A few questions about WTC Debris/ Ground Zero

[CDRM]

Hey, I'm a first time poster on JREF, and NOT a truther.

I have a few quick questions, which I've searched for but, for whatever reason, cannot find.

1.People like Peter Tully, Mark Louiseaux, and other rescue/cleaning crew report molten steel.
-Are any of these people qualified to determine wheter it was actually steel (if there is any visual way to determine at all)? Is there any scientific proof of pooling molten steel?
-Are there any quotes from Peter or Mark that explain what they believe caused it? Or quotes of them rejecting thermite/CD/foulplay?

2.The "Meteorite".
-Has anyone ever studied it scientifically? I have a video (a news interview) in which a man named Bart Voosanger says it contains molten steel. Is this true? (Sorry, I can't link it, I am too new and the site won't allow it).


3.Temperature
-What was the highest temperature recorded at Ground Zero? Was a tempertuare of 2700/2800 F (hot enough to melt steel) ever recorded/confirmed? I have heard people say it (ground zero worker for one), but I have yet to find any confirmation.
-Is the NASA infrared analysis reliable, or does the fact that it only measures surface tempurature render it useless in the discovery for the actual temp beneath the debris?
-If in fact 2800F did occur, is it expected under such conditions? Can a well insulated office fire reach such tempertures? If not, what explains it?

If possible, I'd prefer links/evidence to back up any disputable/major claims(so I can then take it to bust up truthers, when needed).
Thanks.

PS
Sorry if I'm being a total newb.:o

[Jonnyclueless]

There's a link at the top of the subforum called Gravy Links I believe. It addresses those issues. But there should be people here who know it by heart and can point you with direct links to the exact sections. I on the other hand am too lazy.

[ref]

This is from Ryan Mackey's "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking (http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey)". Hope it helps. You can find all the references in the original file. Sorry for the long copy-paste, I was lazy too :)


Molten Metal in the WTC Basements

Dr. Griffin next spends nearly four pages on the issue of molten metal appearing after (in some cases, long after) the collapses.

Before we consider the claims individually, it is important to distinguish between mere molten metal and molten steel. The melting temperature of steel is roughly 1300 oC, which while theoretically attainable for brief periods in a modern office fire, is a few hundred degrees higher than the maximum gas temperatures predicted by the NIST models. At this temperature, steel glows with a white-hot radiance. By comparison, the melting temperature of copper is about 1000 oC, aluminum melts at about 660 oC, and many other metals have even lower melting points, such as zinc (used to galvanize the steel floor decks) melting at 420 oC, and tin (found in electronics) at 250 oC. NIST predicts that all of these metals could have been melted at various locations in the fires. While melted, different metals or mixtures thereof are difficult to identify without proper testing. It is therefore important not to confuse molten steel with the other molten metals. Molten steel is remarkable, but molten metal of unknown type is not.

Dr. Griffin begins by claiming that Dr. John Gross, one of the NIST project leads, ignored credible reports of molten steel. Dr. Griffin cites an Internet video [126], but the video may be misleading – in the video, Dr. Gross’s response is cut in mid-sentence, and it is impossible to evaluate whether or not he is being fairly quoted.

Whether or not Dr. Gross accurately represented NIST’s investigation, Dr. Griffin’s argument has two critical flaws. First, regardless of witness comments, there is no way for them to have identified molten metal as steel, and there is no corroborating evidence that steel itself had melted. Second, even if there was irrefutable evidence of molten steel, this fact would not support a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Dr. Griffin quotes five individuals, including Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc., and Leslie Robertson, mentioning molten steel. Unless there is some reason to believe they somehow tested the molten metal to verify its chemical composition, we have no reason to believe these comments are accurate either. None of these individuals performed such a test, nor is there any report anywhere of such a finding. We may conclude, therefore, that any “molten steel” they observed was a different liquid entirely, such as molten aluminum, or even melted glass.

