Molten Steel

[The Pig]

Is the presence of molten steel, found weeks after the collapse accepted by all sides? I thought this was disputed. I couldn't find an answer (that I understood) on the net.

I heard that in a S. Jones lecture he described pools of metal which later solidified & rusted, indicating molten steel was present. I don't fancy sitting through 2 hours of it to find out the specifics.

Thanks.

[T.A.M.]

I think the possibility of the presence of "Molten Metal" would be roughly accepted by all sides, but very little definitive proof has bene presented.

TAM

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think the possibility of the presence of "Molten Metal" would be roughly accepted by all sides, but very little definitive proof has bene presented.

TAM

It is not unlikely that there was molten metal discovered during cleanup due to the oven effect. NIST has also stated that some video footage prior to collapse shows what is probably molten aluminum with various ignited debris in it pouring out of the tower(s).

[CurtC]

But the presence of molten steel or iron is strongly doubted by the non-CT side. There's no indication that there were temperatures capable of melting steel, and no plausible way for temps to get that high through burning of office materials.

Even in Jones' thermite fantasy, thermite burns up immediately, so could not explain molten steel even hours later, much less weeks.

I think the solidified/rusted sample you heard mention of was a photo showing a blob of something, with some rust-colored stains on it. The ridiculous thing is that this blob had rebar sticking out of it. It was a chunk of concrete stained by rust.

[Kent1]

But the presence of molten steel or iron is strongly doubted by the non-CT side. There's no indication that there were temperatures capable of melting steel, and no plausible way for temps to get that high through burning of office materials.


I wouldn't be so quick to rule that out. NIST and others have also stated it could certainly be possible.

"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."

Also note
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html

[Hellbound]

There's no indication that there were temperatures capable of melting steel, and no plausible way for temps to get that high through burning of office materials.

Just want to point out that this is not true. Temperature is not really a good determinant to use. Energy is. Even a wood fire can melt steel, this is how swords and knives were forged in days of old. This did require an oven.

There have been amny cases of molten metals found in house fires, including aluminum, copper, and iron.

Long-term fires, buried underground,and burning slowly over the weeks of clean-up, could easily have built temperatures up to an extreme level. Even a paper fire, burning continuosly in an area that retains heat, will increase the temperature to a high level. Its all about how much heat could escape vs. how much was produced.

Considering that we know there were hot spots in the rubble, and that it took quite some time to get to these, even molten steel found in these hot spots would be plausible from long-term fires. My question would be:

"If this molten steel was found two weeks later, where's all the molten steel that must've been produced initially? Why was none of it found anywhere except in these buried areas, where fires had burned for days or weeks?"

[GlennB]

Just want to point out that this is not true. Temperature is not really a good determinant to use. Energy is. Even a wood fire can melt steel, this is how swords and knives were forged in days of old. This did require an oven.

There have been amny cases of molten metals found in house fires, including aluminum, copper, and iron.

Long-term fires, buried underground,and burning slowly over the weeks of clean-up, could easily have built temperatures up to an extreme level. Even a paper fire, burning continuosly in an area that retains heat, will increase the temperature to a high level. Its all about how much heat could escape vs. how much was produced.


I hate to dissent at this point in my conversion but this isn't right. No amount of boiling in water will melt steel, so 'total energy' alone cannot do the job.

A stove fueled by material that has a maximum combustion temperature of (say) 400c can never get hotter than that, no matter how well it's insulated or how long it burns. If it did we'd be in the realms of perpetual motion machines.

However I would totally agree that thermite/ate would not explain the reported molten steel either. And the so-called molten steel claimed to be seen tumbling down the side of WTC makes no sense. Even with a CD that would have been localised at the core and very temporary.

regards

[David Wong]

That's the part I've never understood. Why does molten steel found in the rubble support a controlled demolition? Are pools of molten steel common in those projects?

So why do they keep bringing it up?

[rwguinn]

Just want to point out that this is not true. Temperature is not really a good determinant to use. Energy is. Even a wood fire can melt steel, this is how swords and knives were forged in days of old. This did require an oven.

There have been amny cases of molten metals found in house fires, including aluminum, copper, and iron.

Long-term fires, buried underground,and burning slowly over the weeks of clean-up, could easily have built temperatures up to an extreme level. Even a paper fire, burning continuosly in an area that retains heat, will increase the temperature to a high level. Its all about how much heat could escape vs. how much was produced.

Considering that we know there were hot spots in the rubble, and that it took quite some time to get to these, even molten steel found in these hot spots would be plausible from long-term fires. My question would be:

"If this molten steel was found two weeks later, where's all the molten steel that must've been produced initially? Why was none of it found anywhere except in these buried areas, where fires had burned for days or weeks?"

Erm...
Forging is done with metal at the plastic stage, not molten.
Welding requires molten metal.

Temperature is the ONLY determinant to use. Ice melts at 0 C, or 32 F. Ice contains energy, yet you cannot add more and more ice to get water to boil. You have to add energy at a higher temperature- in order to heat something up, it must be in contact with something that is hotter than it is.
Once it gets molten, all you need to do is keep it at that temperature--make up the losses. Gypsum and concrete rubble make very good insulators, if there is enough of it surrounding the molten stuff...

[qarnos]

Erm...
Forging is done with metal at the plastic stage, not molten.
Welding requires molten metal.

Temperature is the ONLY determinant to use. Ice melts at 0 C, or 32 F. Ice contains energy, yet you cannot add more and more ice to get water to boil. You have to add energy at a higher temperature- in order to heat something up, it must be in contact with something that is hotter than it is.
Once it gets molten, all you need to do is keep it at that temperature--make up the losses. Gypsum and concrete rubble make very good insulators, if there is enough of it surrounding the molten stuff...

I'm no expert in phsyics, but I think Huntsman was talking about the difference between temperature and heat.

