"Molten Metal" at Ground Zero

[Alareth]

Ok, one of the things CT enthusiasts seem to go on and on about is molten metal found under the debris weeks after the collapse. What exactly is this supposed to prove?

If we were to go along with the controlled demolition theory, how would molten metal support this conclusion?

[DavidJames]

Ok, one of the things CT enthusiasts seem to go on and on about is molten metal found under the debris weeks after the collapse. What exactly is this supposed to prove?

If we were to go along with the controlled demolition theory, how would molten metal support this conclusion?
Thermite was used to cut the steel, it melted the steel causing it to drip down and settle under the debris. It was so farking hot, it remained "melted" for months because it was insolated by the debris


I can see why CT's are so popular, 1, it's really easy, and fun, to make stuff up and 2, you need not work under the burden of adhering to logic, reason or (shudder) actual facts. I scare myself sometimes seeing how easy it comes.

[Oliver]

Thermite was used to cut the steel, it melted the steel causing it to drip down and settle under the debris. It was so farking hot, it remained "melted" for months because it was insolated by the debris


I can see why CT's are so popular, 1, it's really easy, and fun, to make stuff up and 2, you need not work under the burden of adhering to logic, reason or (shudder) actual facts. I scare myself sometimes seeing how easy it comes.

I never thought much about the molten steel. Where did it come from? (Just to answer that question to all readers)

[einsteen]

I believe the story was that Lorieux of controlled demolitions Inc. said that but it was third party information.

[bob_kark]

I believe the story was that Lorieux of controlled demolitions Inc. said that but it was third party information.
Are you claiming that according to a third party, Lorieux stated molten metal was evidence for thermite?

[Oliver]

I believe the story was that Lorieux of controlled demolitions Inc. said that but it was third party information.

Wich story? Are these Nasa-thermografic pictures - the Ct´ists praise so high - fake?

[einsteen]

I didn't mention thermite Bob

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

In addition to 911myths addressing of the issue, there is also:
http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/ (pg 26)
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445988
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html (timestamp 51:11)
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#molten-steel
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

[bob_kark]

I never thought much about the molten steel. Where did it come from? (Just to answer that question to all readers)
There were fires raging underground beneath the WTC for several weeks due to debris that was still burning out of control. Everytime they pulled out a section of debris, it would flare up again. The metal was stuck in this fire which reached extreme temperatures. The extreme temperatures were verified by satellite imagery.

Many CTers believe the metal was steel. However, it appears more likely that it was just additional debris from the WTC, chair legs, xerox machines, staplers, door jams, window sills, those little metal strips in the celing that hold the celing tiles, etc...

[bob_kark]

I didn't mention thermite Bob

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
I'm just asking what you meant, your statement was not clear.

[MikeW]

Wich story? Are these Nasa-thermografic pictures - the Ct´ists praise so high - fake?
No. However they don't show temperatures high enough to melt steel (and actually they don't temperatures beyond those of a normal fire).

[ImaginalDisc]

No. However they don't show temperatures high enough to melt steel (and actually they don't temperatures beyond those of a normal fire).

"Normal" does not apply to the destruction and immolation of two of the largest buildings ever made by the impact of two jet airliners, and thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

[Josh Redstone]

I brought this up over at LC, I had mentioned that the molton metal may not have been steel, maybe aluminum. Someone then pointed out that aluminum doesn't glow when it's molten, then I asked for a reputable source for the presence of this molton steel, so alls I gotta do now is play the waiting game :)

[MikeW]

"Normal" does not apply to the destruction and immolation of two of the largest buildings ever made by the impact of two jet airliners, and thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
I know. I wasn't making a CT-type "the fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel"-like statement, I was referring to the temperatures NASA reported from the debris pile later.

[CurtC]

I brought this up over at LC, I had mentioned that the molton metal may not have been steel, maybe aluminum. Someone then pointed out that aluminum doesn't glow when it's molten, then I asked for a reputable source for the presence of this molton steel, so alls I gotta do now is play the waiting game :)
I'll give ten to one that you're banned from there before being supplied with an answer.

[joobz]

I apologize for maybe making a statement that is probably already been worked to death, but
isn't Thermite Al + FeO2?

Since, Steel beams in buildings are rusted = Fe02
and Plane = Al

You would expect bizzarre high heats for a while.

Doesn't require any additional CT to explain anything.

again, this has probably already been mentioned and I apologize for the repeating it.

[ImaginalDisc]

I know. I wasn't making a CT-type "the fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel"-like statement, I was referring to the temperatures NASA reported from the debris pile later.

Oh good. You scared the daylights out of me for a second there. I know there's a word for satire which is indistinguishable from reality, but I can't remember it now.

However, there was molten metal found at the site, and the fire did reach temperatures sufficent to melt it.

[Josh Redstone]

I'll give ten to one that you're banned from there before being supplied with an answer.

Time will tell.....

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I brought this up over at LC, I had mentioned that the molton metal may not have been steel, maybe aluminum. Someone then pointed out that aluminum doesn't glow when it's molten, then I asked for a reputable source for the presence of this molton steel, so alls I gotta do now is play the waiting game :)

Point out also that glass glows orange and becomes malleable at much lower temps than steel, and also the NIST report suggests the "pouring glowing" metal is melted aluminum with debris in it that is either burning, or glowing; so it is not the aluminum itself that would be glowing orange.

[Kent1]

I brought this up over at LC, I had mentioned that the molton metal may not have been steel, maybe aluminum. Someone then pointed out that aluminum doesn't glow when it's molten, then I asked for a reputable source for the presence of this molton steel, so alls I gotta do now is play the waiting game :)

Pure aluminum doesn't glow very strongly in sunlight, but in darker areas and mixed with other materical it does.

Jones rebuttle to that claim was to mix an unknown amount of wood chips and plastic shavings at an unknown temp.
However what he should of done was put in a large amount materical that was in the towers such as, glass, wood, hamburger meat (gross yes!), water, copper etc....and heated this up to around 1000C
You can ask various meal experts to conferm.
One example is Stephen Chastain.
http://stephenchastain.com/ You can read his answer in the talk section.

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

[tsig]

Pure aluminum doesn't glow very strongly in sunlight, but in darker areas and mixed with other materical it does.

Jones rebuttle to that claim was to mix an unknown amount of wood chips and plastic shavings at an unknown temp.
However what he should of done was put in a large amount materical that was in the towers such as, glass, wood, hamburger meat (gross yes!), water, copper etc....and heated this up to around 1000C
You can ask various meal experts to conferm.
One example is Stephen Chastain.
http://stephenchastain.com/ You can read his answer in the talk section.

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

The ultimate temp depends not on the temp of the fire but how good the insulation is.

[CurtC]

Point out also that glass glows orange and becomes malleable at much lower temps than steel
It's worth pointing out that the color something glows is dependent on the temperature of the stuff, not what it's made out of. Glass at 700C, molten aluminum at 700C, and stell at 700C all appear the same color. P=kTB. No adjustment for material properties in that equation.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's worth pointing out that the color something glows is dependent on the temperature of the stuff, not what it's made out of. Glass at 700C, molten aluminum at 700C, and stell at 700C all appear the same color. P=kTB. No adjustment for material properties in that equation.

That's what I get for trying to pull things from memory.

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

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

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

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

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[kevin]

It's worth pointing out that the color something glows is dependent on the temperature of the stuff, not what it's made out of. Glass at 700C, molten aluminum at 700C, and stell at 700C all appear the same color. P=kTB. No adjustment for material properties in that equation.

then how do they make multi-colored fireworks?

[Alareth]

I brought this up over at LC, I had mentioned that the molton metal may not have been steel, maybe aluminum. Someone then pointed out that aluminum doesn't glow when it's molten, then I asked for a reputable source for the presence of this molton steel, so alls I gotta do now is play the waiting game :)

It was comments in that thread that caused me to ask the question.

[Kent1]

It's worth pointing out that the color something glows is dependent on the temperature of the stuff, not what it's made out of. Glass at 700C, molten aluminum at 700C, and stell at 700C all appear the same color. P=kTB. No adjustment for material properties in that equation.

I think it's very important to point out, that's not really true.

For example aluminum has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4.
The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

[Bell]

What metal was used for the outside (for lack of a better word) of the WTC? The shiny metal, so to speak.

[Kent1]

What metal was used for the outside (for lack of a better word) of the WTC? The shiny metal, so to speak.
Aluminum, however the materical pouring out of the building (CT'ers so often like to show) was aluminum debris from the airplane and other stuff mixed with it.

[Bell]

Aluminum, however the materical pouring out of the building (CT'ers so often like to show) was aluminum debris from the airplane.

Thanks, that's what I hoped. So the stream would not only have to be from debris from the plane. Could also originate from the outer facade?

ETA: Ah, you edited your answer, missed that :)
Okay, just thought to put in my 2 cents.

[Kent1]

Thanks, that's what I hoped. So the stream would not only have to be from debris from the plane. Could also originate from the outer facade?

ETA: Ah, you edited your answer, missed that :)
Okay, just thought to put in my 2 cents.

I would also suggest checking out pictures and video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7762750380274876390
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11

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

A bigger problem for CT'ers is, if this is supposed to be iron/steel, how did it all get there?
There's quite a bit. Far more than one would expect from cutting steel beams. Also if its an exterior beam, why can't we see the cut.

[Foolmewunz]

Thanks, that's what I hoped. So the stream would not only have to be from debris from the plane. Could also originate from the outer facade?

ETA: Ah, you edited your answer, missed that :)
Okay, just thought to put in my 2 cents.

I don't know how much of the outer facade would have been punched inside the floors, but there was much aluminum inside on every floor. Suspended ceilings, air ducts, various cable ducts, etc...

I think Greening went through a lot of trouble to establish also that Thermite could've been produced from molten aluminum reacting with other materials, particularly concrete (also on every floor).

The important thing for CTers is not that anyone ever analyzed the chemical compounds or metals from these "pools", but their standard argument (which we're happily here addressing for the seven thousandth time),.... "but look at it man.... does that look like molten aluminum... no way... that's steel"
Which of course the poster knows from his years of experience at the Hullets plant in Pietermaritzburg? No. He knows from his twelve minutes of watching Youtube and listening to the voice over say, "that's not aluminum"!

[kevin]

i've seen 2 claims to molten metals. The first is while the buildings are still standing. there is video evidence of this, this is the aluminum from the planes (although there are other sources of aluminum in buildings, fluorescent light troffers fore example are frequently thin sheets of aluminum).

The other claim is molten metal (still hot?) weeks after the collapse. I've not seen video or photos supporting this. If true this could very well be the aluminum from the exterior of the buildings as there was a lot of it.

[dirtywick]

I don't know how much of the outer facade would have been punched inside the floors, but there was much aluminum inside on every floor. Suspended ceilings, air ducts, various cable ducts, etc...


There would also be a lot of cast iron (which melts at a lower temperature than regular iron) and copper which are both near or below the estimated temperatures of the building, the main two metals used in plumbing.

[Bell]

I would also suggest checking out pictures and video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7762750380274876390
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11

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

A bigger problem for CT'ers is, if this is supposed to be iron/steel, how did it all get there?
There's quite a bit. Far more than one would expect from cutting steel beams. Also if its an exterior beam, why can't we see the cut.

The important question would be, IMHO, if this is proof of thermite cutting the exterior beams, then why is the stream originating from inbetween the exterior beams? Deniers have no graps of any form of reality, have they?

[T.A.M.]

Funny I never thought of the plumbing until now. We have any data on what the WTCs plumbing was made from??

TAM

[dirtywick]

From what I've read, building built before 1974 use cast iron pipes. This was later replaced with copper because it (cast iron) rusts, but cast iron is still available because it's cheaper. Cast iron is still used in joints/fixtures when necessary. However, nearly every single porcaline(sp?) toilet, urinal, and sink in the world is made out of cast iron and then coated with it. I'd bet that the WTC was mostly cast iron and copper.

ETA: Let me correct myself: toilets are solid porcaline. I called my step-dad who works in Kohler Co., he set me straight on that. And, I meant brass instead of copper. Ugh, mistakes galore.

[Hellbound]

I apologize for maybe making a statement that is probably already been worked to death, but
isn't Thermite Al + FeO2?