We also question the accuracy of the sources themselves. In Note 152, Dr. Griffin reveals that the statements from Mr. Loizeaux and Peter Tully were not ever public, but relayed via Chris Bollyn, who allegedly heard both Mr. Loizeaux and Mr. Tully claim to have seen molten steel on the telephone. Dr. Griffin adds that Bollyn cannot recall the precise date. More recently, Mr. Loizeaux stated to Mr. Ron Wieck, in another telephone conversation, that he “was in no position to see the molten metal and would not have been able to judge whether it was steel or not.” [127] Since this is a flat contradiction of Bollyn’s claim, we should view his claim as suspect. Other investigators have also followed up on Leslie Robertson’s comment and found similar problems. As related in the web log “Conspiracy Smasher” [128], Robertson’s comments apparently are not a direct quote, but rather originate in an article appearing in the Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah [129], and may have been exaggerated or misquoted. Robertson’s assessment was not part of any official opinion or report, but merely an off-hand comment. In addition, the web log author claims to have contacted Robertson, who then stated that he did not recall making such a statement, and that he would not have been in a position to know whether there was molten steel or not.

Next, Dr. Griffin cites three people who reference steel beams. Two of these accounts speak of steel being “cherry red.” Steel at this temperature may be as cool as 400 oC, and certainly no more than 1100 oC [130], temperatures well below melting and easily achievable by an ordinary fire – this is actually evidence against Dr. Griffin’s claim.

The third account does not mention color, but does mention liquid and solid steel in contact with each other:

Greg Fuchek, vice president of a company that supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains, reported that “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.” [131]

It is clear that Mr. Fuchek was merely in the area, and not working to recover steel, and it is also likely that he has no particular expertise in metallurgy. Furthermore, for molten steel to drip off of a steel column, when both have been in place for some time, the column and dripping steel would have to be in thermal equilibrium. Since steel has a significant heat of fusion, we must assume the liquid and a portion of the solid steel were at the same temperature. If this were true, portions of the steel column would have softened to virtually zero strength or even melted around the edges, and it would be impossible to pull the beam free without grossly distorting it or actually leaving the half-melted portions behind. It is obvious to the author that the molten metal was not steel at all, but rather some other material with a lower melting point. Once again, this account is not consistent with the claim of molten steel.

Dr. Griffin’s next citation is, again, of Dr. Jones. However, here he begins deliberately confusing molten steel and molten metal:

The existence of the molten metal is very well known, partly because Steven Jones’ famous essay begins with this issue. After quoting several people who reported “observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings,” Jones added:

[S]ome six weeks after 9/11, the observed surface of the metal was still reddish orange. This suggests that there was a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity. It is, therefore, more likely to be iron or steel than aluminum. [131]

Dr. Jones’s words are italicized to distinguish them from Dr. Griffin’s. As before, a reddish-orange surface color indicates a temperature too cold to be molten steel. It is also important to point out that the collapsed material, far from merely cooling over time, continued to burn fiercely for weeks afterward. This would have sustained the temperatures for a lengthy period, making it unnecessary for the materials to have a “low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity.” The New York Times reported the following about the debris fire:

It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.

Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said.

The longest-burning fire on earth, in southeastern Australia, is thought to have been started by a lightning strike 2,000 years ago and is slowly eating away at a buried coal deposit. In Centralia, Pa., a fire that began in a landfill in 1962 spread to old coal mines and has been burning ever since. [132]

Because of this, there is no evidence at all that the materials in the debris pile were much hotter earlier on, and therefore no evidence that they could have reached the melting temperature of steel.

Dr. Griffin now returns to the various statements in the NIST FAQ, attempting to show that NIST neglected critical evidence. Dr. Griffin’s argument is summarized as follows:


NIST reports that there is no evidence of steel melting prior to collapse of the towers.
Dr. Griffin argues that, since molten steel (“or iron;” he further confuses the issue here) was found in the debris pile, it had to have come from somewhere, and NIST claims it didn’t come from the fire.
NIST states that the condition of steel found in the debris pile is not relevant to the question of what caused the collapses.
Dr. Griffin disagrees, claiming that steel found in a molten state is evidence that the same steel was cut by explosives.
This entire argument is wrong. As we have seen above, there is in fact no evidence, apart from a few uncorroborated and speculative statements from non-experts, that steel was ever melted, either before, during, or after the WTC collapses. Those few witness statements all reflect the debris pile, not the Towers prior to collapse, thus there is no evidence whatsoever of melted steel before the collapses. NIST is correct in this regard.

