My Explanation of molten metal seen flowing from window on 9/11

[truther55]

I believe a combination of thermite and explosives brought down the WTC 1,2 and 7 on 9/11.

There is a debate about the type of molten metal seen flowing from a window in the South Tower in the 60 seconds before it collapsed - "truthers" say it was molten steel from a thermite reaction and "debunkers" say it was molten aluminum.

I discuss below how difficult it would be to create tons of molten aluminum that is famously seen flowing from that window and that it is more likely molten steel.

I'm new to this forum but I've read the threads on here related to the molten metal seen streaming from the south tower window. I'm aware of all the points and counter points to this issue.

I'm also a mechanical engineer with a masters degree and 20 years of experience. I understand physics and chemistry well enough so feel free to try to debunk with intelligent questions.

I can't post web links as a new member (after 15 posts I can) - so you'll have to do a google on the following to see the videos:
google the following:

"south tower molten metal stabilized youtube"

or google

"nbzdO0EPOGg youtube"

There is a video made by a group trying to debunk conspiracy theories regarding the molten metal and who say it is just melted aluminum from the
airplane flowing out of the window and glowing due to its temperature
and dissolved organic materials embedded:

google the following to get the youtube link:

"youtube DhHzMttUKO0"

My problem with their explanation is that they say the aluminum is 980 C (1800 F) based on the "light orange" color chart shown in the video but they are using a color chart for steel. I searched the internet for a color chart for aluminum vs. temperature but could not find one. At the higher temperatures, the color chart for aluminum and steel probably start to look the same but I can't tell you how similar. Certainly at the orange colors and below, the two materials would be different temperatures with the steel being hotter and the aluminum being cooler (at the same color).

Most photos showing molten aluminum on the internet don't say what the temperature is and even if they did, I'm not sure if I would believe it. But based on the fact that aluminum has a higher reflectivity and a lower emissivity than steel over all temperature ranges, the temperature for "light orange" aluminum is higher than "light orange" steel. So the molten aluminum must be hotter than 980 C. Furthermore, I say the color is not "light orange" in the WTC video but more like bright yellow based on the fact that the video shows the amount of light emitted being very bright. My gut feeling is that
"bright orange" aluminum would not emit that much light in daylight conditions where a camera 1500+ feet away would see such a bright substance.

So, in summary, two facts tell me that *IF* the molten metal was aluminum, it would be hotter (much hotter?) than 980 C and those facts are:

1. The color chart for aluminum vs. temperature (if I could find it) would show a higher temperature than that same color for steel. (with steel at 980 C being "light orange").

2. The brightness of the molten metal seen in the video at an estimated 1500+ feet away seems to show more of a bright yellow color

So how do you heat aluminum to yellow hot in a building fire? The hottest temperature in a room fire is near the *top* of the flames, closer to the ceiling - not at the bottom. There is speculation on the internet that the molten aluminum must have been trapped by some sort of "dam" and then after sufficient quantity had melted, it all flowed out the window. Many tons of material are estimated to have fallen from that window.

So the floor had to create a depression, the molten metal pooled in it and it was heated to yellow hot temperature. Was the heat from flames on the same floor or was the heat from the next floor down? If the flames were from the floor immediately below then it would have to conduct through concrete and corrugated steel which is what the floor was made from. That would make it impossible for the aluminum to reach 1000+ C temperatures because the concrete/steel would be too much of an insulator.

So the heat must have come from the *same* floor. But the hottest temperatures are near the ceiling - not at the base where the aluminum would be melting. The fuel (paper /plastic / debris etc.) would get in the way and block those hot temperatures at the top of the flames from reaching the aluminum that is pooled on the floor. So essentially, the fuel (paper/plastic etc) would be insulating the aluminum from the hottest temperatures.

If there was a pile of combustibles (plastic/paper) on fire with aluminum piled on top, then after the aluminum melted at 660 C it would flow to the cooler floor. Any ash that dropped below would act as an insulator, insulating the aluminum from the hottest temperatures.

To make a hot fire, you have to shake away all the ash that gets in the way of air flowing through the combusting material which obviously isn't going to happen in the WTC.

Thomas Eagar, MIT professor, wrote a study on the collapse - he writes the following:

>>"Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the >>radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the
>> maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the >> WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800° C range.

google "eagar mit wtc fire" to get his paper

So an MIT professor, specializing in materials engineering, says the WTC steel would be *unlikely* to experience temperatures above 750-800 C. And that has to be steel that is near the hottest part of the flame. My scenarios show that the aluminum is not near the hottest parts of the flame. Anyone responding to my post should focus on this point - the aluminum is *not* near the hottest part of the fire. What is your scenario that explains it?

How do you create molten aluminum that according to color charts (albeit a steel color chart) seems to indicate a temperature higher than 1000 C - hotter than the MIT professor says that any metals reached in the WTC fire? How do you get such perfect conditions to create *TONS* (some people estimate 10+ tons) of molten metal at such a bright luminosity? It's just too perfect - like all the other things that went "perfect" and brought down 3 huge buildings in one day.

I think it is molten steel from a thermite reaction (iron oxide powder and aluminum powder which creates molten iron at 2500 C).

Some debunkers have said that paper / ash / glass / plastic etc, which would glow yellow hot at lower temperatures (such as 650 C), must be mixed in with the molten aluminum and thus make it glow at a lower temperature. My problem with this is that the video shows liquid metal pouring, flowing and forming droplets that glow brightly (fully exposing the interior of the "mix"). This would indicate that the ash / paper / glass / plastic would have to be *thoroughly* mixed in with the molten aluminum and I don't see how it could be so thoroughly mixed in. The ash / glass / plastic would float on the top of the much denser liquid aluminum and would be slightly trapped during pouring out the window. Just like the foam on top of a beer being poured stays in the glass as the glass is tilted and poured out. The foam pours out last. In this case the lighter ash / plastic /paper etc would not mix with the molten aluminum and would pour out last because it is floating on the top.

For sense of scale, the windows are a little less than 1.5 feet wide (estimated) with the perimeter columns being 3' 4" apart (known). There are 61 perimeter columns spanning 207 feet.

In a you tube video, there is an assistant professor from NIST trying to mix molten aluminum and paper, plastic, glass, carpet but he didn't succeed. To find the video, google the following:

"SQdkyaO56OY youtube"

==========================
There is a discussion of room temperatures in fires from a company
specializing in fire science if you google the following

"flametmp doctorfire"

quoting from that website:
Flame temperatures in room fires
There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover
room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C. The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.

Temperatures of objects

It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat
transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low- density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.
=========================

Another link for a discussion of temperatures in room fires
google the following

"interactfire legislation fire"

[R.Mackey]

tl;dr, but you're arguing from a false premise. NIST believes the material was molten aluminum slag, with impurities or other objects (e.g. bits of carpet) providing the color and luminance, not pure aluminum. The leading theory in my mind is the one from Paulo Attivissimo (http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html), who proposes the material was molten lead, from a large bank of uninterruptible power supplies later confirmed to be near that location. Given their energy storage, they wouldn't even need to be heated by the fire; arcing alone could provide the heat required.

More importantly, there is no reason to think this one, isolated incident in one of two Towers, long before collapse, could possibly be the result of a sabotage device, since naturally those would have fired much later. We may never know precisely what it was, but without a reasonable conspiracy hypothesis, we don't need to know, either. It's merely a curiosity.

Welcome to the Forums.

[TruthersLie]

Oh look.

a drive by twoofing.

Now you should do a simple thing... type in your woo... then put the word DEBUNKED after it in google.

now ready for the hard part?

Read what comes up.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

How many times do we have to explain that 9/11 wasn't an "Inside Job"?

How many gullible high school/college kids get sucked into the lies made by the Truth Movement or those of Truthers?

Holy crap Batman!

[truther55]

As soon as the arcing melted some lead, the lead would flow away from the arc. At the same time, it has to be heated to 900+ C and there has to be tons created ....and then it all flows out the window at the same time. Way too complicated.

On the other hand there is multiple corroborating evidence that there was thermite involved (tiny iron spheres - remnants of thermite, Appendix C of the NIST report, molten steel seen at ground zero etc)

[GlennB]

...
Most photos showing molten aluminum on the internet don't say what the temperature is and even if they did, I'm not sure if I would believe it....


So if an aluminium smelting company website told you the true temperature you automatically wouldn't believe them? How bizarre.

Probably best to get your thoughts into some kind of order and then repost in a comprehensible manner.

Welcome.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

As soon as the arcing melted some lead, the lead would flow away from the arc. At the same time, it has to be heated to 900+ C and there has to be tons created ....and then it all flows out the window at the same time. Way too complicated.

On the other hand there is multiple corroborating evidence that there was thermite involved (tiny iron spheres - remnants of thermite, Appendix C of the NIST report, molten steel seen at ground zero etc)

"Evidence" from who? Tony Szamboti, David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, or Richard Gage?

There's no evidence of "molten steel"!

We've pretty much covered that stupid theory in other threads. This one is just like the others that covered "molten steel".

You've got something other than what has already been covered before?

[TexasJack]

As soon as the arcing melted some lead, the lead would flow away from the arc. At the same time, it has to be heated to 900+ C and there has to be tons created ....and then it all flows out the window at the same time. Way too complicated.

On the other hand there is multiple corroborating evidence that there was thermite involved (tiny iron spheres - remnants of thermite, Appendix C of the NIST report, molten steel seen at ground zero etc)

Right. :rolleyes:

[bill smith]

As soon as the arcing melted some lead, the lead would flow away from the arc. At the same time, it has to be heated to 900+ C and there has to be tons created ....and then it all flows out the window at the same time. Way too complicated.

On the other hand there is multiple corroborating evidence that there was thermite involved (tiny iron spheres - remnants of thermite, Appendix C of the NIST report, molten steel seen at ground zero etc)

Tons would mean entire molten column segments. Many of them together to push a pool of steel all the way to the window and out.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Truther55 thinks that the "molten metal" that's flowing out of a window is "evidence" enough to prove that it's "molten steel". You can't tell what it is Truther55 just by looking at it!

What a schmuck! :dl:

[Gaspode]

Let's keep it civil please.

[DGM]

As soon as the arcing melted some lead, the lead would flow away from the arc. At the same time, it has to be heated to 900+ C and there has to be tons created ....and then it all flows out the window at the same time. Way too complicated.

On the other hand there is multiple corroborating evidence that there was thermite involved (tiny iron spheres - remnants of thermite, Appendix C of the NIST report, molten steel seen at ground zero etc)
Now this is funny ****! Do you have any evidence (Cue typical "truther" response) that has been verified by an independent (not "truther") source?

PS Welcome to the forum.

[truther55]

for an independent source google the following:
"appendix c nist steel"

This is a report from NIST where they try to figure out what eroded a thick steel beams so that they were razor thin in places and had a swiss chees appearance, they discover sulpur which is an indicator of thermite,

also google
RJ Lee steel wtc summary report

and see the "iron spheres" that they found - along with evidence of high temperature melting (not typical office fire temperature type melting). This was a law firms report from 2003.

[CHF]

Sigh.....Is it 2006 again?

[DGM]

for an independent source google the following:
"appendix c nist steel"

This is a report from NIST where they try to figure out what eroded a thick steel beams so that they were razor thin in places and had a swiss chees appearance, they discover sulpur which is an indicator of thermite,

also google
RJ Lee steel wtc summary report

and see the "iron spheres" that they found - along with evidence of high temperature melting (not typical office fire temperature type melting). This was a law firms report from 2003.
So you don't understand the report?

[bill smith]

I think that may have been the earlier FEMA report about the swiss-cheese steel and so on.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

for an independent source google the following:
"appendix c nist steel"

This is a report from NIST where they try to figure out what eroded a thick steel beams so that they were razor thin in places and had a swiss chees appearance, they discover sulpur which is an indicator of thermite,

also google
RJ Lee steel wtc summary report

and see the "iron spheres" that they found - along with evidence of high temperature melting (not typical office fire temperature type melting). This was a law firms report from 2003.

Right! Sulfur in the drywall & the jet fuel you mean!

[Grizzly Bear]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but with a site that's in close proximity to a large body of water, in a heated, moist environment for several months, along side other materials undergoing heat catalyzed chemical reactions... might that be a perfect environment for some severe forms of corrosion? :rolleyes:

[TexasJack]

Sigh.....Is it 2006 again?

He needs to catch up to the latest, thermite is old truther news, now it's nano-thermite.

[MikeW]

and see the "iron spheres" that they found - along with evidence of high temperature melting (not typical office fire temperature type melting). This was a law firms report from 2003.
What temperatures do they believe the steel experienced?

[kookbreaker]

There is a massive problem with trying to gauge temperatures by the color from a compressed camera video, be you debunker or truther.

[fourtoe]

On the other hand there is multiple corroborating evidence that there was thermite involved (tiny iron spheres - remnants of thermite, Appendix C of the NIST report, molten steel seen at ground zero etc)

This is incorrect. The Fe spheres were expected to be there and finding them was one of several ways ppl could differentiate WTC dust from dusts created via other sources.

[DGM]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but with a site that's in close proximity to a large body of water, in a heated, moist environment for several months, along side other materials undergoing heat catalyzed chemical reactions... might that be a perfect environment for some severe forms of corrosion? :rolleyes:
Not in a "truthers" world!:o

[bill smith]

This is a regular education watching the entire garrison neing broken out brandishing their ancient weapons. Their hackneyed responses that lose weight by the day. Really guys....it's true.

[DGM]

This is a regular education watching the entire garrison neing broken out brandishing their ancient weapons. Their hackneyed responses that lose weight by the day. Really guys....it's true.
Yet no one pays attention to what we battle (as a hobby).

[SezMe]

truther55, just include your links without the "www". That will save us all a lot of time that we can then devote to your new, incisive and well-thought out ideas.

[fourtoe]

for an independent source google the following:
"appendix c nist steel"

This is a report from NIST where they try to figure out what eroded a thick steel beams so that they were razor thin in places and had a swiss chees appearance, they discover sulpur which is an indicator of thermite,

also google
RJ Lee steel wtc summary report

and see the "iron spheres" that they found - along with evidence of high temperature melting (not typical office fire temperature type melting). This was a law firms report from 2003.

Where I got the info I posted in my previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5313469&postcount=22) came from the RJ Lee paper.

This is a regular education watching the entire garrison neing broken out brandishing their ancient weapons. Their hackneyed responses that lose weight by the day. Really guys....it's true.

Bill, what would we do without our lovable, token JREF Truther?

[DGM]

truther55, just include your links without the "www". That will save us all a lot of time that we can then devote to your new, incisive and well-thought out ideas.
:D That's a good one!

[commandlinegamer]

Molten steel was found because of the Bessemer converter located on floors 57 through 59. Didn't you know the CIA had a secret foundry in the WTC?

[R.Mackey]

for an independent source google the following:
"appendix c nist steel"

This is a report from NIST where they try to figure out what eroded a thick steel beams so that they were razor thin in places and had a swiss chees appearance, they discover sulpur which is an indicator of thermite,

also google
RJ Lee steel wtc summary report

and see the "iron spheres" that they found - along with evidence of high temperature melting (not typical office fire temperature type melting). This was a law firms report from 2003.

People are being mean to you because we've known of these for years, and unlike you, we know that they prove it wasn't thermite.

The NIST report, Appendix C, notes that only a single recovered piece from WTC 1 or 2 was affected, that it happened long after collapse, and that the maximum temperature experienced by that piece was under 1000oC. All of these contradict your hackneyed and never-plausible thermite ideas.

NIST also builds on earlier work by WPI, which proved, likewise, the effect was distinctly caused by a sulfurous slag at temperatures well below those of a thermite reaction. Nor does thermite, not of any type, create sulfurous slag in the first place.

The RJ Lee report concerns the environmental hazards months after collapse, and after cleanup. The microspheres found by them are caused by cutting and salvage.

There are also innumerable sources of microspheres, including its presence in the fly ash of concrete construction, welding, paper, vehicles, impact, even paints. Many building contents involved energy storage and very thin bits of steel, like computer casings, that could locally melt when power supplies arced. The list is endless. In fact, one of the only things that hasn't been shown to produce these microspheres is a thermite reaction...