Since, Steel beams in buildings are rusted = Fe02
and Plane = Al

You would expect bizzarre high heats for a while.

Doesn't require any additional CT to explain anything.

again, this has probably already been mentioned and I apologize for the repeating it.

Thermite can be that, but it typically is Al + Fe2O3...the Iron 3 provides a more vigorous reaction.

Even then, without addatives the reaction is highly localized with little flame. Military thermite adds Barium Nitrate to increse the flame and the "spread" of the reaction.

Additionally, the Aluminum needs to be ground down or otherwise reduced, as well as the iron oxide, so as to reduce the surface area to volume ratio and sustain a reaction.

then how do they make multi-colored fireworks?

Flame temperature is different from glow temperature.

THe temperature of a flame has other factors, and most of the colors are determined by the specific matrials involved. Many of the "sparking" fireworks, however, actually have materials in them that burn at high enough temps (the sparks are usually tiny fragments of burning metal...think iron filings in a candle flame). Other elements change the colors as well...sulpher thends to add a greeenish hue, for example. Howeve, I believe the various colors of a flmae are dependent on the temperature of the flame at that point...I'm sure others can clarify this.

The glow from hot metal (or hot anything else) is blackbody radiation, and has nothing to do with a flame temperature. It's the temperature of the actual object, rather than any flame being produced.

I hope that's clear, and I didn't just confuse :) If nothing else, there's a few terms that might yeild good results in Google ("flame temperature" and "blackbody radiation").

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"blackbody radiation"? See, mini-husha-nukes wer uzd!

[Hellbound]

"blackbody radiation"? See, mini-husha-nukes wer uzd!

Dude.

I've tried to explain this over and over.

It was "stealth" nukes--no flash, no boom, no heat, no radiation...in fact, there's no concievable way to tell they ever exploded at all!

And they fit in a briefcase. And they're re-useable. And invisible. And they only cost four bucks to make...

[dirtywick]

Howeve, I believe the various colors of a flmae are dependent on the temperature of the flame at that point...I'm sure others can clarify this.


An oxyacetyline torch depends on the amount of oxygen added to the acetyline. At low levels of oxygen the acetyline looks like an ordinary flame, but as you increase the oxygen the temperature increases and the flame turns more blue/white. You've probably seen that before.

So I'm pretty sure the color of a flame changes as the temperature does based off of that.

[Zygar]

Flame temperature is different from glow temperature.

The key here is that the equation has nothing to do with color, or even the intensity of light. P=kTB tells us how much electricity is produced.
P is the power in Watts, k is Boltzmann's constant (1.38 x 10^-23 J/K), B is the bandwidth in Hertz. I'm not quite sure what number you'd want to fill in for B, but even if I did, this equation doesn't predict the color or intensity of the light produced. Each element has it's own properties and will produce a slightly different color spectrum. And even if this light has a constant intensity, most metals at lower temperatures (under about 4000K) produce more infrared light than visible light, so most of the light would be invisible to the human eye.

[Blackadder_no]

I read somewhere that there was something like 3,000 miles of electrical wiring in the Twin Towers. Wouldn't that mean a considerable amount of copper in the buildings?

[Nevermore]

I'm having a hard time understanding something related to the fire in the debris pile.

Both towers were 110 stories high. According to the Popular Mechanics website, WTC 1 was struck between the 94th and 98th floor and WTC 2 was struck between the 77th and 85th floor. The fire spread upward and down-ward until the collapse after 102 and 56 minutes respectively.

Popular Mechanics states:
... NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

Given a "pancake" collapse of both towers, why is the material at the bottom the hottest? Wouldn't both buildings have approximately 70 or 90 floors worth of material including strata of intact fireproofing and insulation laying in a pile with only approximately 60 (40 + 20) floors of burning material on top?

The Popular Mechanics web site also states:

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
This would seem to explain how fire reached the lower floors or even the basement but two things strike me as odd.

I thought I read somewhere that the WTC was designed with a compartmentalized elevator system to prevent fuel from travelling the length of the building due to the 1945 B-25 accident at the Empire State building?

Secondly, if a substantial amount of jet fuel travelled down the elevator shafts causing fires in (let's assume) the basement, does that leave enough jet fuel at the impact point to weaken the steel?

Again, from Popular Mechanics:

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
Even as a "catalyst" I'm having a hard time with this.

Lastly, the impact of the second plane into WTC 2 resulted in a massive fireball which I believe is attributed to jet fuel exploding outside of the building. In this instance does the jet fuel explode outside, act as a catalyst and travel down the elevator shafts to feed fires in the basement?

Please note: I'm not trying to stir up trouble but rather just looking to understand what, in my mind, seems like a contradiction.

** Edited for formatting issues

[Hellbound]

The key here is that the equation has nothing to do with color, or even the intensity of light. P=kTB tells us how much electricity is produced.
P is the power in Watts, k is Boltzmann's constant (1.38 x 10^-23 J/K), B is the bandwidth in Hertz. I'm not quite sure what number you'd want to fill in for B, but even if I did, this equation doesn't predict the color or intensity of the light produced. Each element has it's own properties and will produce a slightly different color spectrum. And even if this light has a constant intensity, most metals at lower temperatures (under about 4000K) produce more infrared light than visible light, so most of the light would be invisible to the human eye.

I have no idea what you're discussing, but it is apparent that whatever it is, it isn't anything close to what I'm talking about.

Blackbody radiation depends ONLY on temperature, period. And this is what would determine the color a metal would glow at. I don't see where you're pulling in Watts. And your statement "this equation doesn't predict the color or intensity of the light produced" shows that you've apparently googled something and based a false conclusion from an inappropriate application of Planc's law of black-body radiation. Even assuming this was a correct equation to use here, the bandwidth and frequency are related, and these would determine the color of the light produced.

As to the last part, are you claiming that metals don't glow until 4000K? Easily disproven by a simple coal bed and bellows.

Do you actually know what you're saying here? Or what point of mine you're addressing? Becasue you quoted my statement about flame temeprature, but your "explanation" talks about metals, so my only conclusion is that you're an Internet expert.

[Hellbound]

Given a "pancake" collapse of both towers, why is the material at the bottom the hottest? Wouldn't both buildings have approximately 70 or 90 floors worth of material including strata of intact fireproofing and insulation laying in a pile with only approximately 60 (40 + 20) floors of burning material on top?

The pancake collapse was NISTs early theory, which has since been revised.

I thought I read somewhere that the WTC was designed with a compartmentalized elevator system to prevent fuel from travelling the length of the building due to the 1945 B-25 accident at the Empire State building?

Source?

Everything I've seen or that's been shown has satted the opposite, that the shafts were continuous all the way up.

Secondly, if a substantial amount of jet fuel travelled down the elevator shafts causing fires in (let's assume) the basement, does that leave enough jet fuel at the impact point to weaken the steel?

It helps to actually read the NIST report before declaring it wrong or suspiscious. Then you could argue about points actually made in the report.

The jet fuel was the initiator of the fire. It was burned off quickly, and the only role it played in weakneing the steel was to start the fire over a large area. Office materials, furniture, and similar items provided more than enough fuel for the fire to continue to burn and to weaken the steel.

Even as a "catalyst" I'm having a hard time with this.


Just because you don't understand doesn't make it false. Do you have any specific, supportable objections to the conclusions?

Lastly, the impact of the second plane into WTC 2 resulted in a massive fireball which I believe is attributed to jet fuel exploding outside of the building. In this instance does the jet fuel explode outside, act as a catalyst and travel down the elevator shafts to feed fires in the basement?

Some is outside, some inside. These planes started with a bit over 10,000 gallons of fuel each, that's about 30 tons. More than enough for both.

Please note: I'm not trying to stir up trouble but rather just looking to understand what, in my mind, seems like a contradiction.

Then I'd suggest actually reading the relevent portions of the NIST report, as mmuch of what you seem to be having trouble with is because you are relying on CTer's re-interpretations of NISTs statements, rather than what was actually claimed.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm having a hard time understanding something related to the fire in the debris pile.

Both towers were 110 stories high. According to the Popular Mechanics website, WTC 1 was struck between the 94th and 98th floor and WTC 2 was struck between the 77th and 85th floor. The fire spread upward and down-ward until the collapse after 102 and 56 minutes respectively.

Popular Mechanics states:


Given a "pancake" collapse of both towers, why is the material at the bottom the hottest? Wouldn't both buildings have approximately 70 or 90 floors worth of material including strata of intact fireproofing and insulation laying in a pile with only approximately 60 (40 + 20) floors of burning material on top?

The Popular Mechanics web site also states:


This would seem to explain how fire reached the lower floors or even the basement but two things strike me as odd.

I thought I read somewhere that the WTC was designed with a compartmentalized elevator system to prevent fuel from travelling the length of the building due to the 1945 B-25 accident at the Empire State building?

Secondly, if a substantial amount of jet fuel travelled down the elevator shafts causing fires in (let's assume) the basement, does that leave enough jet fuel at the impact point to weaken the steel?

Again, from Popular Mechanics:


Even as a "catalyst" I'm having a hard time with this.

Lastly, the impact of the second plane into WTC 2 resulted in a massive fireball which I believe is attributed to jet fuel exploding outside of the building. In this instance does the jet fuel explode outside, act as a catalyst and travel down the elevator shafts to feed fires in the basement?

Please note: I'm not trying to stir up trouble but rather just looking to understand what, in my mind, seems like a contradiction.

** Edited for formatting issues

I'll need to answer in brief since I am a tad busy at work today, but:
RE 1) Bottom of the debris pile was most insulated and therefore most conducive to the oven effect

RE 2) Approximations of the elevator shafts:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation2.html
http://img91.imageshack.us/my.php?image=page146rb.png
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2515&d=1159660984

RE 3) I think by "catalyst" he means that it ignited other fuel sources in the towers and it contributed to the rapid spread of the fire.

[kookbreaker]

Secondly, if a substantial amount of jet fuel travelled down the elevator shafts causing fires in (let's assume) the basement, does that leave enough jet fuel at the impact point to weaken the steel?


Heck yeah. With only 800 gallons to work with, the B-25 that hit the ESB managed to cause fires and damage to both the lobby and its impact area.

By comparison the the jets that hit the WTC towers had about 10,000 gallons.

[Zygar]

I have no idea what you're discussing, but it is apparent that whatever it is, it isn't anything close to what I'm talking about.

Blackbody radiation depends ONLY on temperature, period. And this is what would determine the color a metal would glow at. I don't see where you're pulling in Watts. And your statement "this equation doesn't predict the color or intensity of the light produced" shows that you've apparently googled something and based a false conclusion from an inappropriate application of Planc's law of black-body radiation. Even assuming this was a correct equation to use here, the bandwidth and frequency are related, and these would determine the color of the light produced.

As to the last part, are you claiming that metals don't glow until 4000K? Easily disproven by a simple coal bed and bellows.

Do you actually know what you're saying here? Or what point of mine you're addressing? Becasue you quoted my statement about flame temeprature, but your "explanation" talks about metals, so my only conclusion is that you're an Internet expert.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I quoted the wrong thing.

What I was trying to point out is that the original discussion of what color and intensity the light was had absolutely nothing to do with the equation P=kTB given us by CurtC. I am no expert on black-body radiation, but I recognized this equation as one that is usually used by audiophiles trying to figure out how much interference they will recieve on wires.

Maybe I'm wrong, but my basic understanding of this equation led me to believe it was a red herring.

[Zygar]

As to the last part, are you claiming that metals don't glow until 4000K? Easily disproven by a simple coal bed and bellows.

What I said was "most metals at lower temperatures (under about 4000K) produce more infrared light than visible light". Most and more being the key words. Obviously they produce visible light, since iron definitely glows at the low temperatures produced by a wood fire. I can't quote exact ratios or any such thing, but I remember this being the primary reason that we use tungsten in our light bulbs. Because tungsten has a particularly high melting point, and because metals tend to produce a greater percentage of visible light at these very high temperatures.

Sorry to get all up in your feathers...

[Nevermore]

I'll need to answer in brief since I am a tad busy at work today...

Thank you for the links. I will read through them and the NIST report.

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, Nevermore.