Dr. Griffin (and each of his quoted sources) continues to confuse melted steel with melted metal, and he even brings up melted iron at one point (impossible; iron melts at a higher temperature than structural steel). The existence of melted metal, as noted previously, is not the least bit surprising – aluminum cladding, electrical wiring, aircraft components, and even some office furniture would be expected to melt over a wide area, and even Dr. Griffin admits the fire could have reached this temperature.

Furthermore, the presence of melted metal (or even melted steel) in the debris pile does not guarantee that such metal was melted prior to the collapse. As we have seen, the pile burned fiercely for weeks on end. It is possible, even likely, for these temperatures to have been much higher than the fire temperatures prior to collapse. This is why NIST correctly states that the condition of steel in the debris pile does not necessarily reflect its condition before the collapse. Supposing there was molten steel found in the debris pile, it would not prove that there was molten steel present at any point while the Towers were still standing.

Finally, Dr. Griffin’s assertion that molten steel suggests explosives is baffling. Explosives, particularly those used in real controlled demolitions, do not melt steel. They destroy steel through impulse, and the very brief shock only heats the steel slightly, that heating caused by internal friction rather than heat from the explosives themselves.

As an extreme example of this, consider the action of artillery shells. These shells are typically pure high explosive contained by a steel jacket – a much more concentrated example than any conceivable controlled demolition scenario. Upon detonation, the steel jacket does not melt. Instead, it fragments, these fragments traveling at high velocity and inflicting most of the shell’s damage [133]. When found, these fragments often still bear rifling imprints, threading, and even markings painted on the shell before firing. It is therefore clear that explosives do not normally melt steel, even when the ratio of explosives to steel is extremely high.

Another type of explosive is the shaped-charge, sometimes used in demolition in the form of a linear shaped charge. In this arrangement the explosive is shaped to create a convergent blast wave, which in turn focuses and accelerates a thick coating of metal into a single thin rod or sheet traveling at extremely high velocity. At the instant of detonation, this metal is not strictly liquid or solid – it is essentially extruded at such a high speed that neither classification is wholly appropriate, instead being sometimes referred to as a “self-forging penetrator” for this reason. Linear shaped charges are sometimes used in demolition to cut through structural elements, and the sheer heat of friction between the penetrator and the structure can indeed melt steel. However, this melting is extremely localized. The most powerful shaped charge ever tested [134] was able to penetrate over three meters of armor steel, but as the photographs of the test show, actual melting was quite limited, essentially no greater than the diameter of the hole blasted by the penetrator. Steel that is melted emerges from the hole as small droplets at high speed, and these rapidly cool and disperse. There is no conceivable way for shaped charges to produce a pool of molten steel, which is what Dr. Griffin claims, because the droplets thereby melted do not remain hot for long – they are small, meaning they have a large ratio of surface area to volume, and will cool rapidly by convection, usually in a matter of seconds.

Shaped charges are also precluded by the other available evidence, in particular the nonexistence of seismic or audio evidence of their use. The sound of a shaped charge destroying a steel column is at best no quieter than the sound of that same column being broken mechanically, which is quite loud. There are no signs of penetrator materials or of secondary damage from shrapnel or pieces of penetrators. Placement of shaped charges is also critical, as both distance and alignment must be carefully adjusted for the penetrator to form correctly.

Dr. Griffin also appears to be unaware that even the very largest explosives ever created do not produce molten material that stays molten for weeks afterward. Drs. Kersting and Smith at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory report that even the molten rock and slag created by nuclear bombs, including those detonated underground where heat retention would be highest, invariably cool and resolidify in a mere matter of hours [135]. Even in such an extreme example with temperatures in the millions of degrees, the melt begins to resolidify in a matter of seconds. Therefore, any metal that remains molten must do so because of continuous fires after collapse, and this temperature has nothing to do with the collapse itself.

Regarding metal that melts at the instant of collapse, the only possible scenario that such an observation could support is that of Dr. Jones. This theory involves no explosives at all, but rather postulates that high-temperature incendiaries, such as thermite or a similar chemical formulation, were used to heat steel columns until they weakened or actually melted. One of the unmistakable problems with this theory is that, unlike the shaped charge above, thermite or any variant creates a large volume of molten iron, and rather than dispersing it explosively, this molten iron needs to be concentrated in one place to facilitate heat transfer to the structure. Containing thermite is nearly impossible (it can melt through most containers as well and tends to flow straight down as a result).

