10 story hole in WTC 7

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by C7
The debris damage was not a significant factor in the initiating event.

Wrong again.

There was NO debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 or 81]

They are talking about debris [floors] falling as a result of fires.

The core columns were 2 stories high with splices 3' above the odd numbered floors.
Several floors would have to collapse around a column before it would fail.

You are a liar. It clearly states this

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Now I have bolded the important part here. It means that it could have been debri damage or it could have been fire or it could be both. In cases where they mention the debri damage contributing it was significant.

You have been caught again with your dishonesty and quite frankly it stinks

Just admit your claim is incorrect and try to redeem your character here mate, I get a sense of frustration and desperation in your recent posts. Maybe you are getting close to the relization you are completely and utterly wrong.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?p=3611577#post3611577)
You are entitled to your opinion, however, you are ignoring to POINT, which is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

No, Chris. I am addressing the erroneous POINT that you asserted at least a dozen times, i.e., that the steel was destroyed illegally, and the erroneous POINT you asserted repeatedly, i.e., that the removal and eventual destruction of the steel constituted a felony.

You repeated these erroneous assertions over and over again, and you are quite wrong. I would suggest that you retract your repeated assertions of illegality and felonious actions.You are doing both.

New York Penal Law Section 215.40 - Tampering With Physical Evidence.

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal...40_215.40.html (http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0215.40_215.40.html)

§ 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence. A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. With intent that it be used or introduced in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, he (a) knowingly makes, devises or prepares false physical evidence, or (b) produces or offers such evidence at such a proceeding knowing it to be false; or
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force, intimidation or deception against any person. Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.


An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.
FEMA and NIST have conducted investigations.
Without the physical evidence they cannot properly investigate, they can only speculate.

How can you say that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Christopher7 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?p=3611577#post3611577)
You are entitled to your opinion, however, you are ignoring to POINT, which is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

You are doing both.

New York Penal Law Section 215.40 - Tampering With Physical Evidence.

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal...40_215.40.html (http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0215.40_215.40.html)

§ 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence. A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. With intent that it be used or introduced in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, he (a) knowingly makes, devises or prepares false physical evidence, or (b) produces or offers such evidence at such a proceeding knowing it to be false; or
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force, intimidation or deception against any person. Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.


An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.
FEMA and NIST have conducted investigations.
Without the physical evidence they cannot properly investigate, they can only speculate.

How can you say that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?
How it going with the NY state DA office Chris? Get them to hand out any felony warrants yet?:boggled:

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
There was NO debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 or 81]

They are talking about debris [floors] falling as a result of fires.

The core columns were 2 stories high with splices 3' above the odd numbered floors.
Several floors would have to collapse around a column before it would fail.

It clearly states this:

Originally Posted by NIST current working hypothesis for WTC&
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;What part of

There was NO debris damage from WTC 1, to or near the area of the initiating event.

don't you understand?

The NIST hypothesis requires several floor systems to fail before a column could fail.*

The debris damage referred to in the initiating event must be debris from the floors collapsing.

*If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing.
At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. . . . . This column, . . would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.

[Christopher7]

Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force, intimidation or deception against any person. Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.

How it going with the NY state DA office Chris? Get them to hand out any felony warrants yet?:boggled:Are you saying that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?
:confused:

[DGM]

Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force, intimidation or deception against any person. Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.

Are you saying that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?
:confused:
Yes. The way your interpreting that law it would be illegal to throw anything away. Everything has the potential to be used in an investigation some day. Now all you need to do is show the crime where the steel would be used in evidence. That's why you need to talk with the DA, this is a "penal" code.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
There was NO debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 or 81]

They are talking about debris [floors] falling as a result of fires.

The core columns were 2 stories high with splices 3' above the odd numbered floors.
Several floors would have to collapse around a column before it would fail.

What part of

There was NO debris damage from WTC 1, to or near the area of the initiating event.

don't you understand?

The NIST hypothesis requires several floor systems to fail before a column could fail.*

The debris damage referred to in the initiating event must be debris from the floors collapsing.

*If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing.
At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. . . . . This column, . . would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.


Therefore debri damage was significant. You claimed different, you are wrong

You have debunked yourself

well done Chris

They clearly say and/or, what part of that do you not understand. It means that it could have debri damage alone that caused it. If it was not fire that caused the debri damage from falling floors then it must have been debri damage from WTC towers. You are being more obtuse than normal. I know you can admit you are wrong sometimes, this is one of those times

[funk de fino]

Are you saying that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?
:confused:

You are saying that this law applies in this case, you must show it does, not just show it exists.