You seem to be under the assumption that the fire from high in the buildings was the source of the heat in the basements after the collapses. While that's undoubtedly true to some extent, the collapses caused new underground fires, fuel leaks, exploding cars in the parking garage, etc.

Jet fuel did travel down the elevator shafts and cause explosions in both towers. I've compiled many accounts of this event in the north tower here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40

More accounts can be found in this part of the NIST report, beginning on page 76
NIST NCSTAR 1-7 Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications
(http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-7.pdf)
Even William Rodriguez, who as far as I know is the only person [edit: the only person who was there that I know of] who claims that a bomb went off in the towers, told me that he smelled the jet fuel in the basement after the explosion.

[Hellbound]

Yeah, I see what you mean. I quoted the wrong thing.

What I was trying to point out is that the original discussion of what color and intensity the light was had absolutely nothing to do with the equation P=kTB given us by CurtC. I am no expert on black-body radiation, but I recognized this equation as one that is usually used by audiophiles trying to figure out how much interference they will recieve on wires.

Maybe I'm wrong, but my basic understanding of this equation led me to believe it was a red herring.

What I said was "most metals at lower temperatures (under about 4000K) produce more infrared light than visible light". Most and more being the key words. Obviously they produce visible light, since iron definitely glows at the low temperatures produced by a wood fire. I can't quote exact ratios or any such thing, but I remember this being the primary reason that we use tungsten in our light bulbs. Because tungsten has a particularly high melting point, and because metals tend to produce a greater percentage of visible light at these very high temperatures.

Sorry to get all up in your feathers...

My apologies, as well. I just had no idea where you were going there, and typically when that happens it's a CTer trying to seem like they aren't a CTer but "just asking questions". ;) I tend to get a bit short-tempered, as well, on a regular cycle while dealing with some of these people :)

I think that formula covers electrical, but I was talking more generally about black body radiation. The radiation produced depends only on temeprature, not on the material in question. Wikipedia has a good article on it that lists the base equations and gives an understandable explanation.

[CurtC]

I'd like to jump in about my previous P=kTB comments. Yes, I am an electrical engineer, so that's what's familiar to me, but this formula does relate to radiated energy from a body, as well as energy conducted through wires. In radio communications, P=kTB is a common formula, indicating that the amount of noise energy you get at the input to your antenna is proportional to the temperature of the object it's pointed at, and proportional to the bandwidth you're measuring it in.

Where I went wrong, and I'm speaking here at the fringes of my knowledge, bumps into the famous problem of classical physics, with its kTB forumula, and quantum physics, with its Planck black body radiation. These effects start becoming noticeable when the frequency of the radiation you're looking at is right around the optical range; at the typical microwave frequencies that radio guys work at, the classical equation works just fine.

Anyway, I was aware of these effects, but did not realize that there was an extra factor called emissivity thrown in there. I still don't understand that. Please disregard my earlier comments on kTB and its relation to color vs. temperature.

[Hellbound]

You know...

I never saw CurtC bring up that equation. I completely missed that line. I was working off other information.

NOW some of this makes more sense, and seems a miscommunication amongst all of us. I wasn't referencing that equation because I'd missed it, Zygar thought I was because he hadn't, and likely was confused by wtf I was talking about, and then I thought he'd pulled it in completely out of left field.

So, let's just skim over that whole bit, eh?

:D

[Zygar]

So, let's just skim over that whole bit, eh?

:D

[TruthSeeker1234]

Back to molten metal. Doesn't anybody think it is the least bit strange that people on a discussion forum are speculating about the chemical composition of the molten metal at GZ, 5 years after? Shouldn't this have been determined from the outset?

The beginning of any scientific endevour is observation and puzzlement. Here you have these unprecedented events, and pools of molten metal under all three rubbles. The obvious question for anyone investigating would be, "What the heck is this?" The lack of curiosity on the part of the official investigators is telling.

NIST completely ignored molten metal for a long time. In response to the truth movement, they finally issued a statement that molten metal, whether it existed or not, was "irrelevant". It seems NIST reasoning is circular, that they are assuming the conclusion. How can this phenomenon which has never been seen before, then suddenly happens three times in one day, be irrelevant?

[Oliver]

Hurray! Truthtwister123WHATEVER is back. :D

[Loss Leader]

The beginning of any scientific endevour is observation and puzzlement. Here you have these unprecedented events, and pools of molten metal under all three rubbles. The obvious question for anyone investigating would be, "What the heck is this?" The lack of curiosity on the part of the official investigators is telling.

What it is telling of is just how baldly obvious the causes of the collapse of the towers were. Considering the fact that millions of people saw it on TV and thousands in person, considering the information that we have from flight controlers and radar, and considering just how collosally stupid any other explanation is, I am not at all surprised that there was not a meticulous catalogue of every single molecule found after 9/11.

Only years later when memories start to become corrupted, conflated, repressed and invented do 9/11 deniers bring up these concerns. And only after something becomes an issue do experts look into it.

I mean, a controlled demolition that starts in the middle of a building? What level of learning disability does one need to believe that?

[Hellbound]

The beginning of any scientific endevour is observation and puzzlement. Here you have these unprecedented events, and pools of molten metal under all three rubbles. The obvious question for anyone investigating would be, "What the heck is this?" The lack of curiosity on the part of the official investigators is telling.

Unprecedented?

Do you have any actual evidence that this is unprecedented, or (as usual) do you just throw this out because it sounds good?

Molten metal is not uncommon in fires, having been found after fires of all types (including standard, basic house fires). That the metal stayed hot for weeks by being insulated underground is also neither suprising nor unprecedented. Add to this that any theory of explosives of thermite would not fit with the week-long molten metal findings, and there's really nothing here to look into (except in the mind of a CTer such as yourself, who decides the government is guilty before examining the evidence).

[Nevermore]

What it is telling of is just how baldly obvious the causes of the collapse of the towers were. Considering the fact that millions of people saw it on TV and thousands in person, considering the information that we have from flight controlers and radar, and considering just how collosally stupid any other explanation is, I am not at all surprised that there was not a meticulous catalogue of every single molecule found after 9/11...

Following your logic, since many people watched David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear both in front of a live audience and on network television in 1983 it must have been magic?

The fact that planes crashed into the towers hasn't been disputed so the information from flight controllers and radar is irrelevant.

[Loss Leader]

Following your logic, since many people watched David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear both in front of a live audience and on network television in 1983 it must have been magic?


No, that does not follow. First of all, David Copperfield did not make the Statue of Liberty disappear on a news program. His trick wasn't presented by him or by the networks as an actual news event. Not having asked for credibility, Copperfield does not get the automatic benefit of credibility.

Second, The Statue of Liberty cannot disappear. It is impossible under all circumstances. Therefore, the fact that people saw the trick is not very good evidence that the Statue disappeared. There was no cause from which to expect an effect. Logically, it could not have happened so an investigation into what really did happen was warranted. And, in fact, we now know that the Statue of Liberty and all of Liberty Island appeared to vanish because Copperfield moved the platform supporting the camera, curtain and the people in the foreground fifteen feet to the left along a track.

On the other hand, it is not impossible that a building hit by a large passenger jet would burn for an hour and a half before collapsing from the point of the impact down. There was cause and there was effect. It obviously satisfied the demands of logic and there was no reason to go digging around for any further explanation.

[T.A.M.]

Back to molten metal. Doesn't anybody think it is the least bit strange that people on a discussion forum are speculating about the chemical composition of the molten metal at GZ, 5 years after? Shouldn't this have been determined from the outset?

The beginning of any scientific endevour is observation and puzzlement. Here you have these unprecedented events, and pools of molten metal under all three rubbles. The obvious question for anyone investigating would be, "What the heck is this?" The lack of curiosity on the part of the official investigators is telling.

NIST completely ignored molten metal for a long time. In response to the truth movement, they finally issued a statement that molten metal, whether it existed or not, was "irrelevant". It seems NIST reasoning is circular, that they are assuming the conclusion. How can this phenomenon which has never been seen before, then suddenly happens three times in one day, be irrelevant?


NIST found it irrelivant in the beginning, and still does. They simply told the naysayers that this is why it was not addressed, because the CT idiots kept harping on it.

[Nevermore]

... On the other hand, it is not impossible that a building hit by a large passenger jet would burn for an hour and a half before collapsing from the point of the impact down. There was cause and there was effect. It obviously satisfied the demands of logic and there was no reason to go digging around for any further explanation.

I've been led to believe that 9-11 was the first time in history where two steel framed buildings completely collapsed after an initial, non-catastrophic impact by a plane and subsequent short duration fire.

You seem to approach this from a causality perspective. An aircraft crashes into a WTC building (cause X) leads to the building collapsing (effect Y). X must not be a "necessary" cause of Y since steel framed buildings have collapsed without a plane being involved. So X must be a "sufficient" cause of Y. However, if X is only a sufficent cause of Y then it seems logical that there could be other causes (Z) for collapse Y.

Or are you suggesting that the causal relationship here is rather an INUS condition ("insufficient and non-redundant parts of unnecessary but sufficient causes")? (note: see Wikipedia's entry for Causality).

If this is either a sufficient causality or an INUS condition I would think, given the assumption that this was the first instance where a plane impact and short duration fire caused the collapse of a steel frame structure, further digging for an explanation is justified.

Forget the "conspiracy theorists" for a second and consider how important understanding the cause of the collapse effects safe architectural design, emergency response, insurance coverage and building demolition. Should the professionals in these industries be satisfied with the simple causality you offer?

[einsteen]

Welcome Nevermore.

[DavidJames]

Should the professionals in these industries be satisfied with the simple causality you offer?Let's put things into perspective. You, and the people are conversing with, are posting anonymously on an internet forum. A very detailed report was produced by NIST which, I believe, is where the real world go to get a thorough understanding of the issues you raise. Then if they are still confused, they could engage NIST or one of the dozens (hundreds?) of professional organizations that contributed to the report.

Does that make sense or do you think anonymous internet posts should be the source of such valuable information. :)

[Pardalis]

You seem to approach this from a causality perspective. An aircraft crashes into a WTC building (cause X) leads to the building collapsing (effect Y). X must not be a "necessary" cause of Y since steel framed buildings have collapsed without a plane being involved. So X must be a "sufficient" cause of Y. However, if X is only a sufficent cause of Y then it seems logical that there could be other causes (Z) for collapse Y.

You obviously haven't read the NIST report.

The towers collapsed because of the damage caused by the airplanes AND the subsequent fires.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... short duration fire...

You keep using this phrase; please quatify it.

[rwguinn]

I've been led to believe that 9-11 was the first time in history where two steel framed buildings completely collapsed after an initial, non-catastrophic impact by a plane and subsequent short duration fire.

<<<<snip>>>
I think you need to define your terms.
"Non catastrophic impact"?
I am truly looking forward to your definition of catastrophy!

[bob_kark]

I think you need to define your terms.
"Non catastrophic impact"?
I am truly looking forward to your definition of catastrophy!
Well, to his credit, it didn't immediately collapse... I hope that's what he meant.

[LashL]

Speaking of molten metal...

Poor troofer thought he'd found "new" photographic evidence of "molten metal" and sent it off to Steven Jones, who was, apparently, "pleased with the find."

After the usual high-fiving by a few other troofers, alas, it is pointed out that there are no pools of molten metal in the photo, and that it is one in a series of photos showing ironworkers cutting with torches.

Ouch - that's gonna leave a mark.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16269

[DavidJames]

Speaking of molten metal...

Poor troofer thought he'd found "new" photographic evidence of "molten metal" and sent it off to Steven Jones, who was, apparently, "pleased with the find."

After the usual high-fiving by a few other troofers, alas, it is pointed out that there are no pools of molten metal in the photo, and that it is one in a series of photos showing ironworkers cutting with torches.

Ouch - that's gonna leave a mark.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16269Is that in the debate forum, being on the banned list and not having an ID, I'm unable to learn about the truth :D

[LashL]

Is that in the debate forum, being on the banned list and not having an ID, I'm unable to learn about the truth :D

It's in the "Investigate 9/11" forum. I tried to ninjaproxy-link it for you, but apparently, that is no longer a viable way to view the LC forum.

[Anti-sophist]

Am I crazy but has no one mentioned what is, probably, the leading cause of heat in the WTC pile? Friction?