The thermite hypothesis implies that we must find large pools of formerly molten iron in the debris pile – the leftover puddle from the thermite device itself. There are no such blobs or pools of iron. Since, as Drs. Griffin and Jones suggest, the fires in the debris pile were not hot enough to melt steel, they should also not be hot enough to melt these iron blobs, and thus they would be expected to survive indefinitely. The amount of thermite required is also large, since approximately 140 kg of thermite is needed to melt each ton of steel, assuming perfect heating efficiency and no losses whatsoever due to thermal conductivity in the steel itself. We should, therefore, expect to find literally tons of formerly melted iron blobs in the debris pile. We have found none. Similarly, Dr. Griffin himself has presented no hard evidence of melted iron, even though he is clearly motivated to do so.

Rejoining Dr. Griffin’s argument, he next continues his reasoning that NIST erred by not considering the possibility of explosives. Citing James Fetzer, he argues that the molten metal in the debris pile is “relevant” to the collapse, because the debris pile was caused by the collapse. NIST, again, has stated that since it showed the collapses could have occurred without explosives, and there is no evidence of explosives, it needed not consider explosives. On this basis, Dr. Griffin accuses NIST of circular reasoning. It is perhaps best to consider Dr. Griffin’s unedited words:

We have here a perfectly circular argument: NIST articulated its theory. Critics responded that this theory did not explain the molten metal. NIST replied that the molten metal was irrelevant because it plays no role in NIST’s theory, which accounts for the collapses entirely in terms of impact damage and fire. [136]

There are several logical errors in this chain of reasoning as well. First, the NIST theory does explain the molten metal – melted aluminum and other substances, in large quantities, are predicted by the NIST model. Second, this does play a role in the NIST theory, because this verifies NIST’s claim that the fires were hot enough to weaken (but not melt) the structural steel. Third, Dr. Griffin has misinterpreted NIST’s response – once again, NIST states that, because of the mechanics of collapse and because the debris pile burned hotly for weeks, structural steel and other materials retrieved from the pile were expected to be slightly or severely more damaged than they would have been just prior to collapse.

Dr. Fetzer’s comment that the collapse and the debris pile are “related” is naïve – while the collapse did lead to the debris pile, the debris pile cannot be reconstructed to explain the collapse. Evidence was damaged and destroyed over time, and this process is irreversible. Similarly, Dr. Griffin’s contention that the NIST theory does not explain all of the observed evidence is wrong. He has no hard evidence for molten steel, and other molten materials are predicted by NIST’s theory.

Dr. Griffin closes this item with another quote from Dr. Jones, and another confusion between molten steel and molten metal:

It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce molten steel, but then there should be historical examples of this effect, since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. But no such examples have been found. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of molten metal. One needs at least one previous example.

To this, the author can only restate that there is no hard evidence of molten steel. The fires in the debris of the WTC Towers were exceptional and almost without precedent; however, until we have a sample of this allegedly melted steel, there is little point trying to prove that melted steel was possible. Since not even Dr. Jones or Dr. Griffin can point us to an actual remnant of melted steel, no matter how small, we must conclude that this was at best a highly local phenomenon. Otherwise we would expect to see a great deal of melted steel, given that over 10% of the debris was steel and that it sat burning for weeks.

[ref]

Here is another link from 911myths:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[ktesibios]

There's a good close view of the "meteorite" in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3410723&postcount=89) in an old thread.

Notice that it contains rebars which have clearly not been melted, as the ridges on their surfaces are intact, and also steel angles which are also unmelted.

The best fit hypothesis for its origin is that it's a collection of concree and steel debris from floor slabs, compacted into a sort of concretion by the weight of other debris.

[Quad4_72]

There's a good close view of the "meteorite" in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3410723&postcount=89) in an old thread.

Notice that it contains rebars which have clearly not been melted, as the ridges on their surfaces are intact, and also steel angles which are also unmelted.

The best fit hypothesis for its origin is that it's a collection of concree and steel debris from floor slabs, compacted into a sort of concretion by the weight of other debris.
But wait I thought massive amounts of thermite somehow melted everything together...