[Christopher7]

Therefore debri damage was significant. You claimed different, you are wrong
They clearly say and/or, what part of that do you not understand. It means that it could have debri damage alone that caused it. If it was not fire that caused the debri damage from falling floors then it must have been debri damage from WTC towers.

There was NO debris damage from WTC 1, to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 and 81]

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg

[Christopher7]

You are saying that this law applies in this case, you must show it does, not just show it exists.I did already.

Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force, intimidation or deception against any person. Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.

The physical evidence was destroyed.
An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.
FEMA and NIST have conducted investigations.
The destruction of the physical evidence that would no doubt be used in a prospective official proceeding is a violation of this law.


DGM: There need not be a crime, only a prospective official proceeding.
The FEMA and NIST reports are official proceedings.

[DGM]

DGM: There need not be a crime, only a prospective official proceeding.
The FEMA and NIST reports are official proceedings.



Wrong!

Call the NY state DA. Do you want me to give you their number?

[LashL]

Are you saying that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?
:confused:

Yes. I am saying that the removal of the debris from the site and the eventual sale of some of the steel from the site was not a violation of this law. And, by the way, NY state law is not even applicable in this matter.

[Jonnyclueless]

Has anyone asked a demolition company if they could get a 47 story building to take 18 seconds to collapse?

[funk de fino]

There was NO debris damage from WTC 1, to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 and 81]


A man shouting is in desperation

The debris damage referred to in the initiating event must be debris from the floors collapsing.

The debris damage was not a significant factor in the initiating event.

The current NIST hypothesis for collapse of WTC7 quite clearly uses the words AND/OR, you explain to me why Chris? You have not showed that NIST has claimed the debri damage from the WTC tower was not a significant factor in the collapse. Just because it was not near the columns you posted does not mean it was not a significant factor in the collapse. You cannot claim it because you do not know and you do not have all the evidence they have.

You contradicted the current NIST working hypothesis, you are incorrect. Continuing to post large, bold character, cherry picking quotes, means nothing.

[funk de fino]

I did already.


No, you never, you just repeated the fact that this law existed. You must show why it applies in this case. Does NY state law apply in this case and if so why?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Ok, so you say its not a Federal responsibility even though the case involves aircraft hijacking. Wrong, i said:
"I don't know the federal statute that would apply here so i don't know if they [FBI] would have to sign off."

I did not specify FBI. However since the case did involve an aircraft hijacking I believe that the FBI would have jurisdiction. If explosives were involved then the ATF also have jurisdiction. I am quite sure that Federal law includes evidence tampering statues. however you have chosen to concentrate on NY law and have been asked many times now why there is no hint even of a case concerning the evidence tampering you claim is so very much in evidence.
no Federal case, no NY State case, no NYC case, no private citizen petitioning the court, none,nada,zip,zilch

On the point of the evidence that is available for both DD/F and CD being the videos and eyewitness statements there are no unambiguous videos(or audio for that matter) that bolster the contention of explosives. There are many instances of video in which major office fires are quite evident.
There are dozens of examples of FF's stating that the building was unstable even early on in the day and that the building was expected to suffer some form of collapse. There are a few examples of statements of explosive sounds and one statement in which one person claims to have heard a countdown, over a radio, from a distance.

It is therefore quite obvious that the available evidence points very strongly in only one direction, that of DD and fire having caused the collapse of WTC 7.

[GStan]

There was NO debris damage from WTC 1, to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 and 81]

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg

Do you believe that increasing the font size can make a weak argument stronger? While no damage was directly observed and then reported in the area of the initiating event, you cannot unequivocally state that it was not there the way you do. Look at your picture from this post. The orange area showing known damage is right next to the red area, the area of the initiating event. It is certainly possible that there was additional damage not readily visible from the exterior of a badly damaged burning skyscraper, or, as Funk pointed out, from failing floors. Increasing the font size to scream "the absence of evidence in one area of your theory is rock solid evidence for mine" only makes you look foolish, particularly after 4500+ posts.

