If the temperature is so high that the emitted spectrum swamps any reflection, it won't make as much difference if we see it in the dark or not. But this does not apply at the perimeter of WTC 1 or 2.

Also note that emissivity varies radically with surface condition, as seen here (http://www.infrared-thermography.com/material.htm). Molten aluminum is pretty smooth and thus a relatively low emissivity surface, even compared to aluminum in general which is already low. It is therefore not expected to be visibly glowing in full daylight in this case, unless contaiminated (quite possible) or at extremely high temperatures (not as likely).

[bio]

we cannot find much proof of melting alu-cladding and red glowing perimeter columns at all - despite the immense heat, which was needed for the collapse either way.
suggestion:
On the perimeter columns were fireproofing, so they could not heat up?

[WildCat]

It's as if bio hasn't read a single post in this thread.

[beachnut]

it indicates, it could have melted - according to NIST. NIST did not tell: It has melted.

Isn´t it strange, that the steel-columns do not glow reddish? This fire should be around 1000 degree C or is the fire not so hot?

NIST said, and everyone can see in the photo!!!! -
these aluminum column covers have been melted by the intense heat coming from below You can't read? Or what?

these aluminum column covers have been melted by the intense heat coming from below

Read it slowly! Try again. these aluminum column covers have been melted by the intense heat coming from below

So, which part of, "have been melted by the intense heat" do you not understand?

[HyJinX]

It's as if bio hasn't read a single post in this thread.

Yeah...there's a lot of this going on with Bio.

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1796/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1796R-6888.jpg

[HyJinX]

*Double post*

[bio]

I just saw one example of an "indication" for melting alu-cladding. I can understand, that you are very proud of this, but it it not much ....

[Toke]

Why is the melting point of steel so important. It is more relevant at whicht temperature it gets soft.

Aluminium does not glow, it just melts away. That is one of the reasons it is so difficult to weld, you cannot see the temperature.

[gumboot]

For what it's worth, shortly before the towers collapsed the NYPD aviation unit reported that the columns in the towers were "glowing red".

Others are quite right to point out that the human eye can detect incandescence much more easily than a camera can.

Another factor is white balance. Cameras need to be told what colour "white" is, and they adjust their colour balance accordingly, which can distort the colouring of everything in an image.

Daylight has a nominal colour temperature of 5600K, although on an overcast day with high cloud it can be as high as 10,000K. That's quite blue light, so the camera corrects by filtering out blue light, making everything appear more yellow than it otherwise would. The affect on blackbody radiation should be obvious.

Finally, I've personally been witness to molten aluminium in daylight, and I can confirm that the incandescence is visible, however it's visible as a faint red "halo" around the edges of the metal, and can only be seen if you look very, very closely. The majority of the metal, and certainly at any distance greater than half a dozen feet, looks a silver colour. A video camera has no hope at all of capturing the incandescence, and the metal will simply appear grey on screen. (I can attest to this also as I have worked with molten aluminium for the specific purpose of a film, and we ended up having to use lighting effects to get a faint glow from the metal).

[Alferd_Packer]

we cannot find much proof of melting alu-cladding


Wrong

Go to the NIST report: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf

Go to page 52, Figure 5-10


Note the following:

The column covers present on on the 95th floor are badly sooted, but you can clearly make them out.
The white "carets" on the 96th floor (aluminum oxide)
The lack of column covers present above the "carets."


Basically, this photograph clearly shows at least 15 columns in a row where the column covers were burned away by the intensity of the fire.


:
On the perimeter columns were fireproofing, so they could not heat up?

Actually it really doesn't matter how hot the perimeter columns were. The sagging floor trusses is what doomed the columns to failure.

[Newtons Bit]

Wrong






Actually it really doesn't matter how hot the perimeter columns were. The sagging floor trusses is what doomed the columns to failure.

It was both. The columns needed to be at around 600C for the inward pull from the floor trusses to make the exterior wall unstable.

[BenBurch]

It was both. The columns needed to be at around 600C for the inward pull from the floor trusses to make the exterior wall unstable.

How much additional force would have been required to buckle cold columns?

Just curious since clearly they were glowing-hot in places, but I wonder if a similar failure could have been made to occur without the heating of the exterior.

[Newtons Bit]

How much additional force would have been required to buckle cold columns?

Just curious since clearly they were glowing-hot in places, but I wonder if a similar failure could have been made to occur without the heating of the exterior.

I don't know the exact number, but it would be larger than the capacity of the bolts on the truss seats.