[defaultdotxbe]

Erm...
Forging is done with metal at the plastic stage, not molten.
Welding requires molten metal.

Temperature is the ONLY determinant to use. Ice melts at 0 C, or 32 F. Ice contains energy, yet you cannot add more and more ice to get water to boil. You have to add energy at a higher temperature- in order to heat something up, it must be in contact with something that is hotter than it is.
Once it gets molten, all you need to do is keep it at that temperature--make up the losses. Gypsum and concrete rubble make very good insulators, if there is enough of it surrounding the molten stuff...

this would be true if you were simply setting a cold piece of metal next to a hot piece of metal, the hot piece cant transfer more energy than it has

however, a fire is continuously producing heat and if that heat is not dissipated temperature can increase indefinitely

heat is an energy, it cant be destroyed, so it has to go somewhere

[T.A.M.]

David:

I think the reason they keep bringing it up, is that it is one of the "links" in their "Thermite was used" theory. They claim only thermite could cause the steel to melt, and that jet fuel fires alone could not.

We counter that the fires were much hotter than that of just jet fuel, because of all the other materials in the WTCs, which caused temps to go much higher. This, combined with prolonged fires (like embers in the sand) under the wreckage, are what debunkers use to explain the remote chance that true "Molten Steel" was there, although still very little evidence that any was found.

The argument is much more ocmplex, but that is the nutshell version.

Anyone have anything else to add, or correct.

TAM

[defaultdotxbe]

thermite could not burn long enough to keep steel molten for weeks

so there must have been another source of energy (fires) with enough insulation to prevent heat from escaping too fast

given that, and the fact that no molten iron/steel was found immediatey after the collapse, its entirely possible for those fires alone are responsiblefor heating the metal to its melting point

as such, theres no need for thermite in the equation at all


thank you william of ockham, may your razor remain forever sharp

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Thermite is self-oxidizing, isn't it?

[defaultdotxbe]

Thermite is self-oxidizing, isn't it?

yeah, from the iron-oxide, and very fast burning, even is you have a huge pile of it, it would all start to react at once and still burn out very quickly

[TruthSeeker1234]

Couple answers for you.

We did not invent molten metal to satisfy the thermite theory. The thermite theory emerged to account for the observations. Besides the picture and video data, numerous experts observed molten metal at ground zero.

Thusfar, Dr. Jones and colleagues have condcuted 100% of the testing on the formerly molten metal. His results are that it is primarily iron, (NOT aluminum, not structural steel) with lots of other goodies entrained, including barium. He has repeatedly called for others to corroborate his findings.

The molten metal observed flowing out of the 80th floor of the south tower is likely iron. Aluminum appears silver colored, even if red hot, due to low emissivity. It is unlikely (but not theoretically impossible) that aluminum could be heated to yellow hot in that situation, because it melts when red hot. Organic materials present would float on top of the metal, and could not "mix" with it.

Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions. Demolition experts have said that they have never seen molten metal in the rubble after a demolition. Fire experts have said they have never seen molten metal after fires. Clearly though, a correct theory of 9/11 must account for the stuff.

[defaultdotxbe]

We did not invent molten metal to satisfy the themite theory.
no one said this

The thermite theory emerged to account for the observations. Besides the picture and video data, numerous experts observed molten metal at ground zero.
but it doesnt account for the molten metal, as i already stated

Thusfar, Dr. Jones and colleagues have condcuted 100% of the testing on the formerly molten metal.
you still have not provided a source for this, jones's research is from a sample scraped off a beam that was used as part of a memorial, AFAIK this was never molten

His results are that it is primarily iron, (NOT aluminum, not structural steel) with lots of other goodies entrained, including barium.
source for barium? again, his research only shows a high content of sulphur, which is not unusual

The molten metal observed flowing out of the 80th floor of the south tower is likely iron.
no, it isnt, if it was molten iron it would be white hot, the metal shown flowing out of the floor is yellow at best

Aluminum appears silver colored, even if red hot, due to low emissivity.
its red, but its silver, now thats just silly

aluminum can glow brightly under the right circumstances, ive burned enough beer cans in bonfires to know

Organic materials present would float on top of the metal, and could not "mix" with it.
untrue, most organic materials woul dbe burned beyond recognition by the heat of any molten metal

you also miss the possibility that its neither iron nor aluminum, but some other material, it could be sparks from a blown transformer

Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions.
hurray!

Demolition experts have said that they have never seen molten metal in the rubble after a demolition.
and yet molten metal is evidence of this demolition?

Fire experts have said they have never seen molten metal after fires.
wanna try that one again? (ill give you a hint, your wrong)

Clearly though, a correct theory of 9/11 must account for the stuff.
and it does (not that it will change your mind)

[gumboot]

Just to clear this up,

The "molten steel" story comes from a video in "Rebuilding America" that depicts workers removing glowing steel from the wreckage at ground zero.

Now, a couple of things:
1) It is definately steel
2) It is not molten

Point two can be concluded very easily; an excavator cannot pick up a puddle of molten steel and move it somewhere. It obviously has to be solid. At the hottest end of the column, the steel does dribble a bit, meaning the very tip MIGHT be molten, but it appears to be a salmon colour - this would put it at about 900 C. It is important to note that from about 800 C onwards estimating steel temperature by colour is VERY inaccurate. Especially as different alloys have different properties.

In any event, in the region of 1000 C is well short of the 1300 C or so at which most steel alloys melt.

Of course the "molten" is a red herring. What is important is there was steel at INCREDIBLY high temperatures weeks and weeks after 9/11. This is supported by video evidence and personal accounts of people there. And I mean incredibly high temperature STEEL.

So the question is "What would cause that?" As has been pointed out, arguing of whether the steel is actually quite liquid or not is missing the point. The point being, neither thermite nor any form of explosive can POSSIBLY produce near-molten steel weeks after detonation. The suggestion that it could is laughable.