[CDRM]

Thanks for the information. I have looked through the links and I guess I am only left with a few questions:

Was 2800F ever recorded? A worker at Ground Zero in a video says it was 2800F, is it true/legit? (If you want to see the video it can be found at livevideo.com on a video titled "9/11 Molten Steel", posted on April 7/07 by Xenomorph911 ...sorry I can't link it)

And I have come across several truthers who claim the NASA thermal imaging (which found a high of 1300F) is not reliable for determining the real temperatures since it only measures surface temperature. Is this true?

and of course if you still have other info for the other questions, feel free to share.

Thanks again.:)

[DGM]

Thanks for the information. I have looked through the links and I guess I am only left with a few questions:

Was 2800F ever recorded? A worker at Ground Zero in a video says it was 2800F, is it true/legit? (If you want to see the video it can be found at livevideo.com on a video titled "9/11 Molten Steel", posted on April 7/07 by Xenomorph911 ...sorry I can't link it)

And I have come across several truthers who claim the NASA thermal imaging (which found a high of 1300F) is not reliable for determining the real temperatures since it only measures surface temperature. Is this true?

and of course if you still have other info for the other questions, feel free to share.

Thanks again.:)
Here's a link to an article about how normal things in fires can get to very high temps (or appear that way) with the right conditions. It also explains what blacksmiths knew hundreds of years ago but "truthers" will never grasp.

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

[parky76]

hmmm....the heat was hot enough to melt steel...yet not hot enough to...weaken steel.

how do 9-11 deniers deal with this one?

[T.A.M.]

Thanks for the information. I have looked through the links and I guess I am only left with a few questions:

Was 2800F ever recorded? A worker at Ground Zero in a video says it was 2800F, is it true/legit? (If you want to see the video it can be found at livevideo.com on a video titled "9/11 Molten Steel", posted on April 7/07 by Xenomorph911 ...sorry I can't link it)

And I have come across several truthers who claim the NASA thermal imaging (which found a high of 1300F) is not reliable for determining the real temperatures since it only measures surface temperature. Is this true?

and of course if you still have other info for the other questions, feel free to share.

Thanks again.:)

1. I do not think that the temperature was "recorded". As to whether the "2800F" claim by the worker is true or not, is up for debate. I would say this, (A) what kind of worker was he? What kind of qualifications does he/she have to make a statement about the temperature, and what was it based on? (B) Do you really think that such an exact statement (not 2790, not 2810, but 2800F) is accurate or legit?

The rest of your questions, from what you have said, seem to be answered, so I will leave it at that.

If you cannot find things here at JREF (The search engine sucks IMO), simply cross reference the topic you are looking for with the word "JREF" on Google, and you will usually find some things.

TAM:)

[CDRM]

Awesome stuff.

For your consideration: A better version of the video claim of 2800 can be found on youtube under the title "2800 degree fires at GZ, PBS, America Rebuilds."

[T.A.M.]

The "2800F" argument is a completely dead one (and a quite old one). Since you do not need a temp anywhere near 2800F to weaken the steel by a substantial amount (>50%) and hence cause it to fail, with collapse to follow, why even bother to argue it...with anyone.

TAM:)

[CDRM]

Well, the claims of 2800F are from people who believe thermite/thermate caused the heat, and then that heat was trapped by all the debris, so it could not escape.
And the reason the 2800 was not caught by NASA is that the surface temps were cooler than the fires below.

Is that even remotely plausible? (I know very little about thermodynamics, or whatever it you call it)

[DGM]

Well, the claims of 2800F are from people who believe thermite/thermate caused the heat, and then that heat was trapped by all the debris, so it could not escape.
And the reason the 2800 was not caught by NASA is that the surface temps were cooler than the fires below.

Is that even remotely plausible? (I know very little about thermodynamics, or whatever it you call it)
Therm?te reacts very quickly. Why would anyone expect it's effects to last for months? The high temps argument being explained by therm?te is simply "truthers" trying to fit what they don't know into their favorite theory.

[ElMondoHummus]

An article by the journal Professional Safety (http://www.asse.org/professionalsafety/) covering Bechtel corp's Safety, Health, and Environment team made note of this temperature being measured:


The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes.

(Article link: http://old.asse.org/groundzero1.htm)

In the past here, I've said that Bechtel themselves took the measurements, but upon rereading this, I realize that it's not clear who actually did. Nonetheless, 2,800o temperatures were indeed measured.