Seriously, I know you think you're handing down the tablets of knowledge to the unwashed, but you're way, way behind the curve, and you also seem to have misunderstood. I haven't even heard the big names in the Truth Movement repeat this nonsense in a long time. Dr. Jones? Explosives with a "nanothermite" fuse, that's his new schtick. Gage? Explosives. Hoffman? Thermite functioning as an explosive. Even your own wacky friends have moved on.

Stick around, you may learn something. You have much to learn.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Molten steel was found because of the Bessemer converter located on floors 57 through 59. Didn't you know the CIA had a secret foundry in the WTC?

There was no Bessemer converter in the WTC.

The Bessemer Converter was created in a steel mill (Cambria Iron Works) here in Johnstown, PA. It's in the Smithsonian Museum.

:dl:

http://www.jaha.org/edu/discovery_center/work/industry02.html

Of course I know you're only kidding!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Could someone who actually believes that thermite, nanothermite or vegimite actually was instrumental in causing the buildings to collapse please calculate the volume of these substances that would have to be lathered on the steel beams in order to trigger the event?

Thank you.

I'll wait.

:D

[bill smith]

Where I got the info I posted in my previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5313469&postcount=22) came from the RJ Lee paper.



Bill, what would we do without our lovable, token JREF Truther?

Lovable though I may be you should not mistake me for a token jref Truther .

[fourtoe]

You should not mistake me for a token jref Truther.

That's our Bill!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Can Truthers spot the difference?

[truther55]

ok, my original post getting diverted too much - iron microshperes etc, (even if I did some of it)

go back to the window and the molten metal flowing from it and focus on what's coming out of the window,
without the world wide web:

youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg

uninteruptable power supplies have lead, lead melts at 327 C and plastic burns/decompses/melts below 350 C

how do you get yellow, luminous molten lead created ? at the level of multiple tons and 1000+ C ?

any plastic or aluminum container holding it would disintegrate and any molten lead would quickly melt on to the floor or wherever - it would move away from the arcing,

It's too hard to visualize - can anyone come up with a lead battery scenario that is plausible? if the electrolyte in the lead acid battery got too hot then it would boil away and stop the reaction,

the yellow hot lead can't come from the same battery that is producing the electric current because the electrolyte would boil away

[R.Mackey]

You're assuming it poured out the window as soon as it was created. This is a stupid assumption. More likely it was in a pool on that floor until the structure shifted, which it did -- or the floor sagged, which it also did -- causing it to pour through the hole.

There is only one fountain of this stuff, yes?

It's not too hard to visualize. Maybe it is for you, but that's your problem. Such is called an Argument to Incredulity, and you cannot win an argument with a logical fallacy. Sorry, but you've got nothing.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Edited for civility

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

ok, my original post getting diverted too much - iron microshperes etc, (even if I did some of it)

go back to the window and the molten metal flowing from it and focus on what's coming out of the window,
without the world wide web:

youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg

uninteruptable power supplies have lead, lead melts at 327 C and plastic burns/decompses/melts below 350 C

how do you get yellow, luminous molten lead created ? at the level of multiple tons and 1000+ C ?

any plastic or aluminum container holding it would disintegrate and any molten lead would quickly melt on to the floor or wherever - it would move away from the arcing,

It's too hard to visualize - can anyone come up with a lead battery scenario that is plausible? if the electrolyte in the lead acid battery got too hot then it would boil away and stop the reaction,

the yellow hot lead can't come from the same battery that is producing the electric current because the electrolyte would boil away

Molten lead doesn't glow, as far as I know!

[fourtoe]

ok, my original post getting diverted too much - iron microshperes etc, (even if I did some of it)


Well alright, I hope that finding out that you are wrong about this part doesn't contradict any other theories you have about 911.

[bill smith]

ok, my original post getting diverted too much - iron microshperes etc, (even if I did some of it)

go back to the window and the molten metal flowing from it and focus on what's coming out of the window,
without the world wide web:

youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg

uninteruptable power supplies have lead, lead melts at 327 C and plastic burns/decompses/melts below 350 C

how do you get yellow, luminous molten lead created ? at the level of multiple tons and 1000+ C ?

any plastic or aluminum container holding it would disintegrate and any molten lead would quickly melt on to the floor or wherever - it would move away from the arcing,

It's too hard to visualize - can anyone come up with a lead battery scenario that is plausible? if the electrolyte in the lead acid battery got too hot then it would boil away and stop the reaction,

the yellow hot lead can't come from the same battery that is producing the electric current because the electrolyte would boil away

If you have a link you especially want to post direct me to it and I will post it for you.

PS on second thoughts I better not. It might go against the MA. You'll be up to 15 in no time anyway.

[fourtoe]

I think some people are being a little too hostile to this guy. Yeah what he is describing has been debunked long ago, but his posts do not reflect the posts from a usual douchey Truther drive by.

[bill smith]

ok, my original post getting diverted too much - iron microshperes etc, (even if I did some of it)

go back to the window and the molten metal flowing from it and focus on what's coming out of the window,
without the world wide web:

youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg

uninteruptable power supplies have lead, lead melts at 327 C and plastic burns/decompses/melts below 350 C

how do you get yellow, luminous molten lead created ? at the level of multiple tons and 1000+ C ?

any plastic or aluminum container holding it would disintegrate and any molten lead would quickly melt on to the floor or wherever - it would move away from the arcing,

It's too hard to visualize - can anyone come up with a lead battery scenario that is plausible? if the electrolyte in the lead acid battery got too hot then it would boil away and stop the reaction,

the yellow hot lead can't come from the same battery that is producing the electric current because the electrolyte would boil away

At the end pf your clip the material looks like it's thickening up a little. Probably part of a pool of steel that has been pushed across the floor by a70 foot or so section of melted core column that has extruded out onto the floor . As it slides thinly across the floor towards the window it begins to cool.

[truther55]

Molten lead doesn't glow, as far as I know!

molten lead glows if it is 900+ C,

I'm trying to say that the molten metal flowing out of the window is molten iron from thermite and not lead from uninterruptable power supplies (the floor was supposedly loaded with them - though no definitive evidence that they were in use)

I'm also trying to say it wasn't melted aluminum from the plane -

[R.Mackey]

You are trying to say that, but you have no evidence for it.

Nor do you have any scenario into which thermite fits.

The UPS story is one of many perfectly ordinary things that would explain it, and unlike yours, is at least plausible and supported by circumstantial evidence. There isn't even that much for thermite.

For example, riddle me this: The molten iron is there to weaken or cut through steel, as it flows over its surface, right? So why wouldn't it punch right through a 4" lightweight concrete floor over a 22-gauge steel deck? This magic thermite of yours can wipe out huge steel structural columns when gravity works against it, but it can't even melt a hole in the lightweight floor assemblies when gravity helps it? That's your story?

[WildCat]

As soon as the arcing melted some lead, the lead would flow away from the arc. At the same time, it has to be heated to 900+ C and there has to be tons created ....and then it all flows out the window at the same time. Way too complicated.
Why "tons"?

On the other hand there is multiple corroborating evidence that there was thermite involved (tiny iron spheres - remnants of thermite, Appendix C of the NIST report, molten steel seen at ground zero etc)
So you think it was "tons" of thermite at just that one location?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

molten lead glows if it is 900+ C,

I'm trying to say that the molten metal flowing out of the window is molten iron from thermite and not lead from uninterruptable power supplies (the floor was supposedly loaded with them - though no definitive evidence that they were in use)

I'm also trying to say it wasn't melted aluminum from the plane -

You got any pictures of molten lead glowing? If you do please present them!

No it's not molten iron from thermite. There's no evidence!

There was a large battery room located near that section where you see something drip from the window.

Dude, there was aluminum every where! The planes & the fascade from both Towers.

[bill smith]

Did I read something there about molten iron cutting through steel ? Must ha' been mistaken. Anyway the steel in the 70 foot (about 6 floors) section of column is melted from bottom to top and extruded out onto the floor - thus in a timed way such that the floor could handle he weight. The reason the columns melted was that they had had nano-thermite sprayed inside their hollow interiors to a thickness sufficient to do the job. It was so all throughout the buildings. Not every column- after all there had to be some core columns to show. Nice and discreet too. Who would have noticed the filling of the columns ?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Did I read something there about molten iron cutting through steel ? Must ha' been mistaken. Anyway the steel in the 70 foot (about 6 floors) section of column is melted from nottom to top and extruded out onto the floor in a timed way such that the floor could handle he weight. The reason the columns melted was that they had had nano-thermire sprayed inside their hollow interiors to a thickness sufficient to do the job. It was so all through the buildings. Nice and discreet too. Who would notice ?

Bill, don't you realize that sprayed on thermite will react the same way as a sparkler that a kid holds when they light it with a match or lighter?

The Hindenburg was painted with thermite:

[TheDaver]

I'm trying to say that the molten metal flowing out of the window is molten iron from thermite and not lead from uninterruptable power supplies (the floor was supposedly loaded with them - though no definitive evidence that they were in use)
You should be trying to fit your conclusion to the facts rather than the other way around.

[T.A.M.]

KSM gets his trial in New York and suddenly the internetz is a buzzin once more with the truthers and their old, totally debunked, ridiculous nonsense. This is the 3rd new guy in what, 2-3 days now?

Anyway, looks like R.Mackey and others have him well in hand, despite his ability to ignore the evidence being shown him.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

First of all, attempting to make arguments about the material noted in a video by its color means nothing when you also do not know the margin of error in color fidelity in the source.

Second, as Ryan noted but our new guest seems to ignore: There was only a single piece of steel that was affected by erosion. And the Worchester Polytechnic study definitively established the corrosion as being sulfur mediated. The remains of a euctectic mix puts an upper limit on the temperature that the corroded steel was exposed to, and that is well below the melting point of steel. Had the steel actually melted, the eutectic would have been destroyed.

Third (and I'm sorry to be turning into a broken record on this, but truthers continually ignore this point): NCSTAR 1-3C identifies many steel components - columns, panels, trusses, etc. - from around the impact and fire zones. The failure modes of these components were noted. Not a single one of them involved melting or explosive separation. Not a single one. All of them involved being wrenched apart. This by itself negates the thermite and the explosives proposals as these are structural elements that were in and near the collapse initiation zones. In plain english, the state of the debris contradicts incendiaries and explosives proposals.

It does not matter what color the flowing material was, especially since it would've travelled some distance within the towers and had picked up much material, thus rendering it heterogenous (or in plain english, even if the color was accurate, you can't judge what it is because it would definitely have been a mix of materials). It doesn't matter what people want to presume about the flow. If it were steel, you'd see corresponding signs of melting on the recovered steel. You do not. Ergo, the flow was not steel. End of story.

As an intellectual exercise, people can debate to their heart's content about what the composition of that molten flow was. But any propositions cannot include contradicted scenarios, and the notion that it was steel is directly contradicted by the state of the debris. Period.

[bill smith]

KSM gets his trial in New York and suddenly the internetz is a buzzin once more with the truthers and their old, totally debunked, ridiculous nonsense. This is the 3rd new guy in what, 2-3 days now?

Anyway, looks like R.Mackey and others have him well in hand, despite his ability to ignore the evidence being shown him.

TAM:)
Always look on the bright side TAM.

[ElMondoHummus]

KSM gets his trial in New York and suddenly the internetz is a buzzin once more with the truthers and their old, totally debunked, ridiculous nonsense. This is the 3rd new guy in what, 2-3 days now?

Anyway, looks like R.Mackey and others have him well in hand, despite his ability to ignore the evidence being shown him.

TAM:)

Yeah, I noticed that myself. I'm also musing on how many of the new faces are really old faces, but hey, that's been happening for years now, hasn't it? ;)

[tsig]

Tons would mean entire molten column segments. Many of them together to push a pool of steel all the way to the window and out.

Then what was holding up the building?

[bill smith]

Then what was holding up the building?

Not all the core columns were ,melted at the same time. I think around 40%-50% were melted just before the general collapse. Check the collapse of the antenna (just before the general collapse) in WTC1 to get an idea of the dynamic. Probably the steel out the window in WTC2 was the same time marker as the antenna was in WTC1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k antenna slo-mo

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Not all the core columns were ,melted at the same time. I think around 40%-50% were melted just before the general collapse. Check the collapse of the antenna (just before the general collapse) in WTC1 to get an idea of the dynamic. Probably the steel out the window in WTC2 was the same time marker as the antenna was in WTC1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k antenna slo-mo

LOL @ melted!

Bill you seriously need to go into comedy!

Yes, I believe that Super-Man payed the WTCs' a visit & melted the core columns with his laser vision.

[Mancman]

molten lead glows if it is 900+ C,

I'm trying to say that the molten metal flowing out of the window is molten iron from thermite and not lead from uninterruptable power supplies (the floor was supposedly loaded with them - though no definitive evidence that they were in use)

I'm also trying to say it wasn't melted aluminum from the plane -

Thermite from where? We know the perimeter columns around the flow have not melted, nor has the aluminium façade, so they weren't attacked. That leaves you with the core, which requires this substance to flow a minimum of 40 feet across the damaged floorslab from the nearest core column.

Then you have the problems of this thermite surviving the impact itself, and the fire (which would readily destroy any magnesium fuse), undetected installation, the fact that it has never been demonstrated that thermite can even be used to destroy a steel column......and so on. Utterly implausible.

[TruthersLie]

ok, my original post getting diverted too much - iron microshperes etc, (even if I did some of it)

go back to the window and the molten metal flowing from it and focus on what's coming out of the window,
without the world wide web:

youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg

uninteruptable power supplies have lead, lead melts at 327 C and plastic burns/decompses/melts below 350 C

how do you get yellow, luminous molten lead created ? at the level of multiple tons and 1000+ C ?

any plastic or aluminum container holding it would disintegrate and any molten lead would quickly melt on to the floor or wherever - it would move away from the arcing,

It's too hard to visualize - can anyone come up with a lead battery scenario that is plausible? if the electrolyte in the lead acid battery got too hot then it would boil away and stop the reaction,

the yellow hot lead can't come from the same battery that is producing the electric current because the electrolyte would boil away

What you REALLY seem to miss hre is that lead melts at 327C.

where were the fires located? Oh directly UNDER the UPS system filled with hundreds of lead acid batteries... how hot were those fires?

Even if it wasn't caused by the arcing of short circuits, those batteries would have melted all on their own and sat in a pool of molten lead.

Before you can make any claims about what you THINK it is, you need to do GOOD research and eliminate ALL of the other possible explainations. Which you haven't and don't.

You do argue from incredulity and from ignorance though... you may want to look up and actually try to READ FOR COMPREHENSION the papers you have datamined.

[Justin39640]

As soon as the arcing melted some lead, the lead would flow away from the arc. At the same time, it has to be heated to 900+ C and there has to be tons created ....and then it all flows out the window at the same time. Way too complicated.


I work with industrial batteries. One way you can sweat the cable terminals is by using the battery to create an arc. Wouldn't be all that successful if the molten lead flowed away that arc.

[Justin39640]

You are trying to say that, but you have no evidence for it.

Nor do you have any scenario into which thermite fits.

The UPS story is one of many perfectly ordinary things that would explain it, and unlike yours, is at least plausible and supported by circumstantial evidence. There isn't even that much for thermite.


What about magnesium alloy aircraft parts? RZ5 from what I read here has a melting range of 510 to 640 C.

[R.Mackey]

Implausible. Magnesium burns spectacularly once it gets lit, and in a heat bath like the Towers, it would. The impact would also have scattered it.

Also, there are plenty of more reasonable metals present -- lead, zinc, pot metals from furnishings, that kind of thing. I still think lead is the best candidate because that's one of the few unusual items in that precise location, but we really don't know or care exactly what it was. It has no bearing on the collapse itself. It's just another "anomaly" used by the evangelists to stir up confusion and attract attention. Let it go.