The gravitaional energy of the WTC went somewhere, and a very high percentage of it likely was converted to heat via friction. The delta in grav. energy, once the pile stopped moving, was converted almost entirely into heat, plus the chemical energy expended in fires from combustibles and fuel.

I'm not really an expert, but extremely high frictional forces and extremely high pressures at the bottom of a collapsing building would seem to be reach ungodly temperatures. That is, after all, how magma is made.

[DavidJames]

It's in the "Investigate 9/11" forum. I tried to ninjaproxy-link it for you, but apparently, that is no longer a viable way to view the LC forum.Thanks, I found it with your help.

[T.A.M.]

Nevermore, welcome to the forum, If I havent already said so.

I've been led to believe that 9-11 was the first time in history where two steel framed buildings completely collapsed after an initial, non-catastrophic impact by a plane and subsequent short duration fire.


Well given it is the first time that a jet airliner has crashed into a skyscraper (first that I know of), there is no precedent, so yes it is the first time for a number of things, including the collapse.

What is your frame of reference for calling the fires "short duration". I will assume until you correct me that you mean short compared to some other highrise fires that have lasted for hours and hours without the building collapsing...but in ALL of those cases, there was no impact damage, no severing of supportr columns, no removal of fireproofing.


You seem to approach this from a causality perspective. An aircraft crashes into a WTC building (cause X) leads to the building collapsing (effect Y). X must not be a "necessary" cause of Y since steel framed buildings have collapsed without a plane being involved. So X must be a "sufficient" cause of Y. However, if X is only a sufficent cause of Y then it seems logical that there could be other causes (Z) for collapse Y.

if your range is 0<possibility<infinity, than yes I suppose there are other "possible" causes, but given the evidence to date, the overwhelming MOST PROBABLE CAUSE is:

...the combination of Jet Airliner impact with subsequent severing of support columns, combined with removal of 60% or more of the spray on firep proofing via the impacts, and the multi-level (8-10 levels each) fires heated to much higher temps that that of the igniting jet fuel, via contents of the building burning, that together caused the collapse of the towers.


Or are you suggesting that the causal relationship here is rather an INUS condition ("insufficient and non-redundant parts of unnecessary but sufficient causes")? (note: see Wikipedia's entry for Causality).

ummm ya okie dokie...moving on.


If this is either a sufficient causality or an INUS condition I would think, given the assumption that this was the first instance where a plane impact and short duration fire caused the collapse of a steel frame structure, further digging for an explanation is justified.

5 years worth of your suggested "digging" has yielded jack squat in terms of legitimate evidence for any alternate theories. And I disagree, if we use your theory, than what about the possibility of "no-planes"? Should we waste tax dollars looking into that. Or how about some new alien technology?


Forget the "conspiracy theorists" for a second and consider how important understanding the cause of the collapse effects safe architectural design, emergency response, insurance coverage and building demolition. Should the professionals in these industries be satisfied with the simple causality you offer?

yes, because hundreds of qualified experts in the field looked at the evidence and came up with the MOST PROBABLE CAUSE for the collapses. Other theories, had they any legitimacy, I am sure would have been considered by these intelligent, patriotic individuals.


TAM

[eddyk]

If you look at the Windsor fire collapse vids.
It looks as if the tower was filled with thermite.

It's like what was seen at WTC2 X 50.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Unprecedented?

Do you have any actual evidence that this [molten metal]is unprecedented, or (as usual) do you just throw this out because it sounds good?

Molten metal is not uncommon in fires, having been found after fires of all types

Evidence please, and please forward your evidence to Dr. Jones, he has been requesting evidence of molten metal from fires for a year now. The metal observed and photographed at GZ cannot be aluminum, as it is observed to be solid at orange temps, and dripping liquid at light yellow temps.

[Nevermore]

... Does that make sense or do you think anonymous internet posts should be the source of such valuable information ... :)

Of course that makes sense. I would hope that any professionals involved would rely on the official reports rather than any sort of conjecture. My post was an attempt to understand the causality that Loss Leader is using to (if I understood his post correctly) dismiss any need to investigate the collapse beyond what we saw on television the day of the event.

... The towers collapsed because of the damage caused by the airplanes AND the subsequent fires...

I know the NIST report (which I still haven't had time to read in it's entirety but plan to do so) attributes the collapse to both the plane impact and fire damage. I'm sure you see how this conflicts with the simple cause and effect explanation that Loss Leader suggested. The plane impact seems like an INUS condition to me.

You keep using this phrase (short duration fire) please quatify it.

By "short" I was trying to make reference to Loss Leader's "...would burn for an hour and a half ..." Sorry for the lack of precision but I thought it was appropriate in the context of my response.

I think you need to define your terms.
"Non catastrophic impact"?
I am truly looking forward to your definition of catastrophy!

I was trying to differentiate between a building which may have fallen immediately after the impact of a plane as opposed to one which remained standing for a period of time before collapsing. Both would certainly be a catastrophy.

Just out of curiosity, why does it seem only the "conspiracy theory" folks are held to a high standard in presenting an argument? Is it not considered appropriate to point out sweeping generalizations or possible logical flaws wherever they occur?

[TruthSeeker1234]

A very detailed report was produced by NIST which, I believe, is where the real world go to get a thorough understanding of the issues you raise. Then if they are still confused, they could engage NIST or one of the dozens (hundreds?) of professional organizations that contributed to the report.


False on 2 counts David

1. NIST report is indeed very detailed on the jet impacts and fires. But contains zero detail on the behavior of the "collapses". Zip. Nada.

2. The professional organizations and structural engineers who cooked up NIST are most certainly NOT talking. I would love dearly to get Bazant or any number of guys to answer a few questions.

[DavidJames]

False on 2 counts David

1. NIST report is indeed very detailed on the jet impacts and fires. But contains zero detail on the behavior of the "collapses". Zip. Nada. The fact that you aren't able to understand the report doesn't mean the data isn't available. I agree the report does not address the asinine ideas CTists like you pull out of your butt. Here is a link, tell me exactly what you think is missing and why. But don't bother if the why is you looking at a picture or video and thinking something doesn't look right to you.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf
2. The professional organizations and structural engineers who cooked up NIST are most certainly NOT talking. I would love dearly to get Bazant or any number of guys to answer a few questions.I'm calling your bluff, show me evidence of an intelligent and honest attempt at getting information please along with the response.

edit to add link and additional comment to #1

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Evidence please, and please forward your evidence to Dr. Jones, he has been requesting evidence of molten metal from fires for a year now. The metal observed and photographed at GZ cannot be aluminum, as it is observed to be solid at orange temps, and dripping liquid at light yellow temps.

"The ceiling fan was there, where that thing is hanging down," Hales said, pointing. "That was the microwave," he added, pointing at another mass of melted metal. source (http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=14420171&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506066&rfi=6)

Fire destroys big hangar at Greenville Municipal Airport. It was fully involved when fire-trucks arrived around 9:30 a.m. yesterday, and took an hour to put out. Flames were fed by aviation fuel, and literally melted metal as they wrecked four small planes and a car. Firefighters and passersby pushed eight planes out of harm’s way. Nobody was hurt. Fire chief didn’t make a dollar estimate for the damage, but those aircraft aren’t cheap and it’s definitely more than a million dollars. Investigation may take a few days, partly because nobody noticed the fire until it was well along. source (http://www.skyview.iserv.net/newsroomarchive02.html)

But an hour later, the mobile home he shared with his wife, Chasity, and their three children, ages 11, 9 and 7, was little more than a smoldering hunk of melted metal. source (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/03/22/Citrus/House_fire_claims_fam.shtml)

A wedding band would incorporate the melted metal blobs from the machinery of the grandfather clock which they burned last night. source (http://www.donaldedavis.com/PARTS/BM99.html)

[Nevermore]

Nevermore, welcome to the forum, If I havent already said so ...

(in reference to INUS conditions) ... ummm ya okie dokie...moving on ...



Thanks for the welcome and the response.

I was reading a bit about causality today and came across the concept of an INUS condition. I think it applies well to the discussion here.

From Wikipedia:J.L. Mackie argues that usual talk of "cause", in fact, refers to INUS conditions (insufficient and non-redundant parts of unnecessary but sufficient causes). For example; consider the short circuit as a cause of the house burning down. Consider the collection of events, the short circuit, the proximity of flammable material, and the absence of firefighters. Considered together these are unnecessary but sufficient to the house's destruction (since many other collection of events certainly could have destroyed the house). Within this collection; the short circuit is an insufficient but non-redundant part (since the short circuit by itself would not cause the fire, but the fire will not happen without it). So the short circuit is an INUS cause of the house burning down.
Loss Leader seemed to imply that this was a simple cause and effect. The plane hit the building causing the building to fall. If he had suggested that the plane was the start of a causal chain of events leading to the building collapse I wouldn't have sought clarification.

Based on your explanation, the NIST report seems to maintain the following (drastically simplified) causal chain of events:

- Plane impact
- Severing of support columns
- Removal of fireproofing
- Multi-level fires (caused by jet fuel and office material) on the upper floors
- Loss of structural integrity
- Collapse

If we think of these as INUS conditions, is it safe to assume that all of them were necessary to cause the collapse? Had less fire proofing been dislodged or if the floors hit were empty would the collapse had happened?

One last note: I'm not trying to put forward any kind of theory or suggest how tax dollars should be spent. I'm trying to understand what happened. As I said before, I've read a lot of the "conspiracy" theories surrounding 9-11 and I'm here trying to sort out information from disinformation. So far, the links some have posted in response to my questions have been extremely valuable to my continuing education. For that and your patience I thank you.

[LashL]

The metal observed and photographed at GZ cannot be aluminum, as it is observed to be solid at orange temps, and dripping liquid at light yellow temps.

It is not accurate to say that the molten metal cannot be aluminum, based on its colour, unless you assume (erroneously) that the conditions at the site of the fires at GZ were laboratory controlled conditions, which they clearly were not.

[T.A.M.]

TS:

Have you read the PM book (I doubt it). They interviewed Bazant, and Magnusson, and Loiseaux, and many others.

What would be the relevance of studying the collapse once the initiation of said collapse had begun. For the 8 millionth time, once the collapse was initiated, the building structure below the impact floors offered virtually no resistance to the falling portion above it, due to the overwhelming energy involved as the top portion came crashing down.

Now that is from NIST (severe paraphrasing) but I am not a demolition expert, unlike you TS, right?

TAM

[Nevermore]

Am I crazy but has no one mentioned what is, probably, the leading cause of heat in the WTC pile? Friction?

The gravitaional energy of the WTC went somewhere, and a very high percentage of it likely was converted to heat via friction. The delta in grav. energy, once the pile stopped moving, was converted almost entirely into heat, plus the chemical energy expended in fires from combustibles and fuel.

I'm not really an expert, but extremely high frictional forces and extremely high pressures at the bottom of a collapsing building would seem to be reach ungodly temperatures. That is, after all, how magma is made.

This is a very interesting hypothesis Anti-sophist.

[T.A.M.]

Thanks for the welcome and the response.

I was reading a bit about causality today and came across the concept of an INUS condition. I think it applies well to the discussion here.

From Wikipedia:

Loss Leader seemed to imply that this was a simple cause and effect. The plane hit the building causing the building to fall. If he had suggested that the plane was the start of a causal chain of events leading to the building collapse I wouldn't have sought clarification.

Based on your explanation, the NIST report seems to maintains the following (drastically simplified) causal chain of events:

- Plane impact
- Severing of support columns
- Removal of fireproofing
- Multi-level fires (caused by jet fuel and office material) on the upper floors
- Loss of structural integrity
- Collapse

If we think of these as INUS conditions, is it safe to assume that all of them were necessary to cause the collapse? Had less fire proofing been dislodged or if the floors hit were empty would the collapse had happened?

One last note: I'm not trying to put forward any kind of theory or suggest how tax dollars should be spent. I'm trying to understand what happened. As I said before, I've read a lot of the "conspiracy" theories surrounding 9-11 and I'm here trying to sort out information from disinformation. So far, the links some have posted in response to my questions have been extremely valuable to my continuing education. For that and your patience I thank you.