[Christopher7]

While no damage was directly observed and then reported in the area of the initiating event, you cannot unequivocally* state that it was not there the way you do.The hypothesis is based on column 79, 80 or 81 failing first. [see NIST WTC 7 summary 07-12-18 pg 6]
*I can say "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

Look at your picture from this post. The orange area showing known damage is right next to the red area, the area of the initiating event.The large orange area is not close to columns 79, 80 or 81.
Furthermore:
The Orange area is the '10 story gouge' [floor 10 to the ground] as described on NIST L-18.
There are 4 statements that refute that single statement.
The larger area [1/3 the width] would have taken out taken out part of the 9th floor wall, part the atrium [ground to floor 5] and left a great deal of heavy debris in the lobby. It would have been noticed by the Chief in charge of operations.

Funk and i agreed earlier in this thread that the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] was a misinterpretation of damage further west.

It is certainly possible that there was additional damage not readily visible from the exterior of a badly damaged burning skyscraper,Anything not visible from the exterior would not be debris damage from WTC 1.

or, as Funk pointed out, from failing floors. I agree. Several floors would have to fail around column 79, 80 or 81 [the initiating event].

[funk de fino]

The hypothesis is based on column 79, 80 or 81 failing first. [see NIST WTC 7 summary 07-12-18 pg 6]
*I can say "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

No, "in my opinion" would be better

The large orange area is not close to columns 79, 80 or 81.
Furthermore:
The Orange area is the '10 story gouge' [floor 10 to the ground] as described on NIST L-18.
There are 4 statements that refute that single statement.
The larger area [1/3 the width] would have taken out taken out part of the 9th floor wall, part the atrium [ground to floor 5] and left a great deal of heavy debris in the lobby. It would have been noticed by the Chief in charge of operations.

Funk and i agreed earlier in this thread that the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] was a misinterpretation of damage further west.
Just because the gouge from top to bottum was further west does not mean there was not damage where the red and orange parts are.

Barry Jennings seemed to think there were many many debris and damage in the lobby.

Anything not visible from the exterior would not be debris damage from WTC 1

This is a terrible claim. How can you possibly tell what damage was done internally to the building because it could not be seen from the exterior. Does this mean that there was no damage to any lifts because it could not be seen from outside?

I agree. Several floors would have to fail around column 79, 80 or 81 [the initiating event].

Wait for the full report Chris

[LashL]

Christopher7,

Are you conceding that you were wrong in your repeated assertions that the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of some of the steel from the site was illegal?

[Christopher7]

No, "in my opinion" would be betterThere was NO damage to or near columns 79, 80 or 81 from falling WTC 1 debris.
Even the unsubstantiated damage in the orange area is NOT near columns 79, 80 and 81.

Just because the gouge from top to bottum was further west does not mean there was not damage where the red and orange parts are.
The orange area is rather large. It would have created a large gouge. The only large hole was around floor 14, west of center, and
the 20+ story gouge between columns 5 & 6 [Smith#] west of center.

Barry Jennings seemed to think there were many many debris and damage in the lobby.The firefighters that rescued Barry said there was no heavy debris in the lobby.
Barry did NOT say there was heavy debris in the lobby, he just said it was destroyed.

How can you possibly tell what damage was done internally to the building because it could not be seen from the exterior. Does this mean that there was no damage to any lifts because it could not be seen from outside?The possible damage to core columns from the explosion that blew two elevator cars into the hallway north of the shaft [90' from the south side] was NOT near columns 79, 80 and 81.

There is NO evidence or reports of damage to or near columns 79, 80 or 81 and NO reason to believe there was.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7,

Are you conceding that you were wrong in your repeated assertions that the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of some* of the steel from the site was illegal?No, The law states:

New York Penal Law Section 215.40 - Tampering with physical evidence.
A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction,

*99%


I do not know the federal statute for the destruction of evidence but you do.

Would you please post it?

[LashL]

No, The law states:

Christopher7,

Let's assume for the moment that the state law you've cited repeatedly actually applies (even though it doesn't).

Even if it did apply, the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of some of the steel was NOT a violation of this law. Do you really not understand why?

[Jonnyclueless]

The reason he doesn't know why is the same reason twoofers don't understand why they aren't taken seriously or don't understand why they don't understand people like us not seeing all these things as crimes. So of course Chris is not going to get it.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7,

Let's assume for the moment that the state law you've cited repeatedly actually applies (even though it doesn't).Why not?

Even if it did apply, the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of some of the steel was NOT a violation of this law.Get serious.
The removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence needed to determine the cause of the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a violation of this law [it happened in the state of NY] and federal law.

Once again, will you please post the federal statute regarding the destruction of evidence and when it applies?