[Juniversal]

for an independent source google the following:
"appendix c nist steel"

This is a report from NIST where they try to figure out what eroded a thick steel beams so that they were razor thin in places and had a swiss chees appearance, they discover sulpur which is an indicator of thermite,

also google
RJ Lee steel wtc summary report

and see the "iron spheres" that they found - along with evidence of high temperature melting (not typical office fire temperature type melting). This was a law firms report from 2003.Seems you've got your Therms mixed up. Thermate is sulfur based. FYI (Steven) Jones abandonded that idiotic theory a while back in favor of his equally idiotic nano-thermite theory. Sulfur was contained in many products (including computer monitors) in the Towers. Sulfuric acid (and likely other caustic fluids) from these products reacts with the metals and eats away at them. Concluding that this sulfur was a by-product of Thermate was Jones' feeble attempt to conjour up a alternative destruction theory to cash in on and not to mention an extremely illogical leap of reasoning. So he subsequently turned to so-called "nano-thermite" in which all he had was a few chips that bare an unncanny resemblance to paint.

Note he's never submitted these samples to an independent lab (mind you Niels Harrit is a truther with an agenda, which he proved prior to any of his interaction with Jones and his so-called nano-thermite samples). How you go from finding a few extremely small red and black chips, which are likely paint (the largest being 1/16th of an inch..a number i recall from a radio interview with fellow brainless "Truther" Richard Gage) in bags of dust to "this is the product used to destroy two 110 story buildings!!!" is beyond me.

[JamesB]

Uhh, you remember the recent National Geographic special, where they used 100 lbs of thermite and couldn't even put a dent in a steel column. The troofers claimed that was all disinfo! Now we have some genius on here arguing that theory.

[Justin39640]

Implausible. Magnesium burns spectacularly once it gets lit, and in a heat bath like the Towers, it would. The impact would also have scattered it.

Also, there are plenty of more reasonable metals present -- lead, zinc, pot metals from furnishings, that kind of thing. I still think lead is the best candidate because that's one of the few unusual items in that precise location, but we really don't know or care exactly what it was. It has no bearing on the collapse itself. It's just another "anomaly" used by the evangelists to stir up confusion and attract attention. Let it go.

TY.
I wasn't sure if the sparks seen could be coming from something like that but I see what you mean. I agree that there was so much stuff in a working office building that it literally could be anything and most likely a combination of a lot of things that had no effect on the collapse. Just another thing in the chaos.

[TruthersLie]

I believe a combination of thermite and explosives brought down the WTC 1,2 and 7 on 9/11.


Great then you can provide a single video where you can hear a series of rapid fire concusive blasts which were used to bring down those three buildings.

that should be very simple to find. Find one. Not a doctored one, just one where you can hear the explosives going off.


There is a debate about the type of molten metal seen flowing from a window in the South Tower in the 60 seconds before it collapsed - "truthers" say it was molten steel from a thermite reaction and "debunkers" say it was molten aluminum.

strawman. Debunkers say, "we don't know what it is specifically. What we do know is what it is NOT." WE will say, we think it could be aluminum or lead or one of 10 other light weight metals used in office buildings which melt under 1000C.


I discuss below how difficult it would be to create tons of molten aluminum that is famously seen flowing from that window and that it is more likely molten steel.


No need, and I'll snip that part out. Tell me what is harder? to get several tons of molten aluminum where the debris of the jet ended up in a fire for an hour which would melt the aluminum, or the need to bring in thousands of tons of thermite and attach it to the columns unnoticed.

and how was that done again? National Geographic did a special about trying to get thermite to cut a steel beam and couldn't. Can you find a video of thermite cutting horizontally or obliquely through steel BEAMS? I can't. And I have worked in CD field for 2 years.

I'm new to this forum but I've read the threads on here related to the molten metal seen streaming from the south tower window. I'm aware of all the points and counter points to this issue.

obviously you are not, or you wouldn't bring this debunked crapola.


I'm also a mechanical engineer with a masters degree and 20 years of experience. I understand physics and chemistry well enough so feel free to try to debunk with intelligent questions.

If I had a nickle for every twoof claim of being an engineer, I'd be a able to go and buy a car. I seriously doubt your credentials


I can't post web links as a new member (after 15 posts I can) - so you'll have to do a google on the following to see the videos:
google the following:

"south tower molten metal stabilized youtube"

or google

"nbzdO0EPOGg youtube"

Great... starting with the youtube videos. Yup that peer review of youtube vidoes is fantastic. I mean it beats JOM, IEEE and all of the other peer reviewed engineering journals in the world.

If you are an engineer, just get your crapola claims published in any REAL peer reviewed journal in the world.



My problem with their explanation is that they say the aluminum is 980 C (1800 F) based on the "light orange" color chart shown in the video but they are using a color chart for steel. I searched the internet for a color chart for aluminum vs. temperature but could not find one. At the higher temperatures, the color chart for aluminum and steel probably start to look the same but I can't tell you how similar. Certainly at the orange colors and below, the two materials would be different temperatures with the steel being hotter and the aluminum being cooler (at the same color).

Most photos showing molten aluminum on the internet don't say what the temperature is and even if they did, I'm not sure if I would believe it. But based on the fact that aluminum has a higher reflectivity and a lower emissivity than steel over all temperature ranges, the temperature for "light orange" aluminum is higher than "light orange" steel. So the molten aluminum must be hotter than 980 C. Furthermore, I say the color is not "light orange" in the WTC video but more like bright yellow based on the fact that the video shows the amount of light emitted being very bright. My gut feeling is that
"bright orange" aluminum would not emit that much light in daylight conditions where a camera 1500+ feet away would see such a bright substance.


and yet as it cooled as it fell, it turned silvery... amazing at that. My favorate debunking of the thermite bs is by Judy Woods, a truther.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/alumpics/006_alumglow.jpg

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/alumpics/molten.jpg


Thomas Eagar, MIT professor, wrote a study on the collapse - he writes the following:

>>"Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the >>radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the
>> maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the >> WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800° C range.

google "eagar mit wtc fire" to get his paper

So an MIT professor, specializing in materials engineering, says the WTC steel would be *unlikely* to experience temperatures above 750-800 C. And that has to be steel that is near the hottest part of the flame.


Why is it that twoofs MUST datamine and NOT READ FOR COMPREHENSION? You might just want to go back and READ WHAT HE WROTE.
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar185supplement1.pdf
page 5 and 6. The fires in the towers were over 1000, closer to 1300 maybe up to 1800 degrees. HIS WORDS. not your datamined crapola.


My scenarios

show that you datamine quotes and have nothing.


How do you create molten aluminum that according to color charts (albeit a steel color chart) seems to indicate a temperature higher than 1000 C - hotter than the MIT professor says that any metals reached in the WTC fire?


This is a LIE as per the link above. He says the temp was 1300 and could have been up to 1800 degrees.

What does HE believe caused the collapse? oh the unfought fires. Is he a twoof? does he think there as thermite there? No he doesn't.


How do you get such perfect conditions to create *TONS* (some people estimate 10+ tons) of molten metal at such a bright luminosity? It's just too perfect - like all the other things that went "perfect" and brought down 3 huge buildings in one day.


argument from incredulity noted. Tons? Who estimates that? Based on what? Provide a link.

Too perfect? you are conflating issues and drawing conclusions that are not based on the facts.

[Furcifer]

Why tons? It looks like no more than 100 pounds or so. Certainly not even a ton. I can't say that for sure though, there really is no way to tell what didn't pour out.

If always been inclined to think it was plastic even though it looks like molten metal. From that distance, it could be plastic on fire. It's only when it strikes a lower part of the building and it bursts into what look like embers that the plastic idea doesn't seem to fit.

What's copper look like molten? I'm not sure how hot it would have to be to get it too glow like that? There's certainly a lot of copper. That and the lead.

I'm now positive it was a molten plastic copper lead gooball oozing out. (exact composition unknown)

Mystery solved, yeah!

[R.Mackey]

Pretty much anything glows the same at the same temperature. The difference is in brightness ("emissivity"). Copper I discount because its melting temperature is high, close to that of steel itself.

But we don't even know for sure it is metal, true. Glass is one interesting possibility.

[bill smith]

Implausible. Magnesium burns spectacularly once it gets lit, and in a heat bath like the Towers, it would. The impact would also have scattered it.

Also, there are plenty of more reasonable metals present -- lead, zinc, pot metals from furnishings, that kind of thing. I still think lead is the best candidate because that's one of the few unusual items in that precise location, but we really don't know or care exactly what it was. It has no bearing on the collapse itself. It's just another "anomaly" used by the evangelists to stir up confusion and attract attention. Let it go.

I think the impact zones were precisely planned and prepared. The recorded flashes that emanate from those exact locations right before inpact back that up. In that case the columns that were struck would have had no nano thermite filling (at least at that level) and so no risk of premature ignition.

We also know that the fireproofing on the exact floors (amongst others in the same area) that were impacted had had their fireproofing substantially thickened not long before 9/11which would have protected the nano thermite in any so-treated core column from premature ignition by the heat of the released but briefly-burning jet fuel. This fireproofing also made excellent lightproofing against the brightness of the thermite when it was finally ignited by remote.

[McHrozni]

I'm new to this forum but I've read the threads on here related to the molten metal seen streaming from the south tower window. I'm aware of all the points and counter points to this issue.

Unlikely, see below.

I'm also a mechanical engineer with a masters degree and 20 years of experience. I understand physics and chemistry well enough so feel free to try to debunk with intelligent questions.

Highly unlikely, see below.

My problem with their explanation is that they say the aluminum is 980 C (1800 F) based on the "light orange" color chart shown in the video but they are using a color chart for steel. I searched the internet for a color chart for aluminum vs. temperature but could not find one. At the higher temperatures, the color chart for aluminum and steel probably start to look the same but I can't tell you how similar. Certainly at the orange colors and below, the two materials would be different temperatures with the steel being hotter and the aluminum being cooler (at the same color).

As far as our eyes are concerned, you won't be able to tell the difference between glowing-hot aluminum, glowing-hot steel and glowing-hot concrete.

http://www.roundhousepottery.com/images/ColorTempChart.pdf

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Wiens_law.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law

Note, specific elements do have their spectral peaks, but these differences can't be discerned by the human eye, especially not if we're seeing a camera image that wasn't designed to capture such differences in the first place.

You'd hope someone arguing from authority, like you are, would know that. The reason the material appears reddish is, likely, organic contaminants, abundant in the towers.

McHrozni

[Furcifer]

Pretty much anything glows the same at the same temperature. The difference is in brightness ("emissivity"). Copper I discount because its melting temperature is high, close to that of steel itself.

But we don't even know for sure it is metal, true. Glass is one interesting possibility.

I never checked out the melting point of copper (lol, and I even have the tables). I assumed it was lower, like lead.

Glass I like. Glass makes sense, but it would be in limited quantites. I'd have to check, but glass would probably mix pretty decent with lead.

I always have to consider mixtures because I just don't buy the idea that it's pure. Whatever did come out had to mix and pick up debris etc. along the way.

I will say this though, making any determination by color seems pretty hard to do. Without knowing the camera, the filters, the film (or was it digital? in that case the sensor) etc. even if it was elemental, from that distance, is impossible. There's at least 20 variables from that video to a color chart.

[Furcifer]

In that case the columns that were struck would have had no nano thermite filling (at least at that level) and so no risk of premature ignition.


How deliciously clever :)

How do they get the nano thermite filling into a WTC column? The world may never know...

[McHrozni]

Glass I like. Glass makes sense, but it would be in limited quantites. I'd have to check, but glass would probably mix pretty decent with lead.

I always have to consider mixtures because I just don't buy the idea that it's pure. Whatever did come out had to mix and pick up debris etc. along the way.

I find it very likely it was mixture with at least two significant (>5% by mass or volume) components.

McHrozni

[bill smith]

How deliciously clever :)

How do they get the nano thermite filling into a WTC column? The world may never know...

No problem. Simply drill a hole, slightly charge the column, insert a nozzle and spray it in to the thickness required. Fill it even, all the while chatting with a secretary at her desk. Fiendish, eh ?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No problem. Simply drill a hole, slightly charge the column, insert a nozzle and spray it in to the thickness required. Fill it even, all the while chatting with a secretary at her desk. Fiendish, eh ?

Only in your delusional mind Bill.

[Bad_Doggie]

I'm new to this forum but I've read the threads on here related to the molten metal seen streaming from the south tower window. I'm aware of all the points and counter points to this issue.

Then I feel duty bound to ask you why you are just repeating assertions that have been gone over repeatedly over the course of years. Try the search button.

I'm also a mechanical engineer with a masters degree and 20 years of experience. I understand physics and chemistry well enough so feel free to try to debunk with intelligent questions.

Hoisted on your own petard.

"nbzdO0EPOGg youtube"

And confirmed. Game over in your first post without one reply being required.

You may feel that others have been brisk with you; in reality they have been extremely patient giving their time to reply at all.

Woof!

[Furcifer]

No problem. Simply drill a hole, slightly charge the column, insert a nozzle and spray it in to the thickness required. Fill it even, all the while chatting with a secretary at her desk. Fiendish, eh ?

bill, even your fairy tales have fairy tales.

I had a long rather drawn out explanation of why this wouldn't work, but it seemed useless so I deleted it.

And replaced it with "That's just stupid" :D

[bill smith]

bill, even your fairy tales have fairy tales.

I had a long rather drawn out explanation of why this wouldn't work, but it seemed useless so I deleted it.

And replaced it with "That's just stupid" :D

In this way you can avoid the reality of what really happened on 9/11 indefinitely. There are many like you.

Simply say 'that's just stupid'.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

In this way you can avoid the reality of what really happened on 9/11 indefinitely. There are many like you.

Just say 'that's just stupid'.

Reality is Bill, those must've been some silent drills ya know.

I'm pretty sure over a few months the 50,000 tenants didn't notice people drilling holes in the drywall or that of the columns to spray for pest.

Keep dreaming the dream Bill. See how far you'll get with that idea.

[Dave Rogers]

I think there's a problem with the OP that nobody's pointed out yet, and I think it's rather an important one. It's more than the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof; it's an attempt to shift the burden of proof even after the fact has been established. Let me explain.

We know that the molten material falling from the south tower is not molten iron or steel. This is beyond dispute; if it were iron or steel, its colour would mean that it must be solid, and it is observed to splash as it hits obstacles lower down. Therefore, it's of some interest to find out what it is, and possibilities proposed have been molten lead from UPS banks, molten aluminium with entrained debris, and molten aluminium with entrained molten glass. However, these are simply informed speculation, following the firm conclusion that the metal is not molten iron or steel.

The truther response is to try to eliminate all the non-ferrous possibilities for the material's composition. Hence, they advance the arguments presented in the OP, in the hope that, if they have eliminated the impossible, they will be left with iron or steel as the only possibilities. The fallacy with this line of argument is that the first, and most convincing, impossibility to have been eliminated, based on the clearest physical evidence, is that the molten material could be iron or steel.

Therefore, all this argument is futile. It isn't iron. It isn't steel. It can't possibly be either. And however many other possibilities the truth movement chooses to try to argue away, it will never be possible to prove by elimination that which has already been eliminated.

And that's why threads like this never lead anywhere. If you start by rejecting the physical evidence, you will not arrive at a theory that fits the physical evidence.

Dave

[bill smith]

Lets not forget that the molten steel has an ongoing thermitic eaction from the copious amounts of nano thermite that was inside the columns Dave.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Lets not forget that the molten steel has an ongoing thermitic eaction from the copious amounts of nano thermite that was inside the columns Dave.

Bill,

Thermite burns out completely, it wouldn't last for weeks at a time. :boggled: :rolleyes:

[bill smith]

Bill,

Thermite burns out completely, it wouldn't last for weeks at a time. :boggled: :rolleyes:

Not according to Steven Jones. He says that the reaction continues for a substantial amount of time.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Not according to Steven Jones. He says that the reaction continues for a substantial amount of time.

Oh so now you're gonna pull out waterboy?