Steel at this temperature indicates extensive subterranean fires. This in turn supports the theory that there were enormous fires in the buildings before collapse. The fires (along with enormous amounts of fuel) were buried under tonnes of rubble, and smouldered for weeks and very high temperature.

Simple.

-Andrew

[kevin]

Something that always confuses me: are the claims that still hot molten (stuff) was found weeks later, or that the cooled off remains (slag) of molten (stuff) was found?

I can certainly see the latter, but the first, without a source of heat, seems unlikely weeks later.

[T.A.M.]

Couple answers for you.

We did not invent molten metal to satisfy the thermite theory. The thermite theory emerged to account for the observations. Besides the picture and video data, numerous experts observed molten metal at ground zero.


I did not say that. I said the reason it persists in the CT "collection" of "evidence" is that it is a "link" in the "Thermite" theory which is the holy grail of the movement.


Thusfar, Dr. Jones and colleagues have condcuted 100% of the testing on the formerly molten metal. His results are that it is primarily iron, (NOT aluminum, not structural steel) with lots of other goodies entrained, including barium. He has repeatedly called for others to corroborate his findings.


So Steve went down to ground zero and got the molten specimens himself...or was it that lady that slipped it to him from her bucket?


The molten metal observed flowing out of the 80th floor of the south tower is likely iron. Aluminum appears silver colored, even if red hot, due to low emissivity. It is unlikely (but not theoretically impossible) that aluminum could be heated to yellow hot in that situation, because it melts when red hot. Organic materials present would float on top of the metal, and could not "mix" with it.

taking his word for it, as all of the "video" he shows us of these "scientific" experiments is his assistant pouring out the "aluminum-woodchip" mix after the two have been supposdely mixed. He does not show us how much, if any organic material was actually added...we dont see that in the video. And they only tests they did were on wood chips and plastic filings, once again amount added not given, nor were any other materials tested.


Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions. Demolition experts have said that they have never seen molten metal in the rubble after a demolition. Fire experts have said they have never seen molten metal after fires. Clearly though, a correct theory of 9/11 must account for the stuff.

Source please, on both accounts - demolition experts and fire experts wrt to seeing molten metal at demolition sites. Source???

TAM

[kevin]

Steel at this temperature indicates extensive subterranean fires. This in turn supports the theory that there were enormous fires in the buildings before collapse. The fires (along with enormous amounts of fuel) were buried under tonnes of rubble, and smouldered for weeks and very high temperature.


Excellent. That makes sense to me. Were there any fires with a continuing source of fuel (i'm thinking natural gas lines that didn't get shut off)?

[fuelair]

Is the presence of molten steel, found weeks after the collapse accepted by all sides? I thought this was disputed. I couldn't find an answer (that I understood) on the net.

I heard that in a S. Jones lecture he described pools of metal which later solidified & rusted, indicating molten steel was present. I don't fancy sitting through 2 hours of it to find out the specifics.

Thanks.

If you are -as your exact phrasing implies- asking if steel, weeks after the collapse was found still molten at that time then my side certainly would not accept it. If you mean evidence that steel found at the site showed that soe of it had been molten in the past I would say it was possible given some of the reported temperatures, burn times, pressures and near complete loss of insulation during the initial impact.

[gumboot]

Excellent. That makes sense to me. Were there any fires with a continuing source of fuel (i'm thinking natural gas lines that didn't get shut off)?


Subterranean fires will burn for a very very long time. There's an underground coal fire under Burning Mountain in Australia that has been burning for an estimated 6,000 years.

Bear in mind the majority of the buildings were never on fire. That means tonnes and tonnes of flammable office material was buried in the collapse. That's all stuff the fire can consume at a very slow rate.

-Andrew

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Couple answers for you.

We did not invent molten metal to satisfy the thermite theory. The thermite theory emerged to account for the observations. Besides the picture and video data, numerous experts observed molten metal at ground zero.

Aluminum incased in Aluminum Oxide!

Thusfar, Dr. Jones and colleagues have condcuted 100% of the testing on the formerly molten metal. His results are that it is primarily iron, (NOT aluminum, not structural steel) with lots of other goodies entrained, including barium. He has repeatedly called for others to corroborate his findings.

So it is not structural steel because it has no chromium to make it stainless, do you actually know what A36 Alloys are composed of?

The molten metal observed flowing out of the 80th floor of the south tower is likely iron. Aluminum appears silver colored, even if red hot, due to low emissivity. It is unlikely (but not theoretically impossible) that aluminum could be heated to yellow hot in that situation, because it melts when red hot. Organic materials present would float on top of the metal, and could not "mix" with it.
Wrong it can I have done it, it is simple Aluminum does not react to Iron, or carbon, only oxides so the iron and Carbon from organics can burn in air and then the aluminum reacts with them and turns them from oxides into carbon and Iron again. As long as the compounds are moving thought the air they stay heated to yellow. If the material were Iron it would have went from yellow to red as it cooled because it too would have formed an Oxide coating around it. Only a self heating multi elemental compound could have produce the substance that fell from the 80th floor.
http://chainsawsanders.com/notpossible.JPG
http://chainsawsanders.com/blackbody1.JPG
http://chainsawsanders.com/blackbody2.JPG
http://chainsawsanders.com/blackbody3.JPG

Debunked!


Thermite is not used in standard controlled demolitions. Demolition experts have said that they have never seen molten metal in the rubble after a demolition. Fire experts have said they have never seen molten metal after fires. Clearly though, a correct theory of 9/11 must account for the stuff.
Nist already did, along with DR. Greening! Aluminum is auto heating in fires once the critical temperature is reached do to Aluminum burning and heating thermite reactions are possible naturally as long as the material is in motion it stays heated do to continued reactions in the material itself. All the Quotes have one thing in common, Flowing.