Thank you for the clarification of your points and what you were having problems with.

carry on.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

oh and a comment on the molten metal color, before TS brings it up, as I know he will.

wrt to color, Experts clarify that contaminants in the metals can change their colors when in the molten state. In particular, organics and plastics can have this effect, causing molten aluminum to appear orange to red, instead of its usual whiteish yellow.

Now I know S.Jones and the gang did some "experiments" which they showed videos of on the "Scholars" site. They added in a few wood chips and bits of plastic, and imagine, the bits disappeared, and no color change was seen in the molten aluminum.

#1. The only evidence he provides for us is a quick video of the molten aluminum well after the contaminants are added, and surprise the metal is still near yellow white. I guess we are to take his word that he added in the items.

#2. it is a poorly designed "test" or "experiment" as it is miles from replicating the conditions seen at GZ. A better approach would have been to take a huge pile of wood chips, and into the pile dump the molten aluminum, and see what color change occured.

But he is a scientist, and should have known better, so why didn't he.

TAM

[Anti-sophist]

I am 99% positive that "solid concrete" doesn't contain any more or any less potential energy than "powdered concrete". As such, ALL energy used to puliverize concerete is released as heat, after doing the "work" of pulverizing. This heat has never been factored into any calculation done on this topic by any CTers that I've ever seen.

Again, there was ~800 billion joules, per tower, give or take, in gravitational energy. Virtually _all_ of this energy ends up as heat... without any (reasonable) upper restriction on temperature. If my math is right, and it's very quick and dirty, if only 1% of that energy is put into 20 tons of steel, it'll all melt.

Other sources of energy beyond jet fuel:
Combustibles (in oxygen).. everpresent in office buildings
Highly reactive powered/liquid aluminum (in the presense of iron oxide = thermite)
Kinetic energy of the planes (4 billion joules, or so, per tower)

[CurtC]

I'm not really an expert, but extremely high frictional forces and extremely high pressures at the bottom of a collapsing building would seem to be reach ungodly temperatures. That is, after all, how magma is made.
I don't think that's right. Temperatures inside the Earth's mantle are hot because of radioactive decay of stuff like uranium, and the slow rate that the generated heat can escape.

I am 99% positive that "solid concrete" doesn't contain any more or any less potential energy than "powdered concrete".Actually, I think that you have to spend energy to break the inter-molecular bonds in the concrete, therefore that energy is not available as heat. I think.

[Hellbound]

"Truth"Seeker:

Arkan and LashL have answered your questions to me, and I'll stand by their responses as if they were my own.

"Dr." Jones has been shown evidence of molten metal in fires, he simply ignores anything that doesn't support his preconcieved idea of what happened.

In any case, your coloration doesn't fit molten steel, either. Just thought I'd point that out.

[DavidJames]

False on 2 counts David

1. NIST report is indeed very detailed on the jet impacts and fires. But contains zero detail on the behavior of the "collapses". Zip. Nada.
The fact that you aren't able to understand the report doesn't mean the data isn't available. I agree the report does not address the asinine ideas CTists like you pull out of your butt. Here is a link, tell me exactly what you think is missing and why. But don't bother if the why is you looking at a picture or video and thinking something doesn't look right to you.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf


2. The professional organizations and structural engineers who cooked up NIST are most certainly NOT talking. I would love dearly to get Bazant or any number of guys to answer a few questions.
I'm calling your bluff, show me evidence of an intelligent and honest attempt at getting information please along with the response.
Hey IgnoreInconvientTruth1234, still waiting for you to backup your claims.

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader seemed to imply that this was a simple cause and effect. The plane hit the building causing the building to fall. If he had suggested that the plane was the start of a causal chain of events leading to the building collapse I wouldn't have sought clarification.

Based on your explanation, the NIST report seems to maintain the following (drastically simplified) causal chain of events:

- Plane impact
- Severing of support columns
- Removal of fireproofing
- Multi-level fires (caused by jet fuel and office material) on the upper floors
- Loss of structural integrity
- Collapse

If we think of these as INUS conditions, is it safe to assume that all of them were necessary to cause the collapse? Had less fire proofing been dislodged or if the floors hit were empty would the collapse had happened?

One last note: I'm not trying to put forward any kind of theory or suggest how tax dollars should be spent. I'm trying to understand what happened.

If all you were saying, Nevermore, is that I took a logical shortcut by saying the towers collapsed because the planes hit them, I agree. I think, however, that it is just nitpicking. Every statement made takes logical shortcuts and contains unstated assumptions. If such weren't allowed, our conversations would all quickly bog down as we would have to explain, for example, the workings of an internal combustion engine every time we give directions to a restaurant.

What I meant to imply was that the planes hitting the towers were the only purposeful human actions that day that led to the collapse of the towers. But I don't think you agree. I think you were being disingenuous in claiming that all you were demanding of me was logical clarity. The reason I think this is that you sai:

I've been led to believe that 9-11 was the first time in history where two steel framed buildings completely collapsed after an initial, non-catastrophic impact by a plane and subsequent short duration fire.

You catagorize the impacts as "non-catastrophic" and the fires as "short duration." You also state that the towers were "steel framed." All three of these are qualifications which minimize the effects of the collisions. And all three are not supported by evidence.

1) The towers were made of steel but they were not built using the common steel skeletal construction - instead the floors were tethered to a central core with the external steel facing supporting little of the buildings' weight.

2) The term "catastrophy" is defined as "a sudden and widespread disaster." Your statement that the airplane strikes were non-catastrophic makes a mockery of the evidence. They were sudden, their effects were widespread and the results were disasterous.

3) Your phrase "short duration" is a relative one but you still use it disingenuously. The fires burned from the moment the planes hit until the towers fell. They did not go out shortly after the crashes or even one minute before the towers fell. They burned, in fact, for as long as the possibly could have. There was nothing "short" about their duration.

I may have taken a logical shortcut. You, however, attempted to color terms and redefine the debate by introducing equivocation into the vocabulary of the debate. And I find that a far more purposeful and insidious reasoning error.

[Nevermore]

...On the other hand, it is not impossible that a building hit by a large passenger jet would burn for an hour and a half before collapsing from the point of the impact down. There was cause and there was effect. It obviously satisfied the demands of logic and there was no reason to go digging around for any further explanation.

I just want to bring your attention back to the part of your post I was replying to. In my opinion, everything I said was a valid and unbiased consideration of causality and how it applied to your claims that "... there was cause and there was effect ..." and "... it obviously satisfied the demands of logic ..."

It seems rather hypocritial of you to brush off your statements as a legitimate "shortcut" and to accuse me of "nitpicking" and then proceed to demand more rigorous standards of me. I have attempted to communicate my thoughts in a precise manner and was not trying to be disingenuous or insulting in my post. I am genuinely interested to know your opinion of how you perceive the chain of events which occured and how they fit into the causation models I've posted (necessary, sufficient, INUS or something I haven't considered).

Just to be clear:

- I used the term "steel framed" in reference to the building because it was not framed with wood, concrete or some other material. Many houses built in the U.S. are "wood framed" meaning the load bearing structure is constructed of wood on which sheet rock is hung. Out of curiosity, do you agree with this description from Wikipedia?
To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure was built by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient area, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses. In addition, 10,000 dampers were included in the structure. With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and lightweight shell for structural integrity, Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size. This method of construction also meant that the twin towers had the world's highest load-bearing walls.
- I didn't use the word "catastrophy" I said "non-catastrophic." I used this word in the sense of "a final event or conclusion" in an attempt to differentiate between a plane destroying a building immediately on impact and an event where a plane struck a building and the collapse happened later. The term itself could certainly be used as a discussion point for causality and, if you think this is the case, I'd love to hear your thoughts. For example, if the plane is an INUS condition, would the towers have fallen without the impact damage?

- I used "short duration" as a discription for your stated "...would burn for an hour and a half before collapsing..." This is certainly a relative term but I assumed you would make that connection and considered it appropriate.

So, in my future posts am I required to explain "...the workings of an internal combustion engine..." every time I give directions to a restaurant? If so, expect to be held to the same standard.

Cheers

[Muckar-duva]

How many times has Jones revamped his paper?

[Gravy]

Based on your explanation, the NIST report seems to maintain the following (drastically simplified) causal chain of events:

- Plane impact
- Severing of support columns
- Removal of fireproofing
- Multi-level fires (caused by jet fuel and office material) on the upper floors
- Loss of structural integrity
- Collapse

If we think of these as INUS conditions, is it safe to assume that all of them were necessary to cause the collapse? Had less fire proofing been dislodged or if the floors hit were empty would the collapse had happened?

The NIST report says that the three necessary and interdependent factors leading to collapse were structural damage from the impact, loss of fire resistive material from the structural steel, and fire. It says that if one of these elements was absent, collapse probably would not have ensued.

[Kent1]

How many times has Jones revamped his paper?

I've lost count. But its in the dozens. He just updated his latest a few days ago.


If you want to see the VERY first draft version, it's here.
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/WTCCollapsesDueToControlledDemolitionByStevenJones .htm

Try not to laugh to hard.

[Muckar-duva]

Thank you very much for the link, Kent.

the Popular Mechanics article on this
subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M.
Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.)

You're right, it does induce some hearty laughter.

[Gravy]

False on 2 counts David

1. NIST report is indeed very detailed on the jet impacts and fires. But contains zero detail on the behavior of the "collapses". Zip. Nada.

2. The professional organizations and structural engineers who cooked up NIST are most certainly NOT talking. I would love dearly to get Bazant or any number of guys to answer a few questions.
I would love dearly to see a properly peer-reviewed article in an engineering journal that supports your position. It's been five years, TS. Can you point me to one?

And can you explain why an engineer should answer your questions, when you are unable to answer basic questions about your own theories on this forum? Why the double standard?

[Kent1]

I would love dearly to see a properly peer-reviewed article in an engineering journal that supports your position. It's been five years, TS. Can you point me to one?

And can you explain why an engineer should answer your questions, when you are unable to answer basic questions about your own theories on this forum? Why the double standard?
He's wrong on both accounts

Page 319 9.3.3 "Events Following Collapse Initiation" of the NIST report has some information on the collapse behavior.
As for number two I have spoken with a member of the NIST, FEMA and Bazant. I guess I'm just lucky.

[Muckar-duva]

Has Jones ever replied to the vast critique he's gotten?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Nevermore, here is what you should consider with your simplified list

- Plane impact
- Severing of support columns
- Removal of fireproofing
- Multi-level fires (caused by jet fuel and office material) on the upper floors
- Loss of structural integrity
- Collapse

The last entry should read "local collapse", for that is all that NIST purports to show, a local collapse of the upper structure down one floor. THey then assume that global collapse ensues, without calculation or modelling.

Even assuming NIST is correct in all they assert (hardly a safe assumption), they still fail to account for the most mysterious and unprecendented aspect - that is - the shredding of the entire steel frame into very small lengths, mostly unbuckled, and the pulverization of almost all the non-metallic contents into fine powder.

In fact, NIST admits in plain English that they did not study the behavior of the towers after collapse initiated. THus, we must look elsewhere for our explanation.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Nevermore, here is what you should consider with your simplified list

- Plane impact
- Severing of support columns
- Removal of fireproofing
- Multi-level fires (caused by jet fuel and office material) on the upper floors
- Loss of structural integrity
- Collapse

The last entry should read "local collapse", for that is all that NIST purports to show, a local collapse of the upper structure down one floor. THey then assume that global collapse ensues, without calculation or modelling.

Even assuming NIST is correct in all they assert (hardly a safe assumption), they still fail to account for the most mysterious and unprecendented aspect - that is - the shredding of the entire steel frame into very small lengths, mostly unbuckled, and the pulverization of almost all the non-metallic contents into fine powder.

In fact, NIST admits in plain English that they did not study the behavior of the towers after collapse initiated. THus, we must look elsewhere for our explanation.

Fallacy of equivocation. A "local collapse" specifically means that when the collapse is over, something less than the whole building lies in rubble. A global collapse means that when the collapse is over, most/all of the whole building lies in rubble.

[cloudshipsrule]

THey then assume that global collapse ensues, without calculation or modelling.


No, I think they assumed that global collapse ensued because they saw film footage of the entire building crashing into the ground.