Steven Jones don't know jack & you know it. Stop playing the game of stupidity for once Bill. Use those brain cells that God gave you for once.

Steven Jones is a quack Bill, you're gonna end up just like him!

Steven Jones never put his review in front of the BYU administration, the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, and the Physics Department.

His failure to put his review to those listed makes his review not worth the time to look at. Steven Jones was put on paid leave because of the CTs, then he retired after he was put on paid leave from BYU.

[McHrozni]

Not according to Steven Jones. He says that the reaction continues for a substantial amount of time.

Define "substantial".

McHrozni

[bill smith]

Define "substantial".

McHrozni

IIf I remember rightly Jones said it could have played a part in how long the steel stayed molten in the pile. More than long enough at any rate to affect it's viscosity for the time it was still in the building up to and including the pouring-out-the-window bit.

PS. I sometimes wonder if this could have been that steel after it pooled on the ground below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EuWmvYMk2s

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

IIf I remember rightly Jones said it could have played a part in how long the steel stayed molten in the pile. More than long enough at any rate to affect it's viscosity for the time it was still in the building up to and including the pouring-out-the-window bit.

PS. I sometimes wonder if this could have been that steel after it pooled on the ground below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EuWmvYMk2s

Bill,

Do you have photographs of this alleged "molten steel" from Ground Zero or you still yanking our chains?

YouTube videos are worthless from Truthers. Since they're editted & manipulated in ways to create lies. Sorry Bill, that don't cut it!

And that video you showed is 7 seconds of my life wasted. I love seeing fire trucks going down the street kicking up dust.

Here's something not waste anyones time:

uaeecSnLCxU

[McHrozni]

IIf I remember rightly Jones said it could have played a part in how long the steel stayed molten in the pile.

Played a part is a rather vauge statement. If there were thermite in the buildings, and there were also molten steel which was close enough to come in contact with igniting thermite, I completely agree, it could play a part, and slightly prolong the time that steel remained molten. Assuming there was 10x as much molten steel as there was thermite, by an hour or two. It's a rough estimate, it could be less, or even slightly more.

Considering the allegation is that molten steel was still present weeks afterward, the thermite is completely inadequate to explain that.

Not that there is any evidence of molten steel at all, let alone for so long, I'm just trying to give you some perspective at what thermite could and could not do.

McHrozni

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bill has completely ignored what's on the 80th floor of WTC2 where that "molten metal" is. The Fuji Bank had batteries located around the 80th to the 82nd floor in that same location.

Here's something I found while searching for information reguarding the 80th floor (Sorry, the list is rather small but it does say Fuji Bank, 80th to 82nd floors):

[bill smith]

Played a part is a rather vauge statement. If there were thermite in the buildings, and there were also molten steel which was close enough to come in contact with igniting thermite, I completely agree, it could play a part, and slightly prolong the time that steel remained molten. Assuming there was 10x as much molten steel as there was thermite, by an hour or two. It's a rough estimate, it could be less, or even slightly more.

Considering the allegation is that molten steel was still present weeks afterward, the thermite is completely inadequate to explain that.

Not that there is any evidence of molten steel at all, let alone for so long, I'm just trying to give you some perspective at what thermite could and could not do.

McHrozni

I think there was actually 10-15,000 tons of molten steel core columns under each Tower. That's why the steel stayed hot for so long despite extensive efforts to cool it artificially including pumping what was described as ' a lake of water'. In fact it's the only realistic explanation. Melting 50% of the core columns in a seqence from bottom to the 88th floor or so ( where the hollow columns changed to I-beams) would account for that quantity. As one column melted and fell through the next one would melt and drop down through the sink hole- all the way to the 88th.

It looks to me like about 50% of the ore columns were melted and dropped down into the basements and seconds later the main demolition took place. The antenna video shows beyond any doubt that the antenna (which was attached to the massive hat truss- which was attachd to the core) fell into the building several seconds before any other movement ttook place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9-owhllM9k antenna

[Dave Rogers]

Lets not forget that the molten steel has an ongoing thermitic eaction from the copious amounts of nano thermite that was inside the columns Dave.

Can anybody spot any point of resemblance between this and a sane response?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

It looks to me like about 50% of the ore columns were melted and dropped down into the basements and seconds later the main demolition took place.

That must have been an interesting experience for the survivors in stairwell B. Did you realise, bill, that there were sixteen people inside the core who survived the collapse, and somehow weren't burned alive as the stairway on which they stood sank into a lake of molten steel?

Dave

[McHrozni]

I think there was actually 10-15,000 tons of molten steel core columns under each Tower.

For illustration, this is approximately how 10-15,000 tons of steel looks like. Note it was not molten at the time the picture was taken:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/IJN_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao.jpg
IJN Takao, 9850 tons empty, 15,500 tons full load. Not all of the mass is actually steel, but a majority is.


If that quantity of steel was melted on the bottom for so long, why didn't they find it? It would naturally flow to the lowest point available and solidify there. If your statmeent were true, we would be left with two 10-15,000 ton steel (or slag) nuggets, that would have to be removed. I probably don't have to stress that no crane can lift that, and they would have to be slowly taken apart and shipped away. It is also needless to say it would be quite impossible to hide.

How do you explain these discrepancies?

McHrozni

[bill smith]

For illustration, this is how 10-15,000 tons of steel looks like. Note it was not molten at the time the picture was taken:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/IJN_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao.jpg
IJN Takao, 9850 tons empty, 15,500 tons full load. Not all of the mass is actually steel, but a majority is.


If that quantity of steel was melted on the bottom for so long, why didn't they find it? It would naturally flow to the lowest point available and solidify there. If your statmeent were true, we would be left with two 10-15,000 ton steel (or slag) nuggets, that would have to be removed. I probably don't have to stress that no crane can lift that, and they would have to be slowly taken apart and shipped away. It is also needless to say it would be quite impossible to hide.

How do you explain these discrepancies?

McHrozni

As you say the melted steel would be a great deal more compact than a ship. Perhaps the steel is still there Perhaps it was cut out with thermic lances.

Do you think they would tell us if they found the steel ? Really ?

[bill smith]

That must have been an interesting experience for the survivors in stairwell B. Did you realise, bill, that there were sixteen people inside the core who survived the collapse, and somehow weren't burned alive as the stairway on which they stood sank into a lake of molten steel?

Dave
Yes I have heard that story. Sounds kind of unlikely though doesn't it ?

[BigAl]

As you say the melted steel would be a great deal more compact than a ship. Perhaps the steel is still there Perhaps it was cut out with thermic lances.


Your "20-30,000 tons" of steel is about 60,000 cubic ft, the size of a house.

The site was under continuous observation. Nobody cut it up of buried it with nobody noticing.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b0134ec1b7b5.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18208)

[bill smith]

Played a part is a rather vauge statement. If there were thermite in the buildings, and there were also molten steel which was close enough to come in contact with igniting thermite, I completely agree, it could play a part, and slightly prolong the time that steel remained molten. Assuming there was 10x as much molten steel as there was thermite, by an hour or two. It's a rough estimate, it could be less, or even slightly more.

Considering the allegation is that molten steel was still present weeks afterward, the thermite is completely inadequate to explain that.

Not that there is any evidence of molten steel at all, let alone for so long, I'm just trying to give you some perspective at what thermite could and could not do.

McHrozni

Do you remember those 'meteorites' that nobody had a good explanation for ? I think they were material from the edges of the molten pool that ere hit by the lake of water and were cooled in mid-melt. They look just right for that.

[McHrozni]

As you say the melted steel would be a great deal more compact than a ship. Perhaps the steel is still there Perhaps it was cut out with thermic lances.

Or perhaps it was never there at all?

You have to include the inconvenient fact that thermite also produces molten iron by itself. In an ideal case, this mass is approximately equivalent to the amount of steel being melted, but in reality, it would be much, much more.

You'd find about this much iron and steel:

http://www.usswisconsin.org/General/Pics/H%2054-06-07%20Four%20Iowas.jpg
Under each tower.

Impossible to hide or secretly remove.

McHrozni

[bill smith]

Your "20-30,000 tons" of steel is about 60,000 cubic ft, the size of a house.

The site was under continuous observation. Nobody cut it up of buried it with nobody noticing.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/174224b0134ec1b7b5.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18208)

So a pool of molten steel half the size of house ? That would be just right to keep that pile cooking for three months. You have to remember that altough the 'lake of water' was not able to cool the massive volume of molten steel it was more than capable of drowning each and every conventional fire in the pile. The only other fires were ones started later by the molten steel and which ignited when exposed to the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&NR=1

[BigAl]

So a pool of molten steel half the size of house ? That would be just right to keep that pile cooking for three months. You have to remember that altough the 'lake of water' was not able to cool the massive volume of molten steel it was more than capable of drowning each and every conventional fire in the pile.

I don't think Bill has ever heard of a steam explosion.

Nasty stuff.
hard to hide.
Didn't happen.

[Dave Rogers]

Yes I have heard that story. Sounds kind of unlikely though doesn't it ?

And there you have it, folks. If the evidence contradicts the conspiracy theory, just ignore the evidence.

Dave

[fourtoe]

IIf I remember rightly Jones said it could have played a part in how long the steel stayed molten in the pile. More than long enough at any rate to affect it's viscosity for the time it was still in the building up to and including the pouring-out-the-window bit.

PS. I sometimes wonder if this could have been that steel after it pooled on the ground below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EuWmvYMk2s

Bill that isn't molten anything. It is sunlight. The camera was probably digital and thus had to deal with white balance. The camera probably has the white balance set to adjust for the buildings and dust blocking the sun, which would explain the orange-ish color.

Please tell me that you agree that that is not a video of molten metal with a fire truck driving through it without any damage to the tires appearing.

[McHrozni]

Do you remember those 'meteorites' that nobody had a good explanation for ? I think they were material from the edges of the molten pool that ere hit by the lake of water and were cooled in mid-melt. They look just right for that.

If you ignore all fluid mechanics, of course. Had this happened as you describe it, the said meteorites would retain the texture of the containment bowl of the lake of steel, and one side would be quite flat.

In short, whereever they came from, it was not from a lake of liquid steel.

McHrozni

[Dave Rogers]

Do you remember those 'meteorites' that nobody had a good explanation for ?

No. I only remember 'meteorites' that plenty of people had a perfectly sensible explanation for, which bill smith chose to ignore. And, since they were mostly concrete, it's unlikely they were solidified splashes of molten steel, because concrete and steel are different substances. I wouldn't understand truthers to understand nuances like that, of course, but those of us intelligent enough to tie our own shoelaces more or less get it.

Dave

[bill smith]

No. I only remember 'meteorites' that plenty of people had a perfectly sensible explanation for, which bill smith chose to ignore. And, since they were mostly concrete, it's unlikely they were solidified splashes of molten steel, because concrete and steel are different substances. I wouldn't understand truthers to understand nuances like that, of course, but those of us intelligent enough to tie our own shoelaces more or less get it.

Dave

Calm down Dave . You are starting to splutter.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Or perhaps it was never there at all?

You have to include the inconvenient fact that thermite also produces molten iron by itself. In an ideal case, this mass is approximately equivalent to the amount of steel being melted, but in reality, it would be much, much more.

You'd find about this much iron and steel:

http://www.usswisconsin.org/General/Pics/H%2054-06-07%20Four%20Iowas.jpg
Under each tower.

Impossible to hide or secretly remove.

McHrozni

Nice picture of the Iowa Class Battleships, Iowa, Missouri & Wisconsin! :D

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bill & his "meteorites"! :rolleyes:

Bill,

Can you tell the difference between compacted floors & a meteorite from space?

[McHrozni]

Nice picture of the Iowa Class Battleships, Iowa, Missouri & Wisconsin! :D

The only time they all sailed together :)
You forgot New Jersey, is that because you're from New York? :)

McHrozni

[bill smith]

And there you have it, folks. If the evidence contradicts the conspiracy theory, just ignore the evidence.

Dave

Do you have any pictures of the part of the building that survived ?

[TruthersLie]

I never checked out the melting point of copper (lol, and I even have the tables). I assumed it was lower, like lead.

Glass I like. Glass makes sense, but it would be in limited quantites. I'd have to check, but glass would probably mix pretty decent with lead.

I always have to consider mixtures because I just don't buy the idea that it's pure. Whatever did come out had to mix and pick up debris etc. along the way.

I will say this though, making any determination by color seems pretty hard to do. Without knowing the camera, the filters, the film (or was it digital? in that case the sensor) etc. even if it was elemental, from that distance, is impossible. There's at least 20 variables from that video to a color chart.

And 3body, you leave out how there are 10 metals which are common in office buildings (in all buildings really) which all melt at near or under 1000 degrees. All 10 of them would be present in the towers...

which is where twoofs always make their mistakes because they do not know how to do science or research. Before you can make a claim about what something is, you need to eliminate EVERYTHING else it can be. This goes for the molten metal seen coming out the window, the eyewitness reports of molten metal, the datamined eyewitnesses of "explosions" and the rest of it. This is where twoofs fail most of the time. (that and reading for comprehension)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The only time they all sailed together :)
You forgot New Jersey, is that because you're from New York? :)

McHrozni

I forgot the New Jersey! Thanks for reminding me!

I'm from Pennsylvania! ;)

The U.S.S. Pennsylvania survived Pearl Harbor & I think 2 Nuclear blast tests after WWII. Still couldn't sink her!

[TruthersLie]

No problem. Simply drill a hole, slightly charge the column, insert a nozzle and spray it in to the thickness required. Fill it even, all the while chatting with a secretary at her desk. Fiendish, eh ?

Ah yes... the ninjaneers.

simply drill a hole. Ummm no. YOu need to remove all of the stuff outside the columns. Then you need a BIG ASS DRILL which makes LOTS OF NOISE.

Now spray to the thickness required. uuummm no. You twoofs are talking about tons of the materials needed. HOw do you get them to the floors to spray them? in backpacks? no you'd need huge ass trucks with huge ass pumps and then have huge lines to spray it.

Fill it even... again you are talking about removing everything around columns, making a **** load of noise, and having hundreds of people with huge lines and drills...

yet no one ever noticed. This is NOT mission impossible. It doesn't work like that.

[TruthersLie]

Do you remember those 'meteorites' that nobody had a good explanation for ? I think they were material from the edges of the molten pool that ere hit by the lake of water and were cooled in mid-melt. They look just right for that.

Ummm billy.

those meteorites have been fully explained, numerous times to you. You have been linked to numerous indepth images which show unburned paper (but if it was molten steel, the paper would have burned).

Now maybe in twoofworld it doesn't make sense... but I think that is because most things don't make sense to you all. It does help to try to finish high school... Or go back and take remedial courses.

[McHrozni]

Your "20-30,000 tons" of steel is about 60,000 cubic ft, the size of a house.

15,000 tons of iron (density is close enough to steel) would be about 2,000 cubic meters, it could form a cube of 20m x 20m x 5m.

That's easily two large houses put together - under each tower.

McHrozni

[bill smith]

Edited for rule 11 & rule 12.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Edited response to modded post.

[twinstead]

The perps must be delighted to have you covering so believably for them.

The same could be said to you about Al Queda, but you're not doing it so believably.

[McHrozni]

Bill,

Don't tell us that the U.S. Government planted thermite into the U.S.S. Arizona too:

You have to admit, though, they did put tons of explosives into her. Hundreds of tons, in fact. If it weren't for them, she wouldn't be nowhere near as heavily damaged, and no one did anything to prevent that! Like in the WTC 7, there was also diesel fuel in her.
It all makes perfect sense. ANC went even as far as to suggest they would need to emulate the Pearl Harbor. Could it be more obvious?

McHrozni

[TruthersLie]

Edited response to modded post.
You are the one making bs claims.

Please provide an EXAMPLE of how this would be done. Not the handwaving of "just drill a hole and spray it inside."

the devil is in the details, which you ignore and handwave away.

I have worked in CD, I have helped prep a building for CD (30+ story building took 2 20 man teams 3 months to prep). Your incredulity and ignorance of the facts is mind boggling.