Please feel free to disprove anything I have said, if you can.

[kevin]

There's an underground coal fire under Burning Mountain in Australia that has been burning for an estimated 6,000 years.

Only if they have something to burn. The coal fire isn't burning for a long time because it's underground (except for maybe just enough airflow to keep it going) but because there is 6000 years of coal fuel available.

Bear in mind the majority of the buildings were never on fire. That means tonnes and tonnes of flammable office material was buried in the collapse. That's all stuff the fire can consume at a very slow rate.


True. There were what 10 stories on fire at most? That's a 100 stories of fuel.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Just to clear this up,

The "molten steel" story comes from a video in "Rebuilding America" that depicts workers removing glowing steel from the wreckage at ground zero.

Now, a couple of things:
1) It is definately steel
2) It is not molten

Point two can be concluded very easily; an excavator cannot pick up a puddle of molten steel and move it somewhere. It obviously has to be solid. At the hottest end of the column, the steel does dribble a bit, meaning the very tip MIGHT be molten, but it appears to be a salmon colour - this would put it at about 900 C. It is important to note that from about 800 C onwards estimating steel temperature by colour is VERY inaccurate. Especially as different alloys have different properties.

In any event, in the region of 1000 C is well short of the 1300 C or so at which most steel alloys melt.

Of course the "molten" is a red herring. What is important is there was steel at INCREDIBLY high temperatures weeks and weeks after 9/11. This is supported by video evidence and personal accounts of people there. And I mean incredibly high temperature STEEL.

So the question is "What would cause that?" As has been pointed out, arguing of whether the steel is actually quite liquid or not is missing the point. The point being, neither thermite nor any form of explosive can POSSIBLY produce near-molten steel weeks after detonation. The suggestion that it could is laughable.

Steel at this temperature indicates extensive subterranean fires. This in turn supports the theory that there were enormous fires in the buildings before collapse. The fires (along with enormous amounts of fuel) were buried under tonnes of rubble, and smouldered for weeks and very high temperature.

Simple.

-Andrew

Look at the picture again the material goes from red to yellow to hot as it falls though the air, that is what I have been seeing in Aluminum encased in Aluminum oxide with organics mixed in.
The material actually increases in temperature as it is exposed to air.

[gumboot]

Only if they have something to burn. The coal fire isn't burning for a long time because it's underground (except for maybe just enough airflow to keep it going) but because there is 6000 years of coal fuel available.


Yeah but it only moves along the seam at about 1m a year... underground fires burn very slowly. Which means a small amount of fuel will last a long time.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Look at the picture again the material goes from red to yellow to hot as it falls though the air, that is what I have been seeing in Aluminum encased in Aluminum oxide with organics mixed in.
The material actually increases in temperature as it is exposed to air.


It doesn't fall through anything. A digger pulls it out of a hole in the ground. Nor does it change colour. It is one of the perimeter columns of the WTC. It is unquestionably, irrefutably steel.

I don't believe you have seen the video I am talking about.

-Andrew

[defaultdotxbe]

It doesn't fall through anything. A digger pulls it out of a hole in the ground. Nor does it change colour. It is one of the perimeter columns of the WTC. It is unquestionably, irrefutably steel.

I don't believe you have seen the video I am talking about.

-Andrew

i think your talkign about 2 different things, CC is referring to the (precollapse)video of yellow/orange metal falling or flowing out fo the tower

gumboot is referring to a picture/video of an excavator pulling a large peice of glowing orange steel our of the rubble

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It doesn't fall through anything. A digger pulls it out of a hole in the ground. Nor does it change colour. It is one of the perimeter columns of the WTC. It is unquestionably, irrefutably steel.

I don't believe you have seen the video I am talking about.

-Andrew

I know the beam is steel in the video but look at the still image on Dr. Jone s's paper the one with the metal in the graple, and you will see what I am talking about, that picture shows the dripping metal changing color as it falls as does the video, to some extent.

[CurtC]

Only if they have something to burn. The coal fire isn't burning for a long time because it's underground (except for maybe just enough airflow to keep it going) but because there is 6000 years of coal fuel available.
Even a very small amount of fuel could theoretically burn for 6000 years if it were insulated well enough. It burns at the rate that it can get oxygen, and as long as it can get enough oxygen to remain hot enough for the reaction to continue, considering that some of the heat is lost through conduction to the surroundings, it will keep burning. So keep it really well insulated, supply just enough oxygen to offset the heat lost and keep the temp high, and it will burn for a long time.

[rwguinn]

this would be true if you were simply setting a cold piece of metal next to a hot piece of metal, the hot piece cant transfer more energy than it has

however, a fire is continuously producing heat and if that heat is not dissipated temperature can increase indefinitely

heat is an energy, it cant be destroyed, so it has to go somewhere

Er..Ah.
Again, no.
Or rather, not quite.
Continuously producing heat does not automatically increase temperature.
An object cannot absorb heat from another body and be hotter (higher temperature) than that body. Heat flows from Hot to cold. Never the other way around.
So if your fire is only 1000 degrees C, you will never, ever, on gods green earth, by thor's hammer, melt steel.

[defaultdotxbe]

Er..Ah.
Again, no.
Or rather, not quite.
Continuously producing heat does not automatically increase temperature.
An object cannot absorb heat from another body and be hotter (higher temperature) than that body. Heat flows from Hot to cold. Never the other way around.
So if your fire is only 1000 degrees C, you will never, ever, on gods green earth, by thor's hammer, melt steel.

so we have a 1000 degree fire, the steel heat to 1000 degrees, the fire is still burning, where is that energy going?