[Loss Leader]

Even assuming NIST is correct in all they assert (hardly a safe assumption), they still fail to account for the most mysterious and unprecendented aspect - that is - the shredding of the entire steel frame into very small lengths, mostly unbuckled, and the pulverization of almost all the non-metallic contents into fine powder.

There is absolutely no evidence that "almost all the non-metallic contents" were pulverized into fine powder, TS1234 and you know it. Your repeated assertion of that point has been handily debunked many times on this board. I personally provided you with the names, address, emails and phone numbers of the men who spent months sorting through the debris. I invited you to call them and ask for yourself what debris they found. You refused.

Your willfull disregard of plain evidence and your indifference to doing any first-hand research makes you an utterly unreliable source of any information.

If Nevermore is in any way as open-minded as he claims, he would do well to consider every single assertion made by you with the utmost caution.

[defaultdotxbe]

In fact, NIST admits in plain English that they did not study the behavior of the towers after collapse initiated. THus, we must look elsewhere for our explanation.
i believe their reason for that was because there were far too many variables to model accurately with modern computers

besides, even if they did model youd say 'well they programmed their model for a global collapse so of ocurse thats all it will produce"

[Nevermore]

Nevermore, here is what you should consider with your simplified list

- Plane impact
- Severing of support columns
- Removal of fireproofing
- Multi-level fires (caused by jet fuel and office material) on the upper floors
- Loss of structural integrity
- Collapse

The last entry should read "local collapse", for that is all that NIST purports to show, a local collapse of the upper structure down one floor. THey then assume that global collapse ensues, without calculation or modelling.

Even assuming NIST is correct in all they assert (hardly a safe assumption), they still fail to account for the most mysterious and unprecendented aspect - that is - the shredding of the entire steel frame into very small lengths, mostly unbuckled, and the pulverization of almost all the non-metallic contents into fine powder.

In fact, NIST admits in plain English that they did not study the behavior of the towers after collapse initiated. THus, we must look elsewhere for our explanation.

So you would maintain that the "local collapse" is another INUS condition in the simpified model I suggest?

A couple of questions:

- You seem to define "local collapse" as "a local collapse of the upper structure down one floor." Does the NIST report specify exactly which floor this happened in each building? If so, do you agree with the report?

- If the "local collapse" as you've defined it is an INUS condition, could the "global collapse" have happened in its absence?

- The phrase "...shredding of the entire steel frame into very small lengths, mostly unbuckled ..."" is very subjective. What are you comparing this too? Are there studies or investigations of other steel framed building collapses which suggest the debris should have looked differently?

- Does the steel being "shredded" into "very small lengths" cause the "pulverization of almost all the non-metallic contents into fine powder" or are these two non-related things?

[TruthSeeker1234]

There is absolutely no evidence that "almost all the non-metallic contents" were pulverized into fine powder, TS1234 and you know it.
I have repeatedly provided evidence that nearly all of the non-metallic material was converted into fine powder, and expelled far and wide. The evidence is the observation of the towers turning to dust as they exlploded, and, the observation that nothing resembling even one floor is seen, much less the 220 floors that had to go somewhere. I have repeatedly asked JREFs for evidence that significant parts of the building survived, and I got one picture of a "metor" looking thing that was about 1 ton, tops.

Please observe this photo and tell me where are 220 acre-sized floors.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg

[T.A.M.]

do you honestly expect to find much of anything bigger than the size of a football, after it has fallen 110 storeys down, most of it with a tremendous amount of weight atop of it.

I am surprised that the compressed floors that gravy showed you via that photo were able to survive as they did.

brittle thinks break. Paper doesnt break...it floats to the ground. light plastics would crack, many would break. Human remains - become piles of flesh and broken bones. Concrete gets crushed, crumbles, then crumbles some more. Gypsum Wallboard turns to dust, as that is what it is inside its paper covering.

What is your point TS.

TAM

[Loss Leader]

Please observe this photo and tell me where are 220 acre-sized floors.

The number of things wrong with your statements are vast so I'll just pick one.

The towers were not built as traditional skeletal steel buildings. Instead, the floors were tethered to a central core. This was done to increase rentable space. When the collapse began, the core failed at the impact point. This pulled the floors down and in. That stress caused the core to continue to fail and for the building to continue to be twised and pulled inward. So there wouldn't be any pancaking of floors in any case. The inward forces would tore each floor apart.

But all of this has been explained to you. With pictures. And you ignored it all. I personally think it is because you are mentally ill. But, then, so does your brother-in-law, doesn't he?

[TruthSeeker1234]

What is your point TS.

The point is that gravity does not provide anywhere near enough energy to account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.

[Anti-sophist]

The point is that gravity does not provide anywhere near enough energy to account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.


False.

[WildCat]

The point is that gravity does not provide anywhere near enough energy to account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.
So calculate the amount of explosives you think would do the trick... or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

[TruthSeeker1234]

So there wouldn't be any pancaking of floors in any case.
Really? Then what caused the squibs? I thought they were caused by floors pancaking ahead of the main collapse front, piston-style, and pushing air out the center window? Isn't that what NIST says?

You guys know that a building cannot crush itself into fine powder and shredded steel. This is why you are so intent on denying what all of the picture and video evidence tell us.

Are you guys really trying to claim that the concrete only pulverized when it hit the ground? This is easily contradicted by all of the data, such as this

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/27_mushroom_site1061.jpg

Think people. If two quarter mile high builidngs really "fell down", dont'cha think there would something left besides this

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg

[Anti-sophist]

Appeal to intuition, from start to finish. False, false, and more false.

Feel free to back up your intuition with some mathematics.

[dirtywick]

Really? Then what caused the squibs? I thought they were caused by floors pancaking ahead of the main collapse front, piston-style, and pushing air out the center window? Isn't that what NIST says?

You guys know that a building cannot crush itself into fine powder and shredded steel. This is why you are so intent on denying what all of the picture and video evidence tell us.

Are you guys really trying to claim that the concrete only pulverized when it hit the ground? This is easily contradicted by all of the data, such as this

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/27_mushroom_site1061.jpg

Think people. If two quarter mile high builidngs really "fell down", dont'cha think there would something left besides this

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg

I like that first photo because it actually shows large pieces of rubble clearly demonstrating that it wasn't, in fact, pulverized into fine powder. It also doesn't suggest that the dust shown was, in fact, pulverized concrete. It only shows there was a dust present, which could be made of any number of substances, such as fiber glass, drywall, glass, smoke, porceline, corrugated cardboard, plastic, etc. and, ironically, decades worth of dust, and finally probably some concrete. That building wasn't empty.

As to your second photo, you also must remember that there was an underground parking garage and the foundations of the building were laid 60 feet below ground. That's 2,795,584 cubic feet of rubble buried below. So I do expect more, and it's there, just not visible.

I'm not intent on denying anything really, but think about what you're saying for a second. You and everyone on your side continually assumes that any dust from the building must be from concrete; that's ridiculous, just take a walk around your house and look at the thousands of things in it that will and do produce dust, it's everywhere.

[Pardalis]

Think people. If two quarter mile high builidngs really "fell down", dont'cha think there would something left besides this

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg

Do you know when this picture was taken? It looks like it was days after 9/11, the clean up process seems to be much under way.

[Pardalis]

The point is that gravity does not provide anywhere near enough energy to account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.

Funny, I always thought gravity was one of nature's most powerful forces.

[CurtC]

The point is that gravity does not provide anywhere near enough energy to account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.

We can make a pretty good estimate of the energy that was available from gravity in those towers. Do you have any idea of how much explosives it would take to rival that? Or better yet, to far surpass it?

These calculations have been done multiple times, right here in this forum. Are you brave enough to find out the answer?

I think your line of logic, if I can call it that, is heading right towards positing a nuclear bomb, or maybe the "upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction."

[CurtC]

Funny, I always thought gravity was one of nature's most powerful forces.
No, it's many orders of magnitude smaller than the other three fundamental forces.

[Horatius]

Think people. If two quarter mile high builidngs really "fell down", dont'cha think there would something left besides this

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg

Yeah, they might have some of this http://www.lvmpdsar.com/jpgs/ny3.jpg

Or this http://www.fema.gov/kids/images/911heroes/military_wtc.jpg

Or this http://www.fema.gov/kids/images/911heroes/usr0287.jpg

Or even this http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/682773.jpg
(http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/682773.jpg)
And while we're at it, why don't you take a look at one of the guys you're disparaging with your BS? Kevin Shea (http://www.fdnylodd.com/kevin.html). There's one disturbing shot on that page of him in the rubble, so some people might want to skip that link.

Oh, and if "controlled demolition" "pulverizes" the building, why didn't the "CD" of WTC7 do the same thing? http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/docs/b7_3.jpg

Enough for tonight? I think so...

[Loss Leader]

Funny, I always thought gravity was one of nature's most powerful forces.


Actually, as has been mentioned, it's one of the weakest. Think about it this way: I am looking at a paperclip on my desk. It takes the entire mass of the earth to keep that paperclip on the desk and not floating away. But with a magnet weighing less than an ounce, I can pull the paperclip right up off the desk.


In any case, Truthseeker1234 is an idiot.

[Loss Leader]

Really? Then what caused the squibs? I thought they were caused by floors pancaking ahead of the main collapse front, piston-style, and pushing air out the center window? Isn't that what NIST says?

No, as the building pulled itself inward, air was compressed from the inside out until it shattered the windows and ejected whatever material was riding the air current. My correct understanding of the collapse actually imparts even more lateral energy to the ejecta than your incorrect pancake theory.

[Horatius]

No, it's many orders of magnitude smaller than the other three fundamental forces.

Gravity may be weak, but you have to remember there's a hell of a lot of it around!

[Pardalis]

Actually, as has been mentioned, it's one of the weakest. Think about it this way: I am looking at a paperclip on my desk. It takes the entire mass of the earth to keep that paperclip on the desk and not floating away. But with a magnet weighing less than an ounce, I can pull the paperclip right up off the desk.


Well, it keeps planets in orbit, keeps oceans and continents from going into outer space... but hey, what do I know about physics! ;) :D

[Hellbound]

Tell you waht, "Truth" Seeker.

Give me your estimate on the weight of the building. I'll take that and get us a ballpark estimate of the GPE contained. Then we can see exactly how many pounds of explosive equivalent the gravitational energy is, in pounds of TNT and pounds of C4.

Also, please show your actual evidence that the building was "turned to dust" and the steel "shredded". Look at any of the photos from the aftermath or the cleanup. THey had to cut the remaining steel down so as to fit it on trucks. Some of the survivors of the collapse survived because a section of flooring that reamined intact sheilded them. The "pockets" in the rubble where fires were, were all you CTers like to point and scream about molten metal, were there because of intact sections of steel and flooring that made holes and air pockets.

IF you actually bothered to seek truth, instead of assuming it and seeking confirmation, you might not make such a fool of yourself.

Well, you probably would anyway.

[defaultdotxbe]

Well, it keeps planets in orbit, keeps oceans and continents from going into outer space... but hey, what do I know about physics! ;) :D
gravity is the weakest of the 4 findamental forces, but its also the farthest reaching

think about it this way, the entire mass of the sun keeps planets in orbit, the entire mass of the earth keeps the oceans from floating away

whats the gravitational pull of a pencil? a car? an entire building? not very much

another example, earths gravitational field will pull a compass needle towards the center of the eath, earths magnetic field will pull it towards the north pole. so which way does a compass point :)

this isnt to say gravity is weak, its just weaker than the other fundametal forces (kinda liek saying the second strongest man in the world is weaker than the strongest man, its all relative)

sorry for the derail, carry on....

[Hellbound]

gravity is the weakest of the 4 findamental forces, but its also the farthest reaching...

Sorry, but this is wrong.

Both gravitational and electromagnetic force have a theoretically infinite reach.

What makes gravity one of the driving forces isn't it's reach, but the fact that it's always attractive...which seems to be what you were getting at...I just wanted to clear up some terminology errors :)

Unlike electromagnetic forces, which have positive and negative charges that "cancel" out, gravity always attracts.