Start with your stupid assumption. Now come up with EVERYTHING necessary to do it. Once you start to actually look at what it would take, it becomes quite unmanagable. And the conspiracy grows.

And NO ONE EVER talked about it. Rather amazing... You might just want to ask your group home manager if you need to shift to paxil... it is a pretty good med... or lithium bicarbonate.

[bill smith]

15,000 tons of iron (density is close enough to steel) would be about 2,000 cubic meters, it could form a cube of 20m x 20m x 5m.

That's easily two large houses put together - under each tower.

McHrozni

The footprint was about 60 x 60 meters. I think the figures are looking good.

[McHrozni]

The footprint was about 60 x 60 meters. I think the figures are looking good.

Aside from the fact that no steel surface over half a meter thick was found at the bottom you mean?

McHrozni

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The footprint was about 60 x 60 meters. I think the figures are looking good.

Bill,

They didn't fall into their own footprint:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/WTCgroundzero.jpg/800px-WTCgroundzero.jpg

[bill smith]

Wow....where are the more than 10 miles of massive core columns ? We know that they all fell straight down into the footpront. So where are they ?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Wow....where are the more than 10 miles of massive core columns ? We know that they all fell straight down into the footpront. So where are they ?

Bill,

Just look at the picture I provided instead of acting stupid.

[Dave Rogers]

Do you have any pictures of the part of the building that survived ?

Yes, thank you. If only there were some way for you to find some for yourself.

Dave

[Quad4_72]

Wow....where are the more than 10 miles of massive core columns ? We know that they all fell straight down into the footpront. So where are they ?

Personally, I think they were turned to dust by a laser beam. Nuclear device is also plausible. Even explosives could have turned them to dust, because we all know that's what explosives do to steel. Explosives turn steel to dust. Thermite turns things to dust as well.

[bill smith]

Yes, thank you. If only there were some way for you to find some for yourself.

Dave
Can I see it in the picture Chewy just posted ?

PS. I mean the place in the core where the 16 survivors were found safe and sound.

[bill smith]

Personally, I think they were turned to dust by a laser beam. Nuclear device is also plausible. Even explosives could have turned them to dust, because we all know that's what explosives do to steel. Explosives turn steel to dust. Thermite turns things to dust as well.

So you can't see them either ? Jeez....10 MILES of masssive core column...missing.It's almost as if they MELTED away.

[Quad4_72]

So you can't see them either ? Jeez....10 MILES of masssive core column...missing.It's almost as if they MELTED away.

Oh I KNOW. There must be a HUGE deposit of melted steel below the ground! The ENTIRE basement of the towers must have been filled with molten steel that was melted by thermite. Its the ONLY possible explanation! Once thermite is ignited, it melts everything in its path. I think the exact science is that 1lb. of thermite can turn 500,000 tons of steel to liquid.

[bill smith]

Now you know why they started to remove the steel and export it so quickly to where it could not be een. It was only to create the impression that any shortfall in the amount of steel on the ground could be explained away by....we took it away....to China....where it coldn't be counted or ssessed. My guess is that little was actually removed in the early days (while they still shipped direct to the docks and away. And all the time it was gently bubbling 50 or so feet underground.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Now you know why they started to remove the steel and export it so quickly to where it could not be een. It was only to create the impression that any shortfall in the amount of steel on the ground could be explained away by....we took it away....to China....where it coldn't be counted or ssessed. My guess is that little was actually removed in the early days (while they still shipped direct to the docks and away. And all the time it was gently bubbling 50 or so feet underground.

Bill,

You totally forget the victims that were crushed to death under that pile.

First it was a rescue operation, then it was a recovery operation to recover the bodies.

That's the only logical reason why they had to move the debris so quickly.

I'll put it this way Bill:

They needed to get to the bodies within the debris.

If you truely cared about the victims you'd atleast talk about them instead of being ****************.

Edited for civility.

[McHrozni]

Now you know why they started to remove the steel and export it so quickly to where it could not be een. It was only to create the impression that any shortfall in the amount of steel on the ground could be explained away by....we took it away....to China....where it coldn't be counted or ssessed. My guess is that little was actually removed in the early days (while they still shipped direct to the docks and away. And all the time it was gently bubbling 50 or so feet underground.

Problem number 1: There was no shortfall in the amount of steel recovered. How do you explain that?

McHrozni

[bill smith]

Problem number 1: There was no shortfall in the amount of steel recovered. How do you explain that?

McHrozni

Who said ? lol

[leftysergeant]

I discuss below how difficult it would be to create tons of molten aluminum that is famously seen flowing from that window and that it is more likely molten steel.

It has been discussed elsewhere on this page how muich thermite would be required to produce the amount of molten steel or iron supposedly pouring from the building. The amount is staggering.

Then there is the problem of how that molten metal would be transported from the core area to the window from which it is seen pouring. Molten iron would so severely spall and crack the concrete floors that it would proibably leak down from floor to floor without ever reaching the exterior, assuming that it did not solidify on the way out. More likely, it would have gone down the elevator shafts. (Reports of solidified pools of iron found in the bottoms of elevator shafts are a myth created by a supposed journalist - now a federal fugitive - and totaly Nazi dirtbag whose opinions no decent citizen takes seriously. He attributes this lie to a decent citizen who denies saying any such thing.)

I would suspect that the material is more likely lead (perhaps mixed with copper) from the batteries in the UPS. There is also the possibility that it is glass. I have never seen a large structural fire in which some glass did not melt.


There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution.

Don't lecture fire fighters (there are a lot of us here) on flash-over temperatures. There were all manner of Class A fuels in the building, and there is no way to determine the maximum temperatures that they could achieve.

And the fires were well-ventillated. The airflow in the up-wind part of the fire zone was so strong that peoiple were able to stand in the breach with roaring flames just a few feet away.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

When Truthers start complaining about the steel being removed quickly it just gets me mad as hell because they forgot that there was people buried under the debris.

[Dave Rogers]

Can I see it in the picture Chewy just posted ?

PS. I mean the place in the core where the 16 survivors were found safe and sound.

So let's just get this straight, bill. You're lecturing us on your conclusions as to what happened to the core columns on 9/11. However, when I mention to you a well-known and widely reported occurrence involving the behaviour of the core columns, which was reported in the news media, and of which pictures can be found by Googling for about two minutes, you've never heard of it and you've never seen any pictures. Is that about it? Is that really the level of ignorance you're working from?

Has it occurred to you that the conclusions reached by those who've studied the events of 9/11 in detail might be rather more trustworthy than those who remain embarrassingly ignorant of their most superficial details? Or are you so much in love with the sight of your own words that you simply can't see how idiotic this line of questioning makes you look?

Dave

[bill smith]

So let's just get this straight, bill. You're lecturing us on your conclusions as to what happened to the core columns on 9/11. However, when I mention to you a well-known and widely reported occurrence involving the behaviour of the core columns, which was reported in the news media, and of which pictures can be found by Googling for about two minutes, you've never heard of it and you've never seen any pictures. Is that about it? Is that really the level of ignorance you're working from?

Has it occurred to you that the conclusions reached by those who've studied the events of 9/11 in detail might be rather more trustworthy than those who remain embarrassingly ignorant of their most superficial details? Or are you so much in love with the sight of your own words that you simply can't see how idiotic this line of questioning makes you look?

Dave

I found this Dave.....

'' McLoughlin and Jimeno are trapped in the middle of Ground Zero -- a 12-block area of incomprehensible destruction. They are not far from a group of survivors, consisting primarily of firefighters, who emerge mostly unscathed from the remains of the lower parts of the B stairwell, now near the top of the highest mound of rubble. The stairwell, situated in the center of the North Tower, was shielded by the stout structures of the building's core. Entombed by rubble, the two officers have no knowledge of the survivors of the B stairwell.'' http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html

So the stairwell ws located in the centre of the footprint of the North Tower ? Interesting. As it happens i have a link to a giant zoomable photograph of grpund zero. Loking at the centre of the footprint I see ?..........very little actually . Can you show us the '' stout structures of the building's core. '' that allowd these people to live ? If there was no such core then there is zero chance that they could ave survived all that rubble crushing down for a linear quarter-mile onto that spot...I'm sure you will agree. Check out the lack of 10 miles (or even one mile) of core column while you are there.

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading)

[cyclonic]

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corecorner2exc.gif

Whats this bill?

[Justin39640]

I found this Dave.....

'' McLoughlin and Jimeno are trapped in the middle of Ground Zero -- a 12-block area of incomprehensible destruction.

Why do you constantly ignore this portion?

[commandlinegamer]

I Check out the lack of 10 miles (or even one mile) of core column while you are there.

My lower intestine might be as much as seven metres in length; are you implying I would have to be seven metres tall to fit that much tubing inside me?

[Dave Rogers]

I found this Dave.....

You really don't get it. It works like this, bill: first, study the evidence, then formulate a theory to fit it. Your approach seems to be: make up a theory, then look for some evidence that backs it up, ignoring any that doesn't.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/ScY52Dy4JCI/AAAAAAAABH4/imyW8Mh5fTo/s400/4060.crop.jpg
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1.core.wall.base5.jpg
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC1working.jpg/WTC1working-full.jpg

These will take you to a few images of the surviving block of WTC1 core. If, as you suggest, the core columns had sunk into a lake of molten steel, the structure shown in these pictures couldn't possibly exist.

So these pictures must be faked, right?

Dave

[bill smith]

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corecorner2exc.gif

Whats this bill?

hat's that ?.....about 200 feet I'd say. Lets see now.....5,280 x 10 = 52,800 feet.....minus the 200 leaves ?.....52,600 feet to go. Well,,,gotta start somewhere..

[bill smith]

You really don't get it. It works like this, bill: first, study the evidence, then formulate a theory to fit it. Your approach seems to be: make up a theory, then look for some evidence that backs it up, ignoring any that doesn't.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/ScY52Dy4JCI/AAAAAAAABH4/imyW8Mh5fTo/s400/4060.crop.jpg
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1.core.wall.base5.jpg
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC1working.jpg/WTC1working-full.jpg

These will take you to a few images of the surviving block of WTC1 core. If, as you suggest, the core columns had sunk into a lake of molten steel, the structure shown in these pictures couldn't possibly exist.

So these pictures must be faked, right?

Dave

Would you say that they are in the centre of the footprint or closer to the perimeter Dave ?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Would you say that they are in the centre of the footprint or closer to the erimeter Dave ?

Bill,

Just loook at the pictures & tell us yourself what you think.

The nerve of that guy!

[DavidJames]

I hope I'm not the only one who saw that coming. TrollBoy wants to see all 10 miles in pictures, otherwise the Government did it.

Please stop feeding him.

[cyclonic]

hat's that ?.....about 200 feet I'd say. Lets see now.....5,280 x 10 = 52,800 feet.....minus the 200 leaves ?.....52,600 feet to go. Well,,,gotta start somewhere..

Do you still think that it magically fell under the remaining core and melted in a giant pool of molton steel which then vanished all by itself?

[Dave Rogers]

Would you say that they are in the centre of the footprint or closer to the perimeter Dave ?

There seems little point saying either.

I can see the block on your ground zero photo. You, however, may choose not to.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Do you still think that it magically fell under the remaining core and melted in a giant pool of molton steel which then vanished all by itself?

Not just that, he thinks all that happened a few seconds before the collapse of the tower. Which, on its own, is a suggestion so inane as to be laughable.

Dave

[bill smith]

Do you still think that it magically fell under the remaining core and melted in a giant pool of molton steel which then vanished all by itself?

I don't really need to point out tht I said up to 50% of the core columns were entirely melted into the basements. After all they had to leave something to show the folks. Just far too little though- thus the Chinese diversion as a cover for the shortfall.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

After all they had to leave something to show the folks. Just far too little though- thus the Chinese diversion as a cover for the shortfall.

So you're suggesting that the job was done by the Chinese with some kind of trick to the eye?

Tell us another 1 Bill that we haven't heard of before we die of laughter.

[bill smith]

There seems little point saying either.

I can see the block on your ground zero photo. You, however, may choose not to.

Dave

Stairwell B was in the centre of the building Dave wasn't it ? WTC1? Would the three-floor steel hat truss and the 360-foot antenna (situated in the centre of the roof) not have crashed directly in that spot ?

[cyclonic]

I don't really need to point out tht I said up to 50% of the core columns were entirely melted into the basements. After all they had to leave something to show the folks. Just far too little though- thus the Chinese diversion as a cover for the shortfall.

where is the cooled giant lumps of steel they would have found in the basements?

the steel sent to china would have evidence of a controlled demolition all over it, like horse manure in your morning porridge, and yet the chinese communist government covered up for george bush and are now in on the conspiracy.

why are the chinese covering for george bush bill?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

where is the cooled giant lumps of steel they would have found in the basements?

the steel sent to china would have evidence of a controlled demolition all over it, like horse manure in your morning porridge, and yet the chinese communist government covered up for george bush and are now in on the conspiracy.

why are the chinese covering for george bush bill?

To make his story a bit far fetched than others I would guess Cyclonic.

If the Chinese are part of the "cover-up", then why aren't they spilling the beans about 9/11 being an "Inside Job" when some of them hate America, Bill?

[Dave Rogers]

Stairwell B was in the centre of the building Dave wasn't it ?

No.

WTC1?

Yes.

Would the three-floor steel hat truss and the 360-foot antenna (situated in the centre of the roof) not have crashed directly in that spot ?

Idiotic. Really, really idiotic.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

I'm sorry.

why has no one reported Bill S's spam? Because it is. We have several other threads he has tried (and succeeded in) derailing with this. It is spam, and it has been shown to be wrong repeatedly.

Just report the spam.

[bill smith]

I'm sorry.

why has no one reported Bill S's spam? Because it is. We have several other threads he has tried (and succeeded in) derailing with this. It is spam, and it has been shown to be wrong repeatedly.

Just report the spam.

This leads directly from the steel flowing dfrom the window and is thus 100% on topic.

[cyclonic]

It amazes me that the truthers think that "the steel was shipped across the hudson river" somehow means it was shipped to china.

35zZeNcIAZ8

[lapman]

Can I see it in the picture Chewy just posted ?

PS. I mean the place in the core where the 16 survivors were found safe and sound.
It on the lower left portion of the pic. You see the two out walls. Look at the center of the square they form two sides of.

[bill smith]

No.



Yes.



Idiotic. Really, really idiotic.

Dave

Easy to say but hard to back up Dave. The massive steel hat truss and antenna fell within 10secs according to NIST. 9.2 seconds is freefall. So they fell straight down onto stairwell B.Note: '' The stairwell, situated in the center of the North Tower ''.

[cyclonic]

It is easy to see what molten metal fell from wtc2.
see what color steel,lead and aluminum are when they cool down from a molton state and then watch the videos to see what color the molton metal cools to as its falling down.

[Dave Rogers]

The massive steel hat truss and antenna fell within 10secs according to NIST.

You really can't get anything right, can you?

Dave

[GlennB]

Here ya go Bill, another shot of core structure that has survived around a stairwell:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/survivedcore.jpg

Now you can toddle off and procure an orgasm over all the attention you're getting eh?

[Pantaz]

Well, Bill Smith has succeeded at one thing... he's the most successful troll I've ever seen. I put him on "ignore" long ago, yet I still get to read nearly all of his silliness since so many people quote and respond to him.

Any of you notice that the OP's last post was #44, yet this thread has gone on for >160 posts?

[bill smith]

Here ya go Bill, another shot of core structure that has survived around a stairwell:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/survivedcore.jpg

Now you can toddle off and procure an orgasm over all the attention you're getting eh?

The Truth attracts it's own attention Glenn. While I may not be 100% accurate I am close to the mark and well you know it. Things are falling into place more an more rapidly as the picture clears.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

........................While I may not be 100% accurate........................

That's all I needed to hear from Bill!

Yup, you were never 100% accurate!

[TruthersLie]

The Truth attracts it's own attention Glenn. Whie I may not be 100% accurate I am close to the mark and well you know it. Things are falling into place more an more rapidly as the picture clears.

God I sooooo want to "fix that for you."