[Gravy]

Excellent. That makes sense to me. Were there any fires with a continuing source of fuel (i'm thinking natural gas lines that didn't get shut off)?
There wasn't a source of fuel like a gas line, but there was an almost unimaginable amount of fuel in the contents of the buildings. Here's a very back-of-envelope list as a reminder of how vast the world's largest and busiest commercial complex was. I'm not suggesting that all of this material was available as fuel, but you get the idea.

– Up to 180,000 gallons of fuel oil, diesel fuel and transformer oil (a high estimate)

– 2,000 automobiles and trucks. Not all were burned, but many were (I'm not aware of a count) Each one with fuel on board, each with four tires, foam and fabric upholstery and carpeting, engine oil, rubber hoses, belts, weatherstripping, wiring harnesses, loads of plastic, paint.

– Carpeting. Doesn't sound like a big deal. Imagine going into your local carpet dealer and asking for installation for your living room. Dimensions: 20 feet wide, 65 miles long. Add carpet backing or padding to that.

– Tens of thousands of miles of wiring covered with plastic insulation.

– 5 million square feet of painted surfaces.

– Hundreds of tons of wood and particle board.

– Millions of pounds of paper

– Tens of thousands of computer terminals covered in plastic.

– The contents of 75 retail stores, with all their merchandise, shelves and display cases, and back rooms filled with stock in boxes. These include 18 clothing stores, several bookstores, newsstands, card shops, two music stores (plastic!), two consumer electronics stores, pharmacies. Several retail chains had their highest-grossing stores at the WTC. (Not all of these stores were consumed by fire.)

– The contents of several banks.

– Hundreds of tons of trading-floor equipment.

– Tens of thousands of telephones made largely of plastic.

– Hundreds or thousands of fax machines covered in plastic.

– Thousands of copiers and toner cartridges covered in plastic, with a high percentage of plastic parts.

– Thousands of computer peripherals: printers, scanners, hubs, zip drives (remember them?), millions of CD-ROMs and floppy disks. User manuals for everything. Calculators. Everything with plastic covers and plastic parts.

– All of the electronics above have plastic-insulated wiring and plastic circuit boards.

– About 75,000 chairs, most with foam padding and synthetic coverings.

– Hundreds of upholstered couches.

– Millions of plastic pens and markers.

– 20,000 viscoelastic tower shock absorbers.

– Tens of thousands of cardboard boxes

– Tens of thousands of plastic wastebaskets

– Tons and tons of flammable mailroom supplies

– Paper towels, napkins, toilet paper for 50,000 people.

– Hundreds of supply closets filled with office consumables, including untold quantities of paper and plastic.

– The contents of the receiving areas: perhaps thousands of boxes of supplies

– Thousands of flammable items used by cleaning, painting, repair and maintenance crews.

– Acres of fabric window coverings

– Thousands of plastic chair mats

– The contents of Windows on the World, the highest-grossing restaurant in the U.S. and one of the largest, with all of its supplies, oils, table linens, wall treatments, upholstered furniture, etc.

– The contents of numerous other restaurants, cafés and snack bars.

When you stop to think about it, it really adds up.

Some sources for the liquid spill info, and general WTC pile fire info:

http://wardgriffin.com/fire.htm
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/meeting/pdf02/kahnp.pdf
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/capconstr/f.../appendixl.pdf
http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs..._materials.pdf
http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs/eis/Appendix_D.pdf
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20242.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf
http://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3189/osha3189.html
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf

Some details on the concourse mall: http://www.rkf.com/news/2001/11/01/wtc.asp

[Kent1]

Gravy, I never got back to you on the concrete debris photo I posted earlier.
The large piece is at Hanger 17 at Kennedy International Airport.
Bascily it is floors smashed together with other debris mashed in.

This is a different shot of the exact same piece Jones uses in his article.
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35

There were lots of these found.

http://www.amny.com/news/am-etc-relic-debris,0,7482642.flash

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=31
http://www.amny.com/news/local/groundzero/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5484916

[GlennB]

so we have a 1000 degree fire, the steel heat to 1000 degrees, the fire is still burning, where is that energy going?

I heats its surroundings. A long-lasting fire will produce a large hot region around it.

[defaultdotxbe]

I heats its surroundings. A long-lasting fire will produce a large hot region around it.

thats where the insulation comes in, if the fire produces heat faster than it can be dissipated where does it go?

im actually asking, id always assumed it woudl just get hotter (much like a heavy object hitting a smaller object at x velocity can cause the smaller object to move away much faster than x velocity)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

thats where the insulation comes in, if the fire produces heat faster than it can be dissipated where does it go?

im actually asking, id always assumed it woudl just get hotter (much like a heavy object hitting a smaller object at x velocity can cause the smaller object to move away much faster than x velocity)

Insulation still absorbs heat it is just not good at it, so the heat is still conducted away.

[Hellbound]

rwguinn and GlennB:

Steel is formed at the plastic temperature, but the iron has to be smelted from the ore before this. It has to be melted (the iron at least).

I'm with default on this one, although on further research it seems we're both a little right :)

There is a maximum temeprature, but what we need is the adiabetic temperature...not the burn temp in open air.

A good resource:

http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

When one consults combustion textbooks for the topic of 'flame temperature,' what one normally finds are tabulations of the adiabatic flame temperature. 'Adiabatic' means without losing heat. Thus, these temperatures would be achieved in a (fictional) combustion system where there were no losses. Even though real-world combustion systems are not adiabatic, the reason why such tabulations are convenient is because these temperatures can be computed from fundamental thermochemical considerations: a fire experiment is not necessary. For methane burning in air, the adiabatic flame temperature is 1949°C, while for propane it is 1977°C, for example. The value for wood is nearly identical to that for propane. The adiabatic flame temperatures for most common organic substances burned in air are, in fact, nearly indistinguishable. These temperatures are vastly higher than what any thermocouple inserted into a building fire will register!