[CurtC]

this isnt to say gravity is weak, its just weaker than the other fundametal forces (kinda liek saying the second strongest man in the world is weaker than the strongest man, its all relative)
Huntsman already said what I was about to post, so let me address this. It's not like comparing the world's strongest man to the second-strongest. There's something like 40 orders of magnitude difference between the strength of the forces. It's more like comparing the mass of a proton to the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Gravity, compared to the other three fundamental forces, is extremely weak.

[defaultdotxbe]

Huntsman already said what I was about to post, so let me address this. It's not like comparing the world's strongest man to the second-strongest. There's something like 40 orders of magnitude difference between the strength of the forces. It's more like comparing the mass of a proton to the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Gravity, compared to the other three fundamental forces, is extremely weak.
well my point was that it isnt exactly a weak force that couldnt pull a building to the ground :P

[rwguinn]

gravity is the weakest of the 4 findamental forces, but its also the farthest reaching

think about it this way, the entire mass of the sun keeps planets in orbit, the entire mass of the earth keeps the oceans from floating away

whats the gravitational pull of a pencil? a car? an entire building? not very much

another example, earths gravitational field will pull a compass needle towards the center of the eath, earths magnetic field will pull it towards the north pole. so which way does a compass point :)

this isnt to say gravity is weak, its just weaker than the other fundametal forces (kinda liek saying the second strongest man in the world is weaker than the strongest man, its all relative)

sorry for the derail, carry on....

except for the "farthest reaching" bit, I agree--
And the attraction of dust particles to each other, and to larger lumps made the planets, sun, etc. Lots of energy there.
And it is everywhere. Unlike other attractive forces, such as magnetism, there is no way to neutralize it.

[Loss Leader]

Gravity, compared to the other three fundamental forces, is extremely weak.

I remember reading that gravity is so weak that some physicists have theorized that most of gravity's effects may be bleading into other dimensions.



Hey, what if our magnetism is just some other dimension's gravity? And our gravity is some other dimension's strong nuclear force?

[Pardalis]

Thanks guys for all the info about gravity. Since I have limited knowledge of physics, it's very interesting.

Needless to say, gravity is a pretty strong force by any human standards when a 100 stories building starts to fall.

[Hellbound]

Pardalis:

Well, gravity is weak.

But it's kinda like saying that air is light-weight. This is generally true. But when there's enough of it moving fast enough (hurricane, tornado), it becomes very strong in aggregate.

And gravity is like that. Think about it, simple static electricity on a plastic comb can overcome the gravitational force of the entire Earth and lift a piece of paper. A small piece of cotton string is too tough for the Earth's gravity to break.

But you get enough stuff together, because all of it adds to the force and none subtracts, it doesn't really have an upper limit to the amount of force it can generate.

[Pardalis]

And gravity is like that. Think about it, simple static electricity on a plastic comb can overcome the gravitational force of the entire Earth and lift a piece of paper. A small piece of cotton string is too tough for the Earth's gravity to break.

Excuse this stupid question, but then why does a rocket require so much energy to extract itself from the Earth's gravitational pull?

[defaultdotxbe]

Excuse this stupid question, but then why does a rocket require so much energy to extract itself from the Earth's gravitational pull?
a few thousand pounds of fuel expended to overcome the gravitational pull of 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of earth

[Pardalis]

a few thousand pounds of fuel expended to overcome the gravitational pull of 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of earth

Ah, got it... :o

[CurtC]

I remember reading that gravity is so weak that some physicists have theorized that most of gravity's effects may be bleading into other dimensions.
The idea there, from what I've read, is that maybe gravity is stronger on other "branes" in the universe, but a small amount bleeds over to our observable part. Here's an article (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0924/p25s01-stss.html) that begins to explain it in layman terms. Hey, if can't trust a source that has "Christian" and "Science" right in the title...

About the relative strengths - the electromagnetic forces from just a very small area on the bottoms of my feet is all that counters the gravity from 6,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons of Earth.

[maccy]

Because it's buried in another thread, here is a digest of a recent discussion about thermite and molten metal:

I'll be specific!

What on earth could be fueling those fires for weeks on end?? Piles of wire/aluminium, office materials are going to burn at tempratures to melt steel? Fires need fuel to burn, yes all the things could have burned, but it would not be hot enough to melt steel.

Unless you think the combustable debris/materials are hot enough to melt the steel? hahahaha!! Talk about theories? Where is your proof of this?

The only logical explanation is THERMATE! The molten iron found they clean up crew found is a by product of it!

You have failed to debunk anything and if you really believe you have debunked it, then I'm going to laugh at your so called debunking skills based on what...Your theories?? lol :)

Stundie, please explain how thermate can keep metal molten for weeks?

You already said yourself that fires need fuel. Is thermate a fuel?

Thermate, or Thermate-TH3, is an incendiary compound primarily used for military applications. Because of the similarity in names, thermate is sometimes confused with one of its components, thermite.

Thermate is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yex063_Fblk&feature=PlayList&p=C0E39728ACB19348&index=5

If your asking about to explain how thermate can keep metal molten for weeks! Then you really have not INVESTIGATED!!

Fires need Ignition, Fuel & Oxygen to burn.

So where is the fuel that kept the tempratures as high for as long as they did??

Excuse me? Was that your explanation for the molten metal?
:eye-poppi

THERMATE or THERMITE!!

Its amazing stuff which cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter!

There's a little detail your precious CT sites and Dr. Jones forgot to tell you, a thermite reaction doesn't last for months.

Did you forget about the building that collapsed in one big pile of rubble?

And it is your claim that this thermate kept the metal molten for days or weeks after the initial application?

About 3 months actually.*

*That's how long the underground fires lasted. You know, the ones using debris from the WTC, not Thermate/Thermite, as fuel, as Thermate/Thermite would have been spent within a very short period of time by comparison.

No, I stand corrected. Jet Fuel (Kersone) from the plane and office equipment, plastics, debris etc can bring massive benefits to the energy industry as it kept those fire burning.

One thing, if the combustible or maximum tempreture of all these things cannot melt steel. How the hell did it get to those tempratures.

Here is Thermite in action, Thermate is a more powerful substance!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

Oh like some one else said, it was underground and because thermate burns at about 5000 Degrees (I'm just estimating and cant rememeber the figure of my head) it would keep hot for months. Would it not?

In the quantities present it's no surprise the fires burned as long as they did.


What steel did it melt? Do you have any proof at all that any steel melted? I've heard of molten metal, but not steel.


It would not. Not to mention the fact that there is proof of oxygen starved debris fires, and no evidence of any thermite residue.

So far, so good.

You DO know that plenty of fuel was available in the various offices, right ?

You ARE aware that fires can rage underground for months in some cases, right ?



Certainly not thermate. The reaction stops fairly quickly.

Also, thermate leaves traces that were not found on the site. Care to explain that ?

From the NIST vs popular mechanics thread:



I think it would be better if you tried to stay on one topic for a bit before moving to others.

I suppose the main question about thermite/thermate is why would anybody use an incendiary to demolish a building?

The auxiliary question is: how do you get thermite/thermate to cut through a steel beam anyway? Once the reaction is started, the thermite/thermate will move downwards, not sideways.

Anyway, some more thermite/themate resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/thermite/index.html

If you look at the thermite reactions in this video you'll see it produces a lot of heat very quickly - leading to localised melting that then cools down - not a sustained release of heat. NB thi is shown then they use thermite on the car, in the second part of the video.

WrCWLpRc1yM

Some relevant threads here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67737
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66140
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65247
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64843
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58851
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61469

Some are about thermite/thermate - others about controlled demolition in general.

[maccy]

And some more discussion about molten metal

I was talking about the molten metal, fires found weeks after the collapse. I'd love to hear JREF forumers debunking this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE

Ive heard debunkers saying fuel from the jets :eek: Molten Aluminum :jaw-dropp but yet noone can still explain it other than calling it unimportant? Or a moot?

Please, you are trying to convince me the fires burning below was some kind of firepit?

If kersone based fuel doesn't melt steel and it cannot get hotter than these tempreture of Kersone. How comes there big lumps of steel fused with concrete? How did the tempratures get hot enough to melt the steel?

I'm all ears on this one? :)

Fires (http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg19125605.600-satellites-track-the-fires-raging-beneath-india.html) found 100 years after the collapse. Fires underground can burn for a long time.


I guess you must be right, a fire started by burning rubbish (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523585.600) can destroy a whole town, but three burning skyscrapers collapsing could never have fires after a couple of weeks.

Some links about molten metal:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/ (pg 26)
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings...#_Toc144445988 (http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445988)
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html (timestamp 51:11)
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/l...3#molten-steel (http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#molten-steel)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4)

Also a couple of threads here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65353
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63886

and a bonus thread on sulfur

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58851

[maccy]

In Crazy Chainsaw's thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68899) which is specifically about the possibility of collapse of the towers causing spontaneous thermite reactions - a possibility that would undermine Steven Jones' (nano-)thermite/mate hypotheses - stundie has posted this:

Hi Neil,

Welcome and thank you for you fascinating post regarding this subject. I have made references the molten metal which was found at the bottom of the collapsed with other JREFers and the only answers I seem to get are:-

A) Its been debunker (With no reference or evidence that shows this)
B) Its the aluminuim and kersone from the jet(Which doesn't explain how the tempratures were hot enough to melt the steels beams)
C) Its a pit fire, did you know pitfires get hot.
D) There were no fires! (even though there is plenty of evidence and witness accounts to show otherwise)

I'm glad that someone as manage to explain scientifically that this nano thermite reaction is impossible. I'm not a scientist but the explanations do not add up.

I will warn you, that because your explanation doesn't fit in with the offical story or the debunkers versions, you may like me, maybe labelled a conspiracy theorists, even though I would never consider myself one! Its not like I believe in the Roswell incident or a space beam was used on WTC.

So thank you again and please keep posting to keep the debate alive. Who knows maybe we might get a proper investigation as to what happened on 9/11. :)

stundie

I belive that stundie will find all the answers he needs in this thread, but if anybody want's to explain it to him again then go for it...

[maccy]

A couple more points from stundie in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68899):

I'm aware of what a nano thermite reaction is and I have heard this being used to explain why there was molten metal at the bottom of the rubble, although I'm not a scientist I have always thought this was a ridiculous claim because no plane hit WTC 7, yet there is molten metal underneath there.

For proof off thermal images on WTC7 - Which no plane hit!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html - Sorry I'm using a conspiracy site here, but I just clicked on the 1st image I could fine.

There is also evidence of Thermite before the towers collapse. http://www.explosive911analysis.com (http://www.explosive911analysis.com/) See fig 9 & 10. Which again blows the nano thermite reaction out of the water! Along with no plane hitting WTC7!

As it is stundie's wont to claim on other threads that his ideas about molten metal and thermite haven't been addressed, I'm copying all his points to this thread fro further discussion.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Argument from personal incredulity.
Maccy was pointing out what Chainsaw and Neil were talking about, I was letting him know I knew what they were talking about.
Agrument from peronal incredulity....Hardly considering I'm not arguing anything at all.
"I'm not a scientist I have always thought this was a ridiculous claim because no plane hit WTC 7, yet there is molten metal underneath there" is making an argument, and one based upon personal incredulity at that.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam ; unless you care to provide a better substantiation of your claim that it is "an absurd theory".
Substaniate my claim....Quite simple!! NO PLANE HIT WTC7, yet there are pools of molten metal found like in the other WTC.

False choice fallacy, aka false dichotemy, aka bifurcation; you claim that there can not be molten metal in the WTC 7 rubble unless a plane hit it. This is patently false. There were fires at the time of the collapse; a plane was not required to be a source of heat.


Maccy's quote made no accusations against you, Neil, or CC; it was a clarification.
So whats this then....

Originally Posted by maccy
I don't think either chainsaw or neil believe that thermite was planted in the towers in order to cut through the core columns.

A clarification? If you interpret it differently, then elucidate as to why.


Straw man
I love making straw man comments.
That certainly seems to be the case.


Then present it in a manner that can be debated clearly; because your opinion doesn't mean squat.
If I argued my points on WTC Collapses it would require another thread and we would be going off the subject and I like to keep to the subject.
Then don't bring it up to begin with.