I think you misplaced the decimal in that percentage. You should shift it two places to the left. So far I haven't seen you right about 1% of what happened on 9/11

(anyone remember one of your latest epic fails? that hurricane off the coast which you have now run from... )

try again billy

[Juniversal]

So you can't see them either ? Jeez....10 MILES of masssive core column...missing.It's almost as if they MELTED away.You do know that thermite wouldn't just turn steel into soup right? Not to mention that's not its purpose.

[Furcifer]

You do know that thermite wouldn't just turn steel into soup right? Not to mention that's not its purpose.

Unfortunately no, he doesn't.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Here's that hurricane that Bill's been talking about:

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is a report from NIST where they try to figure out what eroded a thick steel beams so that they were razor thin in places and had a swiss chees appearance, they discover sulpur which is an indicator of thermite,

Careful! Those razor thin steel things you're finding are bits of Occam's Razor, and I think you're already bleeding. . . .
:)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Imagine, if you will, the Truthers going to Jack In The Box & ordering french fries when the fry cooker is getting cleaned.

Watch & enjoy:

HzDaygiHM80

This is exactly what the Truthers are doing with their theories when you tell them that the evidence proves them wrong, they continue to push their theories through.

[dudalb]

So you're suggesting that the job was done by the Chinese with some kind of trick to the eye?

Tell us another 1 Bill that we haven't heard of before we die of laughter.


The Chinese must have used a Jedi Mind Trick.
"This is not the mass of steel wreckage you are looking for".

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The Chinese must have used a Jedi Mind Trick.
"This is not the mass of steel wreckage you are looking for".

:dl:

"George Bush is just a crazy old man. Now, tomorrow I want you to take Silverstein to Anchorage, Alaska and have his memory erased. That'll be the end of it. He belongs to us now."

[CORed]

I am not an engineer. However, I have seen the video that is claimed by some to be molten metal dripping before the collapse. IMO, there is simply not sufficient evidence to determine what we are seeing. What I have seen in that video is glowing orange blobs falling. It appears to be liquid, but I am not totally conviced that it is. It could be moten metal of some sort, or molten plastic that is on fire, or burning fragments falling off of something. To cite this video as "proof" that the building was brought down by thermite, or in deed proof of anything at all, is ridiculous.

[alienentity]

ok, my original post getting diverted too much - iron microshperes etc, (even if I did some of it)

go back to the window and the molten metal flowing from it and focus on what's coming out of the window,
without the world wide web:

youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg

uninteruptable power supplies have lead, lead melts at 327 C and plastic burns/decompses/melts below 350 C

how do you get yellow, luminous molten lead created ? at the level of multiple tons and 1000+ C ?

any plastic or aluminum container holding it would disintegrate and any molten lead would quickly melt on to the floor or wherever - it would move away from the arcing,

It's too hard to visualize - can anyone come up with a lead battery scenario that is plausible? if the electrolyte in the lead acid battery got too hot then it would boil away and stop the reaction,

the yellow hot lead can't come from the same battery that is producing the electric current because the electrolyte would boil away

I had a look at the stabilized video. I think it's too difficult to tell what the stuff is, so it just boils down to guesswork.

My biggest problem with it being some kind of thermite byproduct is that it seems to be eminating from somewhere close to the window. I doubt it could have come from the core of the building.

In that case, if there was a vast quantity of thermite burning near the perimeter, why wasn't it seen elsewhere? Also, assuming it was there in such vast quantities, why wasn't there a lot of melted steel observed in the debris piles immediately following the collapses, and at the Freshkills site where investigators looked at it?

It seems there is a lack of evidence to corroborate the truther theory, and that which you've presented is ambiguous. It simply doesn't prove anything very well.

[alienentity]

Truther55 - also, you have to be careful about extrapolating from ambiguous data. If there are enough errors in your initial observations, then your entire argument may be based on a misunderstanding, and may be false for that reason.

The entire thermite argument is based on such ambiguous and incomplete evidence. The eutectic erosion that you mentioned has not been proved (by anybody) to have occurred before the collapse - it might very well have occurred in the debris fires, and even then, the temperatures are still not high enough to meet the criteria for thermite.

You have to wonder how many of your central assumptions must be wrong before your entire theory is wrong, and at what point you, as an individual, would be prepared to declare the theory dead. If the answer is 'never', then you're arguing an article of faith, not a fact.

[Pantaz]

Oh my GAWD! More molten steel pictures!! (http://images.google.com/images?q=yosemite+fire+fall) :eek:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Oh my GAWD! More molten steel pictures!! (http://images.google.com/images?q=yosemite+fire+fall) :eek:

That's just beautiful Pantaz! Looks like a waterfall of sparks!

[Audible Click]

Bill that isn't molten anything. It is sunlight. The camera was probably digital and thus had to deal with white balance. The camera probably has the white balance set to adjust for the buildings and dust blocking the sun, which would explain the orange-ish color.

Please tell me that you agree that that is not a video of molten metal with a fire truck driving through it without any damage to the tires appearing.

You never commented on this post BillSmith. Do you honestly think that the fire truck's tires would not melt or be damaged by driving through molten metal? I await your enlightening response.

[A W Smith]

Bill,

Just look at the picture I provided instead of acting stupid.

he aint acting

[bill smith]

You never commented on this post BillSmith. Do you honestly think that the fire truck's tires would not melt or be damaged by driving through molten metal? I await your enlightening response.

Well I wouldn't be that surprised if a truck moving as fast as that could pass through a thin layer of molten steel without bursting the tyres. But even if they were burst we would not ave seen because the clip was already over. So it's a non-point whichever way you look at it.

[Audible Click]

I have no words except, look at my signature. :boggled:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

he aint acting

Yeah I know! :D

And the mods took out that pic I had! :(

[cyclonic]

Well I wouldn't be that surprised if a truck moving as fast as that could pass through a thin layer of molten steel without bursting the tyres. But even if they were burst we would not ave seen because the clip was already over. So it's a non-point whichever way you look at it.

:dl: :dl: :dl:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Well I wouldn't be that surprised if a truck moving as fast as that could pass through a thin layer of molten steel without bursting the tyres. But even if they were burst we would not ave seen because the clip was already over. So it's a non-point whichever way you look at it.

It's a non-point because it was a non-point to begin with when you brought up that YT vid of a fire truck kicking up DUST for 7 seconds.

You know what's funny Bill, this picture from the movie "Volcano":

[Justin39640]

Well I wouldn't be that surprised if a truck moving as fast as that could pass through a thin layer of molten steel without bursting the tyres. But even if they were burst we would not ave seen because the clip was already over. So it's a non-point whichever way you look at it.

This may be the dumbest idea I have ever read on the internet. I pray you're a faker, for your own sake.

[Macgyver1968]

This may be the dumbest idea I have ever read on the internet. I pray you're a faker, for your own sake.

That's because we all know Bill says whatever will get the maximum reaction...a smiling troll, that never violates the MA. :)

[fourtoe]

Well I wouldn't be that surprised if a truck moving as fast as that could pass through a thin layer of molten steel without bursting the tyres. But even if they were burst we would not ave seen because the clip was already over. So it's a non-point whichever way you look at it.


So you don't agree that that was sunlight?

[Justin39640]

That's because we all know Bill says whatever will get the maximum reaction...a smiling troll, that never violates the MA. :)

Indeed.
It's so out there I think it's gotta be fake.

Also, IIRC Bill had admitted that firetruck driving through molten steel was... ahem... B.S. a few months ago.

[Travis]

Even if we assume there was thermite going in the building (despite all the physical and video evidence otherwise) what would it have to do with this little bit of material flowing out of 80th floor? That's clearly not exterior columns being melted as that would be blindingly obvious (literally) to everyone since a thermite reaction is very bright. It's not core columns being melted since that is too far away and you have to wonder how melted core columns can flow out of a window but not down the elevator shafts and stairwells (where reports of massive rivers of lava looking stuff are noticeably absent). So what, then, would the thermite melt that would then flow out of the window?

[Dave Rogers]

That's clearly not exterior columns being melted as that would be blindingly obvious (literally) to everyone since a thermite reaction is very bright.

And, of course, because the unmelted exterior columns are still there. Bit of an obvious one, that.

Dave

[bill smith]

And, of course, because the unmelted exterior columns are still there. Bit of an obvious one, that.

Dave

You mean you didn't understand that I was talking exclusively about a proportion of the core columns having been virtually completely melted down into the basements ?

That must be so because would you really stoop to pretending that you had thought I had meant perimeter columns too ? I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

[atecom]

Someone just spilled an oversized glass of Orange Juice, thats all it was.

[bill smith]

Someone just spilled an oversized glass of Orange Juice, thats all it was.

Hot orange I think. When the camera pans right that doesn.t look like sunlight. That looks hot like molten steel might look.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5314738&postcount=86 Hyperlink molten steel

[atecom]

Hot orange I think. When the camera pans right that doesn't look like sunlight. That looks hot like molten steel might look.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5314738&postcount=86 Hyperlink molten steel

mhmm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fb7y-OEaFY&feature=fvw)


And back to seriousness, why are none of the papers in the gutter on fire from the 'molten metal?'

[BigAl]

I don't really need to point out tht I said up to 50% of the core columns were entirely melted into the basements. After all they had to leave something to show the folks. Just far too little though- thus the Chinese diversion as a cover for the shortfall.

How many 10s of thousands of tons of steel would that be and how did the Bad Guys get 2 tons of any kind of thermite in for every ton of steel melted?

[bio]

You're assuming it poured out the window as soon as it was created. This is a stupid assumption. More likely it was in a pool on that floor until the structure shifted, which it did -- or the floor sagged, which it also did -- causing it to pour through the hole.

There is only one fountain of this stuff, yes?

It's not too hard to visualize. Maybe it is for you, but that's your problem. Such is called an Argument to Incredulity, and you cannot win an argument with a logical fallacy. Sorry, but you've got nothing.

... but NIST says, that the fires were after the first 20 minutes just around 500 Celsius. How should these fires heat the stuff up to 1000 Celsius?

Is Mackey thinking, that the stuff was heated up on a floor? But how can this happen on a even floor?

[Dave Rogers]

You mean you didn't understand that I was talking exclusively about a proportion of the core columns having been virtually completely melted down into the basements ?

That must be so because would you really stoop to pretending that you had thought I had meant perimeter columns too ? I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

Some day, bill, you should try reading posts before replying to them. That way, you might achieve relevance.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

... but NIST says, that the fires were after the first 20 minutes just around 500 Celsius. How should these fires heat the stuff up to 1000 Celsius?


I'm sorry.. but NIST does not state that. You might want to provide a citation to support this bs claim. Or read the entire paper. Datamined quotes don't help you here.


Is Mackey thinking, that the stuff was heated up on a floor? But how can this happen on a even floor?

No Mackey is noting the half dozen of real peer reviewed journals which state what happens in office fires and how the steel could have been heated up.

Where oh where are the truther peer reviewed journals showing that Mackey (or NIST for that matter) are wrong. Please provide just one. Pretty please.

[bio]

I'm sorry.. but NIST does not state that. You might want to provide a citation to support this bs claim. Or read the entire paper. Datamined quotes don't help you here.


(...)

NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.” “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”.
from a peer-reviewed journal. (http://tanabear911.blogspot.com/2008/04/steven-jones-published-in-peer-reviewed.html)

[CHF]

NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.” “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”.
from a peer-reviewed journal. (http://tanabear911.blogspot.com/2008/04/steven-jones-published-in-peer-reviewed.html)

Wow, so not only do you try to sell the WTC wind "explosions" but you're also still passing off the Bentham vanity publication as a "peer-review" journal.

You, sir, are sooooo behind the times!

[Justin39640]

NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.” “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”.
from a peer-reviewed journal. (http://tanabear911.blogspot.com/2008/04/steven-jones-published-in-peer-reviewed.html)

those quotes are out of context. It was a pay for play paper in a sham journal that quote mined the NIST,

[Dave Rogers]

NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.” “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”.
from a peer-reviewed journal. (http://tanabear911.blogspot.com/2008/04/steven-jones-published-in-peer-reviewed.html)

That doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean "Temperatures fell below 1000ºC 15-20 minutes after the airplane impact and the initial jet fuel fires". It does mean that at any location, the temperature was near 1,000ºC for 15-20 minutes after the fire spread to that location. Therefore, NIST is not saying that there were no areas where, 20 minutes after the plane impact, the temperature was higher than 500ºC.

Dave

[leftysergeant]

Firstly:

Bentham is a vanity rag and not even useful; hanging on the wall in an outdoor privy.

Secondly:

The Class B fires started by the jet fuel were probably, by nature of the fuels themselves, cooler than the Class A fires that they started.

Do learn some fire science before you come in here and waste the time of those of us who have studied this sort of thing as a matter of survival in our professional lives.

[TruthersLie]

NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.” “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”.
from a peer-reviewed journal. (http://tanabear911.blogspot.com/2008/04/steven-jones-published-in-peer-reviewed.html)

ROFLMAO.

Why is it that twoofs have horrible reading for comprehension skills?

Why is it that they try to pass off vanity rags (bentham pay for publishing? Really?) as peer reviewed journals. Or better yet, trying to pass off a distorted blog of a questionable journal as peer review... Absolutely amazing at that.

You might just want to track down the EXACT quotes that Jones (and now you) have datamined and read them fully so you can understand them.

My wife offers an online reading for comprehension class.. pm me and I'll see if she will sign you up.

Go back to school.

[T.A.M.]

NIST: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.” “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below”.
from a peer-reviewed journal. (http://tanabear911.blogspot.com/2008/04/steven-jones-published-in-peer-reviewed.html)

Yes but it doesn't say at what point, at any given location, the temps were 1000C, nor does it say that they were only like it at each location one time, or multiple times...but what do you expect when you cherry pick something to try and misrepresent.

And your quote, as far as I can see is from Jones article on the tanabear blog, not from the NIST article. If you are going to quote NIST, you should refer to the article itself, not someone elses reference to it.

TAM:)

TAM:)

[Kent1]

That doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean "Temperatures fell below 1000ºC 15-20 minutes after the airplane impact and the initial jet fuel fires". It does mean that at any location, the temperature was near 1,000ºC for 15-20 minutes after the fire spread to that location. Therefore, NIST is not saying that there were no areas where, 20 minutes after the plane impact, the temperature was higher than 500ºC.

Dave

Clearly he hasn't read the NIST report where they talk about that corner of the building during the flow with fully developed fires at 1000C. Another great example of misleading comments from the paper.

[bio]

please provide reference (from the nist-report) for you claims, that the fire was hotter than 500 C 20 min. after the jet-impact.

[Newtons Bit]

Clearly he hasn't read the NIST report where they talk about that corner of the building during the flow with fully developed fires at 1000C. Another great example of misleading comments from the paper.

Truthers? Misleading? No! :jaw-dropp

[volatile]

I believe a combination of thermite and explosives brought down the WTC 1,2 and 7 on 9/11.

Why do you believe that? I guess you're not an expert in explosives, nor tat you were familiar with thermite until you heard about it in the context of the WTC.

So - what makes you think it's thermite? Whose expertise are you basing this belief on?

[Kent1]

You could start with NIST H-7-2 Molten Material.
The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.
Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.

please provide reference (from the nist-report) for you claims, that the fire was hotter than 500 C 20 min. after the jet-impact.


Or here See num 11
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

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

There's also more areas where NIST talks about the flow in the report and other articles.
Some are located here
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

[bill smith]

please provide reference (from the nist-report) for you claims, that the fire was hotter than 500 C 20 min. after the jet-impact.

Good solid info bio. I will be interested to see the debunkers prove it wrong. One for the file for sure.

[bio]

Good solid info bio. I will be interested to see the debunkers prove it wrong. One for the file for sure.

i keep them busy :D

[bio]

You could start with NIST H-7-2 Molten Material.
The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.
Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.
(...)

failed :flamed:

We are speaking about fires, which are 1000 C hot, to transform liquid yellow hot. Where does NIST say, that the fires were so hot, 20 min after the jet-fuel-fire?