ANd a note on house 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.

So, it's still plausible that a well-insulated area, fed by wood fires (or plastic, although we'd need an adiabetic temp on that as well) could melt aluminum, and quite feasibly iron and steel.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

rwguinn and GlennB:

Steel is formed at the plastic temperature, but the iron has to be smelted from the ore before this. It has to be melted (the iron at least).

I'm with default on this one, although on further research it seems we're both a little right :)

There is a maximum temeprature, but what we need is the adiabetic temperature...not the burn temp in open air.

A good resource:

http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html



ANd a note on house fires:



So, it's still plausible that a well-insulated area, fed by wood fires (or plastic, although we'd need an adiabetic temp on that as well) could melt aluminum, and quite feasibly iron and steel.

Let us not forget about soot as well retaining heat.

http://science.nasa.gov/msL1/combustion_how.htm

Plus once you get molten Aluminum any breaking of the oxide coating causes it to heat as well. That can definitely increase the temperature.

[rwguinn]

rwguinn and GlennB:

Steel is formed at the plastic temperature, but the iron has to be smelted from the ore before this. It has to be melted (the iron at least).

I'm with default on this one, although on further research it seems we're both a little right :)

There is a maximum temeprature, but what we need is the adiabetic temperature...not the burn temp in open air.

A good resource:

http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html



ANd a note on house fires:



So, it's still plausible that a well-insulated area, fed by wood fires (or plastic, although we'd need an adiabetic temp on that as well) could melt aluminum, and quite feasibly iron and steel.

Again, It doesn't matter. If the flame temperature-or oven temperature-or whatthehe!!ever temeperature is not as high as or higher than the melting temperature, it will not melt. Period.
you cannot melt ice in a 31 degree oven. You cannot melt steel in a 1000 degree c oven.(ETA--aluminum, yes!)
As far as temperatures climbing over time in a house (or other structural) fire, that is where the energy goes--the overall temperature will continue to climb to the point where equilibrium is reached.
This is a case where the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics are the rulers of the roost.
Heat always flows from hot to cold. When a body has reached the same temperature as its surroundings, that is as hot as it gets.

As for your first point, you are being ridiculously pedantic.. Yes, iron must be melted to form steel. To form an ingot, you melt it.
To forge that ingot into a sword, or wrench, or whatever, you heat it to the plastic region, not melting point. Hitting molten steel with a hammer is akin to sticking a finger in a live light socket--you only do it intentionally one time.

[GlennB]

......

So, it's still plausible that a well-insulated area, fed by wood fires (or plastic, although we'd need an adiabetic temp on that as well) could melt aluminum, and quite feasibly iron and steel.

Thanks for that Huntsman. Again, my schoolboy science is not quite up to scratch in these much more complex situations. Adiabatic conditions (as I understand it) would mean that the maximum possible temperature would be achieved not by the fuel itself (e.g. wood) but by the component of the fuel that can achieve the highest temperature (i.e. the carbon within the wood). Thus the adiabatic temperatures for wood and carbon would be nearly identical (according to doctorfire. From its explanation I don't understand why they wouldn't be exactly the same, but whatever...)

Some more from doctorfire:

"these <adiabatic> temperatures would be achieved in a (fictional) combustion system where there were no losses"
and
"These temperatures are vastly higher than what any thermocouple inserted into a building fire will register!"

In this respect, the rubble of WTC was no longer a conventional "building fire". It was smouldering for weeks, slowly consuming the huge amounts of hydrocarbon fuel (paper,carpet,plastic etc) that came down in the collapse. Does this get us closer to adiabatic conditions than the well-ventilated original building fire? It looks like it, but that's just more guesswork.

This stuff hurts my brain sometimes. I was politely conversing on a UK firefighters forum a while back. Think I'll go over there and ask ;)

regards

[CurtC]

Again, It doesn't matter. If the flame temperature-or oven temperature-or whatthehe!!ever temeperature is not as high as or higher than the melting temperature, it will not melt. Period.
I'll explain my feeble understanding of this situation, and more knowledgeable people here can show me where I'm going wrong.

The "flame temperature" is what it is, because it's an equilibrium of the energy added by combustion of the fuel, and how fast that energy is radiated/conducted to the surrounding air. However, this necessarily makes some assumptions about the characteristics of the surroundings and how fast they can sink the heat produced. For most situations, it's a pretty good approximation to say that a flame from a certain fuel has a certain temperature.

But not necessarily in an underground fire, whose characteristics are a) a high degree of insulation, and b) combustion rate is limited by the availability of oxygen.

Consider the thought experiment of placing a fuel source in a very well insulated environment, heating it up to combustion temperature to start the process rolling, and then having a knob that varies how much oxygen enters the system.

There will be some low amount of oxygen flow, below which the equilibrium of the heat lost to the surroundings, and the heat generated by combustion, would allow the fuel's temperature to drop below what's required for combustion, and it would stop.

But as oxygen flow increases, I don't see what would constrain the temperature of the fuel to the regular open-air flame temperature. As long as there is enough oxygen available, more heat will be produced, and if that heat can't escape fast enough, the temperature will climb to high levels.

[Hellbound]

As far as temperatures climbing over time in a house (or other structural) fire, that is where the energy goes--the overall temperature will continue to climb to the point where equilibrium is reached.
This is a case where the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics are the rulers of the roost.
Heat always flows from hot to cold. When a body has reached the same temperature as its surroundings, that is as hot as it gets.

Well that's pretty much what I was saying, although you worded it more clearly. If the heat energy produced can't escape, then the temperature continues to rise.

You are correct that there are maximums, though, which I referred to in the website I referenced. I didn't know that, and do know. But the melting points for steel (right around 1370 C, actually higher for iron at 1510 C) mean that even a wood fire could reach this temp under well-insulated conditions.