But leaping from that to thermite use is unwarranted. For starters, the implication is that those high temps were there over time; thermite completes its reaction on the order of seconds. I supposed using a large amount can extend that to single-digit minutes, but that's still not a long enough timeframe to account for the heat noted. Also, as others have noted, temperature is as much a function of the amount of energy available as anything else, and other physicists in this forum and elsewhere have noted that there was a tremendous amount of energy available in the form of combustible office contents. That such a high temperature was achieved in spots is amazing, but not surprising, and certainly not impossible with just office contents and an insulative environment.

Thermite fails due to the lack of gross, unmistakable characteristics, such as a very obvious light show, very obvious signs of melting on the steel (not just the eutectic erosion that was noted), and very large hardened iron puddles of formerly molten steel. All those are missing. The fact that there were spots on the debris pile where temperatures were in the range that thermite can act at doesn't mean thermite was available; other expected characteristics or pieces of evidence for thermite are missing.

[CDRM]

Okay so if 2800 was reached, does that not then cast serious doubt on the claims that the molten metal cannot be molten steel. I mean, if it did get that hot, could these reported pools of molten steel that have been 'debunked' have really been molten steel? (im just curious I guess, I don't know if it really proves anything either way)

And where could I find these anaylsis which show insulted fires fueled by office materials can reach that tempertaure. Are there any jounral studies, or forum posts that have proven this?

[DGM]

Okay so if 2800 was reached, does that not then cast serious doubt on the claims that the molten metal cannot be molten steel. I mean, if it did get that hot, could these reported pools of molten steel that have been 'debunked' have really been molten steel? (im just curious I guess, I don't know if it really proves anything either way)

And where could I find these anaylsis which show insulted fires fueled by office materials can reach that tempertaure. Are there any jounral studies, or forum posts that have proven this?
The link I posted earlier shows the upper end temp to be (potentially) much higher than 2800 (should the iron react and ignite).
Here again: http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

The point is no one tested it but, The "truthers" claim it to be some sort of "smoking gun" for what no one knows. The challenge should be, "truthers" make this "smoking gun" some how fit your "theory" (if they had one).

Are you starting to see how "truthers" distort and redirect without ever connecting anything to some sort of coherent claim?

[T.A.M.]

Okay so if 2800 was reached, does that not then cast serious doubt on the claims that the molten metal cannot be molten steel. I mean, if it did get that hot, could these reported pools of molten steel that have been 'debunked' have really been molten steel? (im just curious I guess, I don't know if it really proves anything either way)

And where could I find these anaylsis which show insulted fires fueled by office materials can reach that tempertaure. Are there any jounral studies, or forum posts that have proven this?

I am not sure, exactly, who said the molten metal "COULD NOT BE" Molten STEEL. What has been said here, is that there is no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that it was STEEL. What has been said here is that those who stated it was STEEL, were not, for the most part, qualified to make such a statement based on a brief visual of the metal. What has been said here, is given that sustained temps of 2800F were extremely unlikely (with the exception perhaps of insulated, sustained heat within the pile), that the molten metal seen was more than likely not steel.

Interesting quotes around the word "debunked" from a non-truther. Interesting turn in the approach and language as well.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

Okay so if 2800 was reached, does that not then cast serious doubt on the claims that the molten metal cannot be molten steel. I mean, if it did get that hot, could these reported pools of molten steel that have been 'debunked' have really been molten steel? (im just curious I guess, I don't know if it really proves anything either way)

And where could I find these anaylsis which show insulted fires fueled by office materials can reach that tempertaure. Are there any jounral studies, or forum posts that have proven this?

I understand there were reports of molten metal, but there's never been actual validation of reports of molten steel in the form of hardened iron chunks that were the formerly molten pools. Given that, and given the lack of melting noted on the recovered steel components (for those who know about it, the eutectic erosion doesn't count in any way, shape, or form), I don't see how anyone can give such reports any real credence.

Also: Being that hot in spots is not the same as being uniformly that hot. It could be that the hot spots were in areas that were mostly some other material; concrete and office contents, perhaps. The debris was far from orderly, and just from random distribution, it's possible to have such areas. Again, note that the temperature encompassed a range, and note that there's no discussion as to how large the areas were that reached 2,800 degrees.