[CHF]

failed :flamed:

We are speaking about fires, which are 1000 C hot, to transform liquid yellow hot. Where does NIST say, that the fires were so hot, 20 min after the jet-fuel-fire?

Do you plan on reading the links provided or does everything need to be spoon-fed to you?

Admit it, bio - you're a fake truther like bill, aren't you?

C'mon, the wind "explosions?" The Bentham?

You're just not serious about this.

[Kent1]

failed :flamed:

We are speaking about fires, which are 1000 C hot, to transform liquid yellow hot. Where does NIST say, that the fires were so hot, 20 min after the jet-fuel-fire?

You could try reading what you quoted or the other link for starters.
"These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C )"
"well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires."

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

failed :flamed:

We are speaking about fires, which are 1000 C hot, to transform liquid yellow hot. Where does NIST say, that the fires were so hot, 20 min after the jet-fuel-fire?

If you're suggesting that steel melted you'd better have physcial evidence.

[bio]

You could try reading what you quoted or the other link for starters.
"These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C )"
"well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires."

1000 C, the vicinity of the fires, when did these fires happen?

[Kent1]

1000 C, the vicinity of the fires, when did these fires happen?
According to the links I provided which you didn't read
NIST H-7-2 Molten Material
"This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photography indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 am"
Also see
NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4
Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59.

The towers were hit at roughly 8:45 and 9:03.

[bio]

I am reading it. NIST says, there were fires of 1000 C, but the fires did not last longer than 15-20 Minutes and jet-fuel had nothing to do with it.

So according to NIST, it could be, that the fires were hot enough to cook the aluminium yellow hot.

[CHF]

I am reading it. NIST says, there were fires of 1000 C, but the fires did not last longer than 15-20 Minutes and jet-fuel had nothing to do with it.

So according to NIST, it could be, that the fires were hot enough to cook the aluminium yellow hot.

Did you miss this part of Kent's post?

Aluminum melts between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius.

In other words, you don't need a long-lasting 1000C fire in a patricular location in order to account for melted aluminum.

[Kent1]

I am reading it. NIST says, there were fires of 1000 C, but the fires did not last longer than 15-20 Minutes and jet-fuel had nothing to do with it.

So according to NIST, it could be, that the fires were hot enough to cook the aluminium yellow hot.

You're getting closer to the right track. Although NIST highly doubts it was pure aluminium. Likely it was oxidized with other garbage mixed in such as lead, glass, etc. with slag on the surface. Oxidized aluminium, glass and lead have a higher emissivity closer to steel's emissivity of .4.
An interesting note, if you look at the corner you can also see the debris damage from the plane impact and exit.

[gumboot]

There is a video made by a group trying to debunk conspiracy theories regarding the molten metal and who say it is just melted aluminum from the
airplane flowing out of the window and glowing due to its temperature
and dissolved organic materials embedded:

google the following to get the youtube link:

"youtube DhHzMttUKO0"


You're ignoring the tonnes and tonnes of aluminium on the outside of the building itself...



My problem with their explanation is that they say the aluminum is 980 C (1800 F) based on the "light orange" color chart shown in the video but they are using a color chart for steel. I searched the internet for a color chart for aluminum vs. temperature but could not find one. At the higher temperatures, the color chart for aluminum and steel probably start to look the same but I can't tell you how similar.

Jesus wept. Don't blabber about things you're utterly ignorant of. The colour temperature of steel is based on black body radiation, which is the same for both aluminium and steel. The only difference is that at very lower temperatures aluminium radiates very little light, thus under direct sunlight it still looks silver. (The actual metal itself never changes colour, it just begins to radiate light at different colours).

Something else that emits black body radiation, was in the tower in vast quantity, present at the origin point of the molten substance, and melts at relatively low temperatures is glass. I'd be willing to bet money that NIST is right about it being a slag of various substances - consisting primarily of aluminium and glass.

[ElMondoHummus]

... but NIST says, that the fires were after the first 20 minutes just around 500 Celsius. How should these fires heat the stuff up to 1000 Celsius?

Is Mackey thinking, that the stuff was heated up on a floor? But how can this happen on a even floor?

Neither Ryan, nor NIST is saying that this flow was 1000 degrees Celsius. When you read the NIST FAQ, you'll see they believe the flow was aluminum and therefore only in the vicinity of 640oC, a temperature well within the possibilities set by the fuel available to and the duration of the fire. And the only other possibility that Ryan brought up was lead, which has a far lower melting point. You built a false premise in your argument; neither Ryan nor NIST said that the flow was 1000oC. And that's precisely what you're saying he and NIST said in your line "How should these fires heat the stuff up to 1000 Celsius?".

Now, as to whether the fires themselves reached that temperature anywhere else in the tower: That information is located in NCSTAR 1-5 and it's subreports. 1-5E specifically addresses the modeling that led them to their conclusion of 1000oC areas within the towers.

[TruthersLie]

please provide reference (from the nist-report) for you claims, that the fire was hotter than 500 C 20 min. after the jet-impact.

No no no twoof. You are the one who is datamining and taking things out of context. You are the one making the claims which are BS. YOu need to provide the citation with page number and report.

You sent us to a BLOG which says NIST says without any citations or references in it.

Please provide your relevant citations, then I'll come back and rip you apart for datamining a report w/out reading for comprehension.

[truther55]

So, in summary, two facts tell me that *IF* the molten metal was aluminum, it would be hotter (much hotter?) than 980 C and those facts are:

1. The color chart for aluminum vs. temperature (if I could find it) would show a higher temperature than that same color for steel. (with steel at 980 C being "light orange").

2. The brightness of the molten metal seen in the video at an estimated 1500+ feet away seems to show more of a bright yellow color

So how do you heat aluminum to yellow hot in a building fire? The hottest temperature in a room fire is near the *top* of the flames, closer to the ceiling - not at the bottom. There is speculation on the internet that the molten aluminum must have been trapped by some sort of "dam" and then after sufficient quantity had melted, it all flowed out the window. Many tons of material are estimated to have fallen from that window.

So the floor had to create a depression, the molten metal pooled in it and it was heated to yellow hot temperature. Was the heat from flames on the same floor or was the heat from the next floor down? If the flames were from the floor immediately below then it would have to conduct through concrete and corrugated steel which is what the floor was made from. That would make it impossible for the aluminum to reach 1000+ C temperatures because the concrete/steel would be too much of an insulator.

So the heat must have come from the *same* floor. But the hottest temperatures are near the ceiling - not at the base where the aluminum would be melting. The fuel (paper /plastic / debris etc.) would get in the way and block those hot temperatures at the top of the flames from reaching the aluminum that is pooled on the floor. So essentially, the fuel (paper/plastic etc) would be insulating the aluminum from the hottest temperatures.

If there was a pile of combustibles (plastic/paper) on fire with aluminum piled on top, then after the aluminum melted at 660 C it would flow to the cooler floor. Any ash that dropped below would act as an insulator, insulating the aluminum from the hottest temperatures.

To make a hot fire, you have to shake away all the ash that gets in the way of air flowing through the combusting material which obviously isn't going to happen in the WTC.

Thomas Eagar, MIT professor, wrote a study on the collapse - he writes the following:

>>"Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the >>radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the
>> maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the >> WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800° C range.

google "eagar mit wtc fire" to get his paper

So an MIT professor, specializing in materials engineering, says the WTC steel would be *unlikely* to experience temperatures above 750-800 C. And that has to be steel that is near the hottest part of the flame. My scenarios show that the aluminum is not near the hottest parts of the flame. Anyone responding to my post should focus on this point - the aluminum is *not* near the hottest part of the fire. What is your scenario that explains it?

How do you create molten aluminum that according to color charts (albeit a steel color chart) seems to indicate a temperature higher than 1000 C - hotter than the MIT professor says that any metals reached in the WTC fire? How do you get such perfect conditions to create *TONS* (some people estimate 10+ tons) of molten metal at such a bright luminosity? It's just too perfect - like all the other things that went "perfect" and brought down 3 huge buildings in one day.

I think it is molten steel from a thermite reaction (iron oxide powder and aluminum powder which creates molten iron at 2500 C).

Some debunkers have said that paper / ash / glass / plastic etc, which would glow yellow hot at lower temperatures (such as 650 C), must be mixed in with the molten aluminum and thus make it glow at a lower temperature. My problem with this is that the video shows liquid metal pouring, flowing and forming droplets that glow brightly (fully exposing the interior of the "mix"). This would indicate that the ash / paper / glass / plastic would have to be *thoroughly* mixed in with the molten aluminum and I don't see how it could be so thoroughly mixed in. The ash / glass / plastic would float on the top of the much denser liquid aluminum and would be slightly trapped during pouring out the window. Just like the foam on top of a beer being poured stays in the glass as the glass is tilted and poured out. The foam pours out last. In this case the lighter ash / plastic /paper etc would not mix with the molten aluminum and would pour out last because it is floating on the top.

For sense of scale, the windows are a little less than 1.5 feet wide (estimated) with the perimeter columns being 3' 4" apart (known). There are 61 perimeter columns spanning 207 feet.

In a you tube video, there is an assistant professor from NIST trying to mix molten aluminum and paper, plastic, glass, carpet but he didn't succeed. To find the video, google the following:

"SQdkyaO56OY youtube"

==========================
There is a discussion of room temperatures in fires from a company
specializing in fire science if you google the following


Above is a portion of my original post.

I'm reading the responses and very few people who are *fully* explaining how you can get tons of molten metal that glows so brightly in a building fire. (I'm also seeing people using Farenheit without the "F" which just makes things confusing, I recommend Celsius to make it simpler to read)

Is the fuel of paper and plastic etc underneath the aluminum from the plane and heating it up to the melting point?? If so, why doesn't the aluminum just melt at roughly 630 C and then drip down to the bottom, near the floor, where it is cooler and then get covered in the ash from the paper / plastic fuel source from above? If that happens the aluminum will be insulated from the hot temperatures and will never reach 900+ C. Can the firefighter on here put his thoughts in on this? And I'm saying the molten metal has to reach 900 C or higher for it to glow brightly. How does that happen in this scenario?

Or what about scenario #2 where the fire is on floor 80 and heating floor 81 where the aluminum from the plane is located. But in this case the fire would have to conduct through corrugated steel and concrete floor to get to the aluminum which won't work because of the insulating effects of the concrete.

here is a great color chart for steel vs. temperature (without the 3 w's)
smex.net.au/Reference/SteelColours.htm

and here are some temps vs color from that link:

843 C = Bright Orange Red
875 C = Light Red
930 C = Orange
990 C = Orange Yellow
1050 C = Dark Yellow

If tons of molten aluminum were somehow created and blocked from flowing until enough was produced, then one way to get the bright yellow color is to *thoroughly* mix in paper/plastic/glass/ash. It can be at a temperature lower than 900 C (or so) because then it is the light emitting from the paper / plastic / ash etc that makes it so bright. The problem with this scenario is that all the plastic /paper /glass etc just floats to the surface and won't mix in *thoroughly*.
You can see that in these youtube videos - including an assistant professor from NIST trying to mix molten aluminum and ash/plastic etc, ( here is the link minus the three w's because I can't post internet links yet):

youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

and here is Steven Jones talking about the glowing orange material flowing from the window:

youtube.com/watch?v=wNo71hKqmBg

I saw at least one photo that someone posted showing glowing aluminum. Sure, the aluminum oxide floating on the surface has a higher emissivity and glows (particularly in low light conditions as some of the photos were). But what if its flowing out of a window and all the (relatively) pure aluminum from underneath the aluminum oxide skin is exposed as the flow becomes somewhat turbulent? The relatively pure aluminum will be silvery to barely glowing at temperatures below 800 C and I can only take an educated guess as to what temperature pure aluminum would have to be so that it was glowing brightly in daylight conditions. But that temp will be higher than steel which means it is higher than 980 C based on its brightness and the color chart for steel. I realize the color of a camera video can be off - but the brightness is not off and that stuff was bright! That puts it beyond the red/orange region and into the orange/yellow region (and higher).

Remember, the molten aluminum can't mix with paper / ash /plastic as is shown by the video from the assistant professor from NIST (link above). He tries to mix the two together for an hour with a large burner trying to create a glowing orange fluid made from aluminum and paper/plastic/ash. When they finally give up and just pour it out, its silver in the daylight conditions (and the camera was close by, unlike the video of the WTC tower where the camera was 1500+ feet away, the further away, the less bright it will appear). I'm sure that the NIST professor's mix of molten aluminum /paper/plastic etc would glow below 800 to 900 C if they could invent a super-hight temperature blender to mix the ash and aluminum - and then poured it really fast (before all the paper / ash / glass floated to the top because the ash/paper/glass is so much lighter than the molten aluminum and because they just won't dissolve in molten aluminum. It may glow when being dumped from this super-hi-temp blender but it may not glow enough in daylight conditions. That's why I say it's thermite, the temperature is high enough (2500 C) to give enough luminosity.

Maybe if the assistant professor from NIST put it into a furnace (so that the daylight doesn't drown out the glowing material) and get it extra hot and let some aluminum oxide particles form because they have a higher emissivity. Sure, then it will glow. Like the people who posted photos in response to my OP. But that isn't turbulent flow that exposes the relatively pure aluminum (I say relatively pure because its an alloy with less than 2% alloying elements, but don't jump on that because that isn't going to create enough light).

If the hottest conditions were 1000 C in the fire, how many minutes would it take to heat tons of molten aluminum? Longer than the 56 minutes that the south tower burned before collapsing? How do you heat it and contain it and keep it near the hottest parts of the fire engulfed room? Did all the ash from the fire cover up the molten material and insulate it from the hottest parts of the fire?

The MIT professor Thomas Eagar says "it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800° C range"

The fire in any one area is not going heat metal to 750-800 C for long becuase the fuel starts to run out. Yet somehow the fire created tons of molten aluminum above 980 C. Or somehow there was a super-hi-temp blender that mixed all the ash and molten aluminum at 650 C or so and quickly dumped it out the window before the mixture separated and the ash floated to the top.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Above is a portion of my original post.

I'm reading the responses and very few people who are *fully* explaining how you can get tons of molten metal that glows so brightly in a building fire. (I'm also seeing people using Farenheit without the "F" which just makes things confusing, I recommend Celsius to make it simpler to read)

Is the fuel of paper and plastic etc underneath the aluminum from the plane and heating it up to the melting point?? If so, why doesn't the aluminum just melt at roughly 630 C and then drip down to the bottom, near the floor, where it is cooler and then get covered in the ash from the paper / plastic fuel source from above? If that happens the aluminum will be insulated from the hot temperatures and will never reach 900+ C. Can the firefighter on here put his thoughts in on this? And I'm saying the molten metal has to reach 900 C or higher for it to glow brightly. How does that happen in this scenario?

Or what about scenario #2 where the fire is on floor 80 and heating floor 81 where the aluminum from the plane is located. But in this case the fire would have to conduct through corrugated steel and concrete floor to get to the aluminum which won't work because of the insulating effects of the concrete.

here is a great color chart for steel vs. temperature (without the 3 w's)
smex.net.au/Reference/SteelColours.htm

and here are some temps vs color from that link:

843 C = Bright Orange Red
875 C = Light Red
930 C = Orange
990 C = Orange Yellow
1050 C = Dark Yellow

If tons of molten aluminum were somehow created and blocked from flowing until enough was produced, then one way to get the bright yellow color is to *thoroughly* mix in paper/plastic/glass/ash. It can be at a temperature lower than 900 C (or so) because then it is the light emitting from the paper / plastic / ash etc that makes it so bright. The problem with this scenario is that all the plastic /paper /glass etc just floats to the surface and won't mix in *thoroughly*.
You can see that in these youtube videos - including an assistant professor from NIST trying to mix molten aluminum and ash/plastic etc, ( here is the link minus the three w's because I can't post internet links yet):

youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

and here is Steven Jones talking about the glowing orange material flowing from the window:

youtube.com/watch?v=wNo71hKqmBg

I saw at least one photo that someone posted showing glowing aluminum. Sure, the aluminum oxide floating on the surface has a higher emissivity and glows (particularly in low light conditions as some of the photos were). But what if its flowing out of a window and all the (relatively) pure aluminum from underneath the aluminum oxide skin is exposed as the flow becomes somewhat turbulent? The relatively pure aluminum will be silvery to barely glowing at temperatures below 800 C and I can only take an educated guess as to what temperature pure aluminum would have to be so that it was glowing brightly in daylight conditions. But that temp will be higher than steel which means it is higher than 980 C based on its brightness and the color chart for steel. I realize the color of a camera video can be off - but the brightness is not off and that stuff was bright! That puts it beyond the red/orange region and into the orange/yellow region (and higher).