As for your first point, you are being ridiculously pedantic.. Yes, iron must be melted to form steel. To form an ingot, you melt it.
To forge that ingot into a sword, or wrench, or whatever, you heat it to the plastic region, not melting point. Hitting molten steel with a hammer is akin to sticking a finger in a live light socket--you only do it intentionally one time.

*sigh*. No, not pedantic, and sorry if it came out that way. I was just clarifying the point I was making...that even wood fires can melt iron and steel. While forging was a poor example, smelting fits, and is done in order to forge.

[rwguinn]

Well that's pretty much what I was saying, although you worded it more clearly. If the heat energy produced can't escape, then the temperature continues to rise.

You are correct that there are maximums, though, which I referred to in the website I referenced. I didn't know that, and do know. But the melting points for steel (right around 1370 C, actually higher for iron at 1510 C) mean that even a wood fire could reach this temp under well-insulated conditions.



*sigh*. No, not pedantic, and sorry if it came out that way. I was just clarifying the point I was making...that even wood fires can melt iron and steel. While forging was a poor example, smelting fits, and is done in order to forge.
under well insulated conditions, Yes--but please note--virtually all smelters use a forced draft burn to get the temperature high enough. In fact, I cannot think of any that don't.
I use a coal-fired forge with a hand-cranked blower on it. To get the fire hot enough to weld mild steel, it takes a really, really heavy and quick hand on the crank.
Even with Natural gas, propane, whatever, you need a much, much leaner burn than free air will give you--so you inject additional oxygen by forcing air in at a higher pressure--you blow on the fire!

[Dave_46]

....Fire experts have said they have never seen molten metal after fires....

I assume you are talking about metal that has melted and then solidified after a fire.

I wouldn't call myself a"Fire expert", but I did spend nineteen years performing fire-resistance tests, at an average of about two a week. A great number of those were on fire-resisting doors. Typically, after a half hour test, where the test furnace temperature reaches about 840 C, the door handles on the fire exposed side would be a solidified lump on the floor of the test chamber. The melted and solidified door furniture would be aluminium. The steel parts were still in position on the door, although in a sorry state, but not melted.

Dave

[rwguinn]

ok, world--
Huntsman and I have PM'ed this--and we agree that we are basing our positions on different assumptions. so, while I would be surprised to find molten steel under the rubble of a fire such as at the WTC, I would not be shocked if it were, whereas Huntsman would be mildly surprised if it were not found, but not shocked.

Did I get that right, Huntsman?:D
[/derail] we now return you to your regularly scheduled Conspiracy theory

[Hellbound]

Eh, more or less.

I wouldn't expect it to be there, but wouldn't be suprised to find it :) Call me 50/50.

I was basing my assumptions on a very low rate of heat loss and low rate of production, while rwguinn was basing his on a higher rate of heat loss, thus needing a higher rate of heat production (difficult without additional oxygen).

So we agree on everything except, well, most of the details :) But come to a close enough conclusion to agree :D

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

In short. There were unground(debris) fires after the collapse. The temp of those fires and the effects they had upon the debris has nothing to do with anything about the collapse..

[rwguinn]

In short. There were unground(debris) fires after the collapse. The temp of those fires and the effects they had upon the debris has nothing to do with anything about the collapse..

Bullseye!
Right in the X-ring.

[Hellbound]

That be it :)

[defaultdotxbe]

Insulation still absorbs heat it is just not good at it, so the heat is still conducted away.

so your saying the insulator becomes a worse insulator if heat is coming in too fast?

im saying the insulation can conduct X amount of heat away in Y amount of time, if the fire is producing X+1 heat in Y time, where does the 1 go?

[GlennB]

In short. There were unground(debris) fires after the collapse. The temp of those fires and the effects they had upon the debris has nothing to do with anything about the collapse..
Yarhh.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=78463

On a couple of different threads, several of the CTists kept harping over and over about how TK and I hadn't addressed their molten metal point; practically drooling that since we were "dodging" it that it must be a smoking gun. So, I spun off a thread to address only that point (did the same thing with the UL steel) and asked them to present why it supported their claims.

98 views. 3 replies commenting that it doesn't support their CD claim. 0 replies explaining how it would support the CD claim.

[GlennB]

so your saying the insulator becomes a worse insulator if heat is coming in too fast?

im saying the insulation can conduct X amount of heat away in Y amount of time, if the fire is producing X+1 heat in Y time, where does the 1 go?

The bottom line is that (if I read it correctly) the temperature of the fire can't exceed the maximum combustion temperature of the "hottest burning" component of the fuel. In this case the adiabatic - or "perfect burning" - scenario for hydrocarbon fuel is approx 2000°C. Definitely hot enough to melt iron.

Your calculation (X,Y,+1 etc) above falls down because the equations are wrong - X is variable, depending on the temperature difference and conductivity of the materials. In the extreme case the insulation would stop conducting completely and just melt/ignite (school science - forgive me)

Let's take a very extreme case to illustrate. A piece of steel in a pan of boiling water that's incredibly well insulated with foam + rockwool + whatever. Keep it boiling for weeks. It will never melt. Try it. If it melts claim Randi's $1mill. ;)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The bottom line is that (if I read it correctly) the temperature of the fire can't exceed the maximum combustion temperature of the "hottest burning" component of the fuel. In this case the adiabatic - or "perfect burning" - scenario for hydrocarbon fuel is approx 2000°C. Definitely hot enough to melt iron.