That is exactly what they are saying; if it can be shown that a nanothermite reaction is a possible explanation, then the onus is on Jones to defend his assertion and in doing so must show evidence that precludes a nanothermite reaction, or how a nanothermite reaction could not have occurred.
Whoever thought a Nano Thermite Reaction could occur, then it is upto them to present the facts. No Prof Jones!
Go reread what I wrote. QED.


Evidence?
Again no plane hit WTC 7, Neils post arguing how it could not have been possible. Sightings of a thermite reaction before the towers collapsed!! Is that good enough for you.

Reread my comments above regarding your plane/wtc7 argument. Additionally, you have failed to prove that your claims of thermite reaction prior to collapse are, in fact, what you claim they are.

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


Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade
Specific example where Jones has done so?
Is he not the proponent of a Thermite reaction being used. Something which NIST Ignored. Not sure what you don't understand about that statement.
That is not a glaring mistake or contradiction. He is making an assertion and must substantiate it.

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade
You are either failing to understand the answers being provided to you, or you are committing Straw man fallacies. Either way, your list is erroneous.
No I am not failing to understand the answers. These are the answers being given. Argumentum ad ignorantiam!!
Do you even understand what an argumentum ad ignoratium fallacy is?

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade
I'll defer to those more knowledgeable in the relevant areas than I to comment on the veracity of Neil's statements.
Good, lets leave them too it then, but no ones refuted Neils post yet and his argument seem very plausable & water tight, although of course he could be wrong.
You admit to not having sufficient knowledge in the area in question to make a contribution to the thread, yet you also claim that Neil's argument is watertight? Do you see the contradiction here?

[Hellbound]

Molten metal:

It's reasonably certain that molten metal was found under the rubble piles. I think we can all agree on that (mostly).

It's not certain that this metal was steel, aluminum, iron, or whatever else. We don't know. To my knowledge, it was never tested. From the available pictures, showing the color of the molten material, it's most likely aluminum, as steel would not be molten at red temperatures, and there weren't significant quantities of other metals present.

So, we have molten aluminum.

Stundie, I'd suggest you start looking up some information on thermodynamics and heat flow. Specifically, learn the difference between, temperature and heat energy, and how values such as the "combustion temperature" of a substance are calculated. I'll offer a short summary, but by all means check into some good physics resources and verify my statements:

Temperature:

Temperature is a measure of the average molecular energy of an object. That sounds confusing, but not really. Heat is the motion/vibration of molecules or atoms in a substance. Temperature relates to the average amount of motion per molecule.

Heat Energy:

Energy is the ability to do work, and can come in many forms. Specifically, we're talking about the energy from the heat it contains. Where temperature measures the average speed of molecules, heat is the sum of all the speeds of each individual molecule.

Combustion Temperature:

This is the temperature a material burns at in open air.

So what's the difference? What does all this mean?

Heat and temperature:
Think about baking a cake in the oven. The cake bakes at, say 450 degrees. When it's done, you stick your hand in to get the cake out. If you touch the metal pan, heated to 450 degrees, it'll burn you. If you touch the cake, also at 450 degrees, you can possibly touch it for a few seconds before it burns. The entire time, your hand is surrounded by air that's at 450 degrees.

This example deals with a value of materials called specific heat, but it also illustrates the difference between temperature and heat. The pan, cake, and air in the oven are all at the same temperature...but the pan contains more heat energy than the cake, which in turn contains more than the air. The pan also transmits the heat better; but I do not want to confuse the issue here.

Now, all heat is energy. Temperature, however, is not directly a measure of energy. The temperature of a substance, together with its specific heat and volume, can be used to determine energy. SO energy is the total, while temperature is the average.

So, where does combustion temperature fit in?

Combustion temperature is, specifically, the maximum temperature in open air. This is not the highest temperature this substance can produce from being burned, however...and that is where you make a mistake in your reasoning. The combustion temperature is the temperature at which the amount of heat energy that is being lost by transmission to the air around the burning material matches the amount of energy being produced by the combustion reaction.

Now, let's put this together. How could you increase the combustion temperature of an object? We know that, at combustion temperature, the heat produced equals the heat lost. So, we have two ways to get a higher temperature. You are only considering the first: changing fuels. If you use a fuel that produces more combustion energy (or, more specifically, produces heat energy faster. In physics, the rate of energy production per unit time is termed power). So if we used, say, thermite, with a combustion temperature in the thousands, we could raise the temperature produced.

But there is another way, and it's a way that's been used for thousands of years. Reduce the rate of heat lost to the surroundings. This is the principle behind any wood-burning stove, for example, of forced-air kilns, or even traditional kilns. This is why forges in the Middle Ages were able to heat iron to the point of being malleable using wood fires. Just as a side note, pure iron has a higher melting temperature than steel, so the fact that metal can be forged is proof that even steel can be weakened by wood fires. So, if we produce our fire in an insulated area, the heat energy produced can't escape, and the temperature rises. Even a slow-burning fire can raise the temperatures to an extreme level, given enough time. As has been stated, the molten metal was found months later...plenty of time for a slow-burning fire, insulated by huge piles of rubble, to raise a temperature significantly.

It's likely that the majority of the molten metal was melted by slow-burning, well-insulated rubble fires; and that the major component of that molten metal was aluminum (which made up the vast majority of metal in the towers). The exception to this is the molten material seen falling out of a window shortly after impact, which was likely parts of the aluminum aircraft skin melted by the intense (but short-duration) jet fuel fire (again, the metal is identified by the color it produces. For more information on heat and color, try Googling "black body radiation").

For further evidence, google for "melted metal house fire" and you'll find several references to normal fires that melted metal. Examples:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2293203,00.htmlHe added that the temperature inside the studios would have reached between 500C - 1000C during the fire which is hot enough to melt metal, leading to fears that the valves may be damaged beyond repair.

http://www.centuryhouse.org/bigfire.html From 1895:
The melted metal from the church bell was broken up into fragments and carried off by relic hunters.

http://www.assocfire.com/article4.html This one is interesting because it shows that normal house fires quite commonly melt copper, and that melted steel was mistakenly identified in a HUGE number of cases. Much has been written and taught about the significance of melted or decomposed metal and melted or crazed glass, as these indicators apply to black holes. The question is, just how valid are these indicators?Melted copper, either pipes or wires, was present in 84% of the structures examined. To our surprise, melted steel was identified in 98% of the structures examined. Since we know that steel has a higher melting temperature than copper, it was not at all clear why this should be so. To explore this question, we obtained some bedsprings upon which to experiment. The springs were exposed to temperatures ranging from 1,300 to 2,500ºF, and then examined metallurgically. Additionally, four bedsprings from an isolated black hole (in another state) were also examined. The results were surprising. What we learned was that, while a bedspring may give the appearance of melting, it may be only heavily oxidized. Bedsprings which have been exposed to temperatures of 1,500ºF for any length of time are subject to deterioration which appears to be melting, but is not. The metallurgical evaluation is explained in the Fire Technology article, and in somewhat more detail, the evaluation is described in a recently published article in The National Fire and Arson Report. (2) The bottom line with melted steel is that you can’t determine whether it has melted by visual examination alone. In order to make a determination that a piece of steel has melted, a microscopic metallurgical evaluation is required.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:8Q_9iQ6Si1MJ:www.nfpa.org/displayContent.asp%3FcategoryID%3D709%26itemID%3D1 9683+melted+metal+house+fire&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=15 This is the Google cache, as the original require login. Remember, there are electrical systems, chemicals, and other materials in the building as well. IN this case, the melted metal was first due to a faulty flourescent light. The fire originated in a fluorescent light fixture in the storeroom. One end of the fixture melted, and molten metal dripped onto the boxes, igniting them. Damage to the building, valued at $6.2 million, and to its contents, valued at $1 million, was estimated at $5,000 and $45,000, respectively. There were no injuries.

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061017/NEWS01/610170366/1007Behind him as he spoke were black, crisped doors, lovely arched windows with the panes knocked out, melted garage shelves, a soccer ball, an antique dresser, melted metal shelves, blackened work gloves and his daughter Haley's burnt school notebook. "We got her schoolwork out so she could take it to school."

[gumboot]

For the record,

In the video from the PBS doco "Rebuilding America" a digger is shown withdrawing a steel beam from the rubble. The steel beam is NEAR MOLTEN - that is to say it's about "salmon" colour, and a bit dribbly at the end, but mostly a solid piece.

It is almost certainly steel, it is definately not aluminium, and it is most certainly INCREDIBLY hot.

This is solid evidence of extensive fires in the WTC at the time of collapse - fires that were buried in the collapse and continued to burn slowly, maintaining heat, underground. As fires will do.

It is not a narrow molten-steel cut, from something like thermite. It is an ENTIRE beam glowing yellow.

molten or near-molten steel at GZ 6 weeks after 9/11 is conclusive evidence of extensive fires in the WTC at the time of collapse.
It is in no way evidence of CD.

-Gumboot

[R.Mackey]

For the record,

In the video from the PBS doco "Rebuilding America" a digger is shown withdrawing a steel beam from the rubble. The steel beam is NEAR MOLTEN - that is to say it's about "salmon" colour, and a bit dribbly at the end, but mostly a solid piece.

It is almost certainly steel, it is definately not aluminium, and it is most certainly INCREDIBLY hot.

molten or near-molten steel at GZ 6 weeks after 9/11 is conclusive evidence of extensive fires in the WTC at the time of collapse.
It is in no way evidence of CD.
Wow. I didn't know about that.

It bears repeating that the chemical energy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2005440#post2005440) stored in the Towers themselves -- even discounting underground fuel lines -- was unimaginably vast, equal to over 100 times the energy released in the collapses themselves.

Enough energy to melt metal, possibly including steel? You betcha.

How much thermite would it take to even equal this amount of energy? Oh, about 7 x 107 mol of the Fe (III) variant at optimum efficiency, or 10,000 tons.

Even Steven Jones should be able to find that. If it was real, that is.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I wish to state Although I respect Neil an his prospective, he did use an obvious fallacy to make a point.

It is entirely possible to have pools of shiny silver liquid aluminum that have no oxide once you skim them, and it will not burn, but interestingly look at what happens if you heat a mixture of 50/50 Mg/Al. Note the oxide layer does nothing in this case to stop oxidization (this is a total aside and has nothing to do with anything).

Unless you are superman you can not move at a speed where it is possible to remove the oxide coating, without it reforming and protecting the metal, all you can do is remove the buildup of Oxides.
Because the formation of new oxides takes only micro seconds, you would literally have to move at hundreds of meters per second to scrape the oxide off of aluminum without it reforming, in an oxygen atmosphere it is that reactive. The shininess of the material is irrelevant to that. As far as I know only sono chemical reactions, and high speed impacts can do that.
The Magnesium, argument is also flawed, because the magnesium is not as well protected and produces temperatures that super heat he Al, causing both to react.
Everything that Neil has said, backs up my arguments, and makes them stronger, I think the difference is I have been researching the exact mechanism that triggers the oxidation reactions, while he has been researching fuels and fires in general.
Neil's points were already known to me before the discussion began, as I have talked with several metallurgical engineers on this very subject.
I agree with Neil on the kerosene fuels there, in that there is no debate, and I never said that kerosene fuels would not produce those temperatures, in fact I depend on them to.
Nist, however did find evidence of Oxidized Aluminum, and the white flashes that accompany them, All I was trying to show is there may in fact be many ways that Aluminum or other reactive metals would have reacted in the fires, given the physics involved.
Since Dr. Steven Jones ruled them out completely with flawed experiments.
The situations are just to complex for easy assumptions, or experiments that can not possibly recreate the conditions to explain.
Spraying water on a pan of molten aluminum trying to get a hydrogen reaction in a furnace is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
NO matter what the pressure the oxide will hardened as well as the metal under it. But if you take aluminum suspend a grating directly over the water line of a pan of water, and drop molten aluminum into the water the Aluminum going though the grid breaks the oxide layer, causing an oxidizing reaction, and releasing hydrogen.

Neil this is not ment as an attack simply a statement of what I believe, and have learned based on experiments and converstations with engineers, and Metullergical experts. I think you have a lot to add exspecially with your research back ground and I do whole heartedly welcome you to the Jerf Forum.

PS. If I am wrong in any of this please point out my fallacy, we learn best when people point out where we are wrong.
Thanks.