Remember, the molten aluminum can't mix with paper / ash /plastic as is shown by the video from the assistant professor from NIST (link above). He tries to mix the two together for an hour with a large burner trying to create a glowing orange fluid made from aluminum and paper/plastic/ash. When they finally give up and just pour it out, its silver in the daylight conditions (and the camera was close by, unlike the video of the WTC tower where the camera was 1500+ feet away, the further away, the less bright it will appear). I'm sure that the NIST professor's mix of molten aluminum /paper/plastic etc would glow below 800 to 900 C if they could invent a super-hight temperature blender to mix the ash and aluminum - and then poured it really fast (before all the paper / ash / glass floated to the top because the ash/paper/glass is so much lighter than the molten aluminum and because they just won't dissolve in molten aluminum. It may glow when being dumped from this super-hi-temp blender but it may not glow enough in daylight conditions. That's why I say it's thermite, the temperature is high enough (2500 C) to give enough luminosity.

Maybe if the assistant professor from NIST put it into a furnace (so that the daylight doesn't drown out the glowing material) and get it extra hot and let some aluminum oxide particles form because they have a higher emissivity. Sure, then it will glow. Like the people who posted photos in response to my OP. But that isn't turbulent flow that exposes the relatively pure aluminum (I say relatively pure because its an alloy with less than 2% alloying elements, but don't jump on that because that isn't going to create enough light).

If the hottest conditions were 1000 C in the fire, how many minutes would it take to heat tons of molten aluminum? Longer than the 56 minutes that the south tower burned before collapsing? How do you heat it and contain it and keep it near the hottest parts of the fire engulfed room? Did all the ash from the fire cover up the molten material and insulate it from the hottest parts of the fire?

The MIT professor Thomas Eagar says "it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800° C range"

The fire in any one area is not going heat metal to 750-800 C for long becuase the fuel starts to run out. Yet somehow the fire created tons of molten aluminum above 980 C. Or somehow there was a super-hi-temp blender that mixed all the ash and molten aluminum at 650 C or so and quickly dumped it out the window before the mixture separated and the ash floated to the top.

Is it because we all have covered this kind of topic before in the past?

Actually we all did so all we're doing is debunking the same regurgatated Truther non-sense again, which is really boring to say the least.

It's probably the battery room for Fuji Bank's computers. They're located near that section of the building on floors 80, 81 & 82:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Here's the blown up version of the list on the right:

[truther55]

Is it because we all have covered this kind of topic before in the past?

Actually we all did so all we're doing is debunking the same regurgatated Truther non-sense again, which is really boring to say the least.

It's probably the battery room for Fuji Bank's computers. They're located near that section of the building on floors 80, 81 & 82:

Does that mean you agree that it wasn't molten aluminum from the airplane? which is what NIST says it was? because I'm going to attack the battery theory next.

below is a link and text from that link - it's not me writing it- (without 3 w's)

911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html

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

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

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

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

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

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Does that mean you agree that it wasn't molten aluminum from the airplane? which is what NIST says it was? because I'm going to attack the battery theory next.

Those plane parts probably never reached the Fuji Bank in the Southeast corner.

The "molten metal" found in the debris was aluminum mixed in with glass, gypsum & other items from the office buildings.

The debris field only reached 1,342°F, Aluminums melting point is 1220°F.

[R.Mackey]

Hoffman is a nut that we've torn to pieces comprehensively over the years. He believes 2.3 kilotons of explosives, in the form of "nanothermite ceiling tiles," is what took down each tower, for crying out loud.

Your claim that the material couldn't mix is rather like his truly monumental idiocy about how the dust and smoke couldn't mix with outside air. It's also total crap. Passing an aircraft through a solid structure at 560 MPH is a pretty darn good way to mix it.

Rejected. You're basically setting up a False Choice fallacy, but your whole line of argument is totally ridiculous. Come up with a valid alternative, and we might listen. But you haven't.

[ElMondoHummus]

Does that mean you agree that it wasn't molten aluminum from the airplane? which is what NIST says it was? because I'm going to attack the battery theory next.

below is a link and text from that link - it's not me writing it- (without 3 w's)

911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html

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

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

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

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

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

The flow could be aluminum. It could be lead. Most likely, it was a mix of material. The towers were not homogenous, there are many contents that could explain the flow.

But the one thing that is eliminated as a possibility is that it was molten steel. That has already been disproven.

[truther55]

Those plane parts probably never reached the Fuji Bank in the Southeast corner.

The "molten metal" found in the debris was aluminum mixed in with glass, gypsum & other items from the office buildings.

The debris field only reached 1,342°F, Aluminums melting point is 1220°F.

It will be much easier if everyone uses Celsius.
Aluminum's melting point is roughly 650 C for pure aluminum and the alloys melt at a lower temperature. I see a range of 582 C to 650 C for aluminum alloy number "6061" at some web sites (I know aircraft alloy is different but not that different, I've worked for an aircraft manufacturer in the past but designed steel components).

What's your point that the debris field reached 1342 F (727 C) ?

my post described how the glass/gypsum doesn't blend in with the molten aluminum and that (in that scenario) the aluminum isn't exposed to the highest temperatures becuase it was shielded by ash/paper/plastic and the molten metal was on the floor where it was cooler.

did you read what I wrote and understand it or just type a response without reading it? or skimming it slightly?

[truther55]

The flow could be aluminum. It could be lead. Most likely, it was a mix of material. The towers were not homogenous, there are many contents that could explain the flow.

But the one thing that is eliminated as a possibility is that it was molten steel. That has already been disproven.

ok, go for it, explain how you get tons of molten material that glows brightly - but read my post and understand it. Because it rules out aluminum from the plane.

When I get time, I'm going to explain why it wasn't the batteries.
(which we are not even sure existed, other than floor strengthening documents)

[Algebra34]

I think there are a lot of accounts, opinions, or beliefs about molten metal at the WTC after 9/11. But without all of the physical evidence to examine it will never be known for sure. Some people think that other people wanted it that way thus the destruction of evidence. Just don't claim to debunk it now. You can't. It's too late. For the same reasons debunkers claim truthers can't prove it. It's too late. I just don't understand why that's ok for other people.

[triforcharity]

It will be much easier if everyone uses Celsius.
Aluminum's melting point is roughly 650 C for pure aluminum and the alloys melt at a lower temperature. I see a range of 582 C to 650 C for aluminum alloy number "6061" at some web sites (I know aircraft alloy is different but not that different, I've worked for an aircraft manufacturer in the past but designed steel components).

What's your point that the debris field reached 1342 F (727 C) ?

my post described how the glass/gypsum doesn't blend in with the molten aluminum and that (in that scenario) the aluminum isn't exposed to the highest temperatures becuase it was shielded by ash/paper/plastic and the molten metal was on the floor where it was cooler.

did you read what I wrote and understand it or just type a response without reading it? or skimming it slightly?

The problem is that your conclusions are all wrong. You keep forgetting that there are hundreds of things in that building that can, and will, burn hot enough to melt aluminum. I can actually do this in my back yard with paper from my office shredder.

Your knowledge of fire and its properties are severly lacking.


PS, a good portion of us reside in the USA, where F is used. Sorry if that inconvienences you. Google a translator, its easy.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=F+to+C+conversion+calculator

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It will be much easier if everyone uses Celsius.
Aluminum's melting point is roughly 650 C for pure aluminum and the alloys melt at a lower temperature. I see a range of 582 C to 650 C for aluminum alloy number "6061" at some web sites (I know aircraft alloy is different but not that different, I've worked for an aircraft manufacturer in the past but designed steel components).

What's your point that the debris field reached 1342 F (727 C) ?

my post described how the glass/gypsum doesn't blend in with the molten aluminum and that (in that scenario) the aluminum isn't exposed to the highest temperatures becuase it was shielded by ash/paper/plastic and the molten metal was on the floor where it was cooler.

did you read what I wrote and understand it or just type a response without reading it? or skimming it slightly?

You'd rather do celsius because it looks like it's a lower temperature then that of fahrenheit?

Yeah, real slick there Truther55. Ain't gonna work here!

My point is that you've never read about the debris reaching 1,341*F.

Your post left those elements out!

[ElMondoHummus]

ok, go for it, explain how you get tons of molten material that glows brightly - but read my post and understand it. Because it rules out aluminum from the plane.

When I get time, I'm going to explain why it wasn't the batteries.
(which we are not even sure existed, other than floor strengthening documents)

You are stuck on two ideas that you need to discard:

That the flow was homogenous. There is zero reason for it to be so.
That you can identify from an unreferenced camera of unknown calibration color information that is accurate enough to determine the temperature of the material comprising the flow.
Until you realize that you're starting from incorrect premises, you will not understand why your arguments regarding the flow fail. That is the first realization you must come to.

[TruthersLie]

The MIT professor Thomas Eagar says "it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800° C range"



And what does the part of Thomas Eagar say when I quote the post to you? Huh? Oh that the temperatures could easily get to 1200 or higher.

Why do you datamine posts and then IGNORE the other one showing that you are wrong? OH because you are a twoof.

Argument from ignorance and incredulity noted. YOu don't need to quote your starting post again... I know where it is.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

:D

[TruthersLie]

Does that mean you agree that it wasn't molten aluminum from the airplane? which is what NIST says it was? because I'm going to attack the battery theory next.


No that is a truther strawman.

I (and on one else) do not know EXACTLY what the molten substance was which poured out of the window.

But I do know what it CANNOT be.

See if you were a real scientist you would start with a hypothesis then examine the data, and eliminate everything you can to reject the null hypothesis.

In this case we have the hypothesis- thermite melted steel and it is steel pouring out of the building.

the null hypothesis is it wasn't steel.

Now we examine the data and try to eliminate all confounds. How many metals and other items melt at under 1000 C, and when heated near those temperatures glow in shadows? Oh.. there are 10 metals which are present in office buildings in abundance. All of those melt at under 1000C and most glow near that temperature. We also have glass, or plastics which is possible.

Does steel melt at under 1000C? No.

Can we eliminate any of the 10 metals which melt at under 1000C? Can we eliminate ANY of them? Could it be aluminum? Yes. Could it be tin? Yes. Could it be glass? Yes. Could it be melted lead from the USP in the corner? Yes. Huge fire could easily melt the lead acid batteries which would be hot enough to keep it molten in the corner until the interior failed and it poured out.

Now that we cannot eliminate ANY of the 10 common metals which melt at under 1000C, we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

We cannot say that it was steel/thermite from direct observations.

Now we can then try to shift to a method of PROOF of thermite. Which would be high temperatures, cut steel, or the tell tale iron pigs which are left behind. Was any of that found?

High temperuatures? Can we prove the were there BEFORE the clean up? No we cannot.

Cut steel? There was NO cut steel reported that would be from thermite or anythign else. Please provide a single video of thermite cutting horizontally or obliquely through steel beams. Just one. It should be easy, you have had 8 years, and the truth burn experiment.

Iron slag left over? None found.

So we can definatively say thermite/thermate/nano mothra crap was not used.

[ElMondoHummus]

843 C = Bright Orange Red
875 C = Light Red
930 C = Orange
990 C = Orange Yellow
1050 C = Dark Yellow


The fallacies of determining color from video was tackled a long time ago. Here is one of my own posts on the subject from back in 2008:

Recognition of the limits of human perception is a necessary component of analysis. That is something you dismiss at your peril when you cling to your conclusions of the temperature of the falling components in the video. You haven't accounted for the inaccuracies in question, again not the least of which was, as mentioned above, the color calibration of the monitor the image is viewed on, as well as the accuracy of the camera in question. And this is all before the human inaccuracies that is the point of this response. Note the information at the link you yourself provided earlier.


Tables comparing temperature and color appeared at least as early as 1836 (Pouillet). The one below shows three attempts at correlating temperature and color. The verbal descriptions given by Howe2 and White and Taylor3 have been omitted and their temperatures placed with the verbal description in the Holcomb Steel data that was closest to theirs. The variation demonstrates how unreliable this method is even in the hands of careful observers.

http://www.sizes.com/materls/colors_of_heated_metals.htm (http://www.sizes.com/materls/colors_of_heated_metals.htm)

As an example of the table at that site, note the temperature differences between the Halcomb Steel descriptions and the White & Taylor ones: Orange-yellow is 1300 degrees C in one as opposed to 941 in another. And that's with careful observation of material in person, not 3rd party observation of a recording, with all the additional error that is added by the recording device.


It is possible to be off by several hundred degrees when estimating temperature from color in person. So why do you presume anywhere near the accuracy that you post when attempting to estimate from video? Especially when you do not know the dynamic range or white balance of the camera in question?

[TruthersLie]

ok, go for it, explain how you get tons of molten material that glows brightly - but read my post and understand it. Because it rules out aluminum from the plane.

When I get time, I'm going to explain why it wasn't the batteries.
(which we are not even sure existed, other than floor strengthening documents)

Ummm wrong. We know for a fact that in the corner was a UPS system.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
and
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

5 minutes of real research.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Ummm wrong. We know for a fact that in the corner was a UPS system.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
and
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

5 minutes of real research.

Thank you TruthersLie!

He said he wanted to attack the battery "theory" when I brought it up to him.

[GlennB]

truther55 - here's 2 photos of a wood fire. What's your analysis of the approximate temperatures being produced?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/IMGP0115.jpg

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/IMGP0117.jpg

[Dave Rogers]

please provide reference (from the nist-report) for you claims, that the fire was hotter than 500 C 20 min. after the jet-impact.

Why bother? You've demonstrated that you're not capable of understanding it.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

I'm reading the responses and very few people who are *fully* explaining how you can get tons of molten metal that glows so brightly in a building fire.

Conversely, you aren't explaining how material that is molten at about 1000ºC can possibly be iron or steel. You're starting from an impossible conclusion, then trying to demonstrate that your conclusion must nevertheless be correct by eliminating all other conclusions on the basis of the same evidence that makes your conclusion impossible. It's not a sane form of reasoning. One thing we know, with absolute certainty, about the material in question is that it was not molten iron or steel. You can do all you can to eliminate other possibilities, but it's a waste of time; on the basis of the evidence, the possibility you want to prove is the first to be eliminated.

Dave

[Kent1]

A few notes. I don't see any strong reason to believe the metal was above 900C. That kind of rules out steel.
I would image some of the flow to have some silver in it. From the photos and videos seen, that looks like what happened.
http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg
Based on some of the claims here I wonder if anyone has ever seen the videos of the flow. Where did all of the metal come from then? How much magic thermite is needed to create that much flow?
Why did it just happen to flow from where the plane debris and UPS batteries were?
That fact that Jones couldn't oxidize the aluminum and raise the emissivity shows what a fraud he is. Its clear he (and the other truther) were controlling the experiment.

This is old stuff long debunked.
Jones was so dumb here's what he claimed in is paper.
"If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability."

I guess he was dreaming of a flat debris free surface.


Another note. If you read the NIST report you can see that wasn't the only flow from the tower and that area. The other flow was far more silverly due to a less intense fire location and likely because of the absence of lead.

[cyclonic]

Video by RKowens4.

DhHzMttUKO0

[tsig]

ok, go for it, explain how you get tons of molten material that glows brightly - but read my post and understand it. Because it rules out aluminum from the plane.

When I get time, I'm going to explain why it wasn't the batteries.
(which we are not even sure existed, other than floor strengthening documents)

If it was steel what was holding up the building?