Your calculation (X,Y,+1 etc) above falls down because the equations are wrong - X is variable, depending on the temperature difference and conductivity of the materials. In the extreme case the insulation would stop conducting completely and just melt/ignite (school science - forgive me)

Let's take a very extreme case to illustrate. A piece of steel in a pan of boiling water that's incredibly well insulated with foam + rockwool + whatever. Keep it boiling for weeks. It will never melt. Try it. If it melts claim Randi's $1mill. ;)

Just a thought, but in your boiling water example, if it is boiling, that means it is open to the air and the heat energy being put in to the water is being lost through the steam. If the piece of steel were in a sealed container of water that was infinitely strong and perfectly insulated and energy was added to the water to raise the temp of the water, what would the long term effects on the steel be?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

so your saying the insulator becomes a worse insulator if heat is coming in too fast?

im saying the insulation can conduct X amount of heat away in Y amount of time, if the fire is producing X+1 heat in Y time, where does the 1 go?


Heat is only inferred radiation all materials react to it to some degree, Insulation works by being non conductive but eventually the Insulation would absorb heat and pass it to a cooler source itself.
That is the reason for double insulation layered tiles on the Space shuttle
The first tile passes the heat on to the second, the second prevents the heat from reaching the skin of the shuttle.
Insulation is rated for its resistance to conduct heat, but it still is effected, by it, and would over time heat up and release that heat to a cooler surface.
You can not insulate a fire 100 percent and have the heat build because much of the energy is lost to the surroundings no matter what they are.
All you can do is slow the flow of heat from hot to cool, that is it.

[defaultdotxbe]

In the extreme case the insulation would stop conducting completely and just melt/ignite (school science - forgive me)


well assumign the insulation is gypsum it wouldnt melt, its melting poitn if higher than steel

but essentially what your saying is the resistance to heat would break down and it would begin to conduct heat more rapidly, that makes sense

[ponderingturtle]

Heat is only inferred radiation all materials react to it to some degree, Insulation works by being non conductive but eventually the Insulation would absorb heat and pass it to a cooler source itself.

No it isn't. Heat is a kind of phonon not photon

[GlennB]

Just a thought, but in your boiling water example, if it is boiling, that means it is open to the air and the heat energy being put in to the water is being lost through the steam. If the piece of steel were in a sealed container of water that was infinitely strong and perfectly insulated and energy was added to the water to raise the temp of the water, what would the long term effects on the steel be?

Ah, well there we might have an 'infinitely strong' container with 'perfect' insulation (whatever they are) , but with wires or pipes or something to get the energy in, which makes the perfection of the insulation a tricky business, never mind any melting of the energy-delivery system.

(Only kidding)

As I understand it your scenario would be the adiabatic model. If so, the medium for conducting the heat to the steel would be irrelevant. Water, sawdust, My Litttle Pony, whatever. The steel would reach the temperature of the fuel, as long as the fuel source itself was within the perfect insulation.

I fear the The Clausius-Clapeyron Equation might come into this, but it hurt me to even see it at :
<add stuff> theory.phy.umist.ac.uk/~judith/stat_therm/node44.html (http://theory.phy.umist.ac.uk/~judith/stat_therm/node44.html)

May I stress "as I understand this"

best regards

Glenn

[GlennB]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=78463

On a couple of different threads, several of the CTists kept harping over and over about how TK and I hadn't addressed their molten metal point; practically drooling that since we were "dodging" it that it must be a smoking gun. So, I spun off a thread to address only that point (did the same thing with the UL steel) and asked them to present why it supported their claims.

98 views. 3 replies commenting that it doesn't support their CD claim. 0 replies explaining how it would support the CD claim.

(not strictly relevant to your post above, but relevant to the whole molten steel debate)

From a conversation elsewhere with a UK fire service technical expert :

"... So to answer your question... no the temperature of a smouldering fire cannot get hotter than a flaming fire.... if it did the smouldering material would burst into flame..."

He says that steel that was glowing when it fell could maintain any such glow if buried in smouldering material for a long period, depending on fuel/air/insulation. Taking this as plain fact, any glowing steel subsequently recovered from GZ would have been that way, give or take a little, when it fell. He also denies the possibility of molten steel in any 'conventional' fire, airliner fuel fireballs included. Add this all up and any molten steel at GZ is looking very unlikely indeed.

My correspondent over at that forum is a very strong dude and I have pushed this discussion with him to its limit. Regrettably I tried asking leading questions in PM during my CT phase and he just blanked me outright, until I eventually asked a sensible question again. Good man :)

cheers

[Crazy Chainsaw]

(not strictly relevant to your post above, but relevant to the whole molten steel debate)

From a conversation elsewhere with a UK fire service technical expert :

"... So to answer your question... no the temperature of a smouldering fire cannot get hotter than a flaming fire.... if it did the smouldering material would burst into flame..."

He says that steel that was glowing when it fell could maintain any such glow if buried in smouldering material for a long period, depending on fuel/air/insulation. Taking this as plain fact, any glowing steel subsequently recovered from GZ would have been that way, give or take a little, when it fell. He also denies the possibility of molten steel in any 'conventional' fire, airliner fuel fireballs included. Add this all up and any molten steel at GZ is looking very unlikely indeed.

My correspondent over at that forum is a very strong dude and I have pushed this discussion with him to its limit. Regrettably I tried asking leading questions in PM during my CT phase and he just blanked me outright, until I eventually asked a sensible question again. Good man :)

cheers

How about endothermic chemical reactions of steel or other flammable metals with the materials in the rubble pile or of a Steam, Steel reaction?

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

[GlennB]

How about endothermic chemical reactions of steel or other flammable metals with the materials in the rubble pile or of a Steam, Steel reaction?

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

My man only considered conventional hydrocarbon fire. In his analysis the smouldering fire was incapable of reaching sufficient temperature to melt steel because of simple lack of oxygen. His position was that any steel already glowing could certainly maintain that temperature for a weeks, but any increase in temperature wasn't feasible.

Now, other iron reactions such as those mentioned in debunking911.com just bring back distant memories of school chemistry lessons. A lot of reading to do ...

regards