Besides which, even if metal was molten, there's still a huge gulf to cross to blame incendiaries like thermite.

As to your second question: There are no analyses about the temperatures office fires can reach. Journal studies are not conducted on such questions. But, such information is not the final word; you can work from principle, and that's what we did here to come to that conclusion. In any given item, there is potential energy available measurable in joules, kilocalories, ergs, BTU's, whatever unit you choose to use. A wooden chair has so many joules, kilocalories, etc., and so does a desk, or a cabinet full of files. Now, temperature is a function of how much of this energy is in a system and how much of it dissipates. Read this Physorg post (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=12&t=3233):


First, when fuel burns, it does not give a temperature; who the hell started this?? When fuel burns, it gives an amount of Joules. These Joules will go into the nearby materials and raise its temperature. The amount at which the temperature raises by the number of joules in it depends solely on the type of material and its quantity. So if the entire energy of a small camp fire were put into the tip of a needle, it would raise its temperature by 20,000 degrees celcius. Similarly, if the energy produced by a thermo nuclear weapon were spread accross 3 oceans, the temperature would raise by a billionth of a degree. So, it all depends on the quantity and type of matter you put the joules in.


In short, temperature is a function of the energy available/being produced, how big an area, the material who's temperature is being measured, etc. We know we have an incredibly large amount of fuel available, a superabundance in fact: The University of Califoria, Davis "DELTA (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm)" (Detection and Evaluatoin in Long-range Transport of Aerosols) group estimates there is 43 trillion joules of energy available (Source (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC%20aersols%20ACS%202003.ppt). Note: The link is to a PowerPoint presentation, it is not a text or HTML link). Given that information, the only questions left are speed of liberation, how much dissipates into the atmosphere, and how much is retained in the pile. Knowing the sheer amount of energy available, and that there were fires to liberate it, I don't see why thermite would be needed to explain the 2,800o temperatures noted.

[Quad4_72]

Interesting quotes around the word "debunked" from a non-truther. Interesting turn in the approach and language as well.

TAM:)

Indeed. I picked up on him in his very first post as I am sure most of you did.

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, just for edification: One of the firefighters in the forum posted a "Basic Principles of Fire Behavior" thread a while back. It's worth a read:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87587

[CDRM]

Awesome, absolutely awesome.

Sorry if I came across as a truther, I really am not. I often have no trouble with truthers. I simply wanted clarifiction, and the best sources possible on this specific issue so I can really shut them up.

Thanks a million!

[Quad4_72]

Awesome, absolutely awesome.

Sorry if I came across as a truther, I really am not. I often have no trouble with truthers. I simply wanted clarifiction, and the best sources possible on this specific issue so I can really shut them up.

Thanks a million!

So am I to understand that you have read through all of the information presented here and now you completely understand the answers to all of your questions and you also have no additional questions?

[ElMondoHummus]

Easy, folks, easy. I see what you all see too. But fairness says that questions posed in honesty are worthy of answers posted in the same vein.

I think we can all easily continue the civil tone we've all been using so far.

[CDRM]

Yes, I think they've all been answered as best as they possibly can.

I don't know what is so strange about what I'm doing. I am not a truther, I had a general idea as to why these truther claims were wrong, but I wanted to get other -more intelligent- opinions and some evidence to back me up. You guys did just that.

Thank you.

[T.A.M.]

CDRM:

Well given the amount of people we have had arrive here claiming to be "non-truthers" who are just asking for "clarification" or "just asking questions", who withing 2-3 pages of posts reveal themselves to be "truthers", you'll have to try to understand our suspicion.

Glad people here could help.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

If you ever want to address the fire temperature thing, point them in the direction of Burning Mountain, Australia. It's a naturally occuring coal seam fire that reaches temperatures around 1700 degrees C, and is about 350 degrees C on the surface.

Large amounts of fuel, buried under ground and insulated (say by an enormous pile of debris) can burn at very high temperatures for a very long time.

That's precisely what you saw in the WTC debris pile, and what that is evidence of is not that thermite was used (any thermite would have completed burning before the roof hit the ground) but that A) The pre collapse fires were extensive and B) The towers contained enormous amounts of fuel to feed a large fire.

Is it possible that molten steel was present in the WTC debris pile due to intense heat? Absolutely.

Does it prove thermite? No. It debunks thermite.