[Jonnyclueless]

See, I told you he wouldn't get it.

[LashL]

Why not?


I was going to tell you, but you continue to make assertions of fact (such as in the third sentence of your post) despite the fact that you have no basis for doing so. Thus, I view this as a learning opportunity for you to try to puzzle it out for yourself.


Get serious.


I am quite serious. Unlike yourself, I actually know a thing or two about the law and about statutory interpretation. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer to simply choose a few words here and there, misinterpret them, and ignore all of the other important words.


The removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence needed to determine the cause of the total collapseof WTC 1, 2 and 7 steel was a violation of this law [it happened in the state of NY] and federal law.


First, nice attempt at rhetoric by inserting nonsense, but don't bother. It adds nothing to the discussion and only makes you look like a fool.

Second, no, the removal, sale and/or destruction of the steel by those authorized to do so was not a violation of the law, either state or federal.


Once again, will you please post the federal statute regarding the destruction of evidence and when it applies?


See above.

[Christopher7]

I was going to tell you, but you continue to make assertions of fact (such as in the third sentence of your post) despite the fact that you have no basis for doing so. Thus, I view this as a learning opportunity for you to try to puzzle it out for yourself. You dodged the question. Why do you think the state law does not apply?

The removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence needed to determine the cause of the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a violation of this law [it happened in the state of NY] and federal law.First, nice attempt at rhetoric by inserting nonsense, Nonsense?
Are you saying it is not necessary to examine the physical evidence to determine how all 3 buildings collapsed totally?
Lacking sufficient physical evidence, NIST did not and cannot explain anything past the initiation of the collapse in the Trade Towers.

Second, no, the removal, sale and/or destruction of the steel by those authorized to do so was not a violation of the law, either state or federal.Circular [Nixonian] logic. No one is authorized to break the law.
Whoever authorized the removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence, broke the law.

Originally Posted by Christopher7
Once again, will you please post the federal statute regarding the destruction of evidence and when it applies?See above.Can you spell cop-out?

What is the federal statute?

[Jonnyclueless]

LOL!

[LashL]

You dodged the question.


Not at all. I've told you that the answer is easy to find, and I am trying to coax you into finding it for yourself because the exercise will be extremely beneficial to you. You tend to post numerous assertions as factual even when they are entirely unsupported and even when they are dead wrong, so this will be a valuable learning experience for you, and one that is very easy to resolve. That is why I want you to do it for yourself.


Why do you think the state law does not apply?


The answer will be obvious to you - as it is to nearly everyone else on the planet - once you engage in the straightforward process noted above.


Nonsense?


Yes, your reframing of the matter at issue was and remains utter nonsense.

Circular [Nixonian] logic. No one is authorized to break the law. Whoever authorized the removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence, broke the law.


Wrong again. On all counts.

There is nothing whatsoever in my post that amounts to circular or Nixonian logic. It is your own startlingly poor reading comprehension that leads you astray once again.

You really have to do better if you expect anyone to take you seriously. Try reading for comprehension and try getting a grasp on statutory interpretation before you embarrass yourself further.


Can you spell cop-out?


Why, yes. Yes, I can. Unfortunately for you, however, the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the current discussion, and your use of it will not cajole me into giving you the answer since, as I've stated previously, the purpose is to get you to educate yourself on certain points that you erroneously, and repeatedly, post as factual when they are not. You seem most unwilling to do so. Why is that?


What is the federal statute?


See above.

[GT/CS]

Chris, my old friend, I strongly suggest you do a search on "George Simpson" before you continue this losing battle with LashL.

[funk de fino]

The firefighters that rescued Barry said there was no heavy debris in the lobby.
Barry did NOT say there was heavy debris in the lobby, he just said it was destroyed.

He said it was destroyed, he said it looked like king kong had been in there. He also said he was taken out through a big hole in the wall.


The possible damage to core columns from the explosion that blew two elevator cars into the hallway north of the shaft [90' from the south side] was NOT near columns 79, 80 and 81.

Now assuming explosions Chris? Just because damage cannot be seen from ouside does not mean it was not caused by the WTC tower. Your initial claim was erroneous.

There is NO evidence or reports of damage to or near columns 79, 80 or 81 and NO reason to believe there was.

Yet, you do not have all the evidence?

[SpitfireIX]

Not at all. I've told you that the answer is easy to find, and I am trying to coax you into finding it for yourself because the exercise will be extremely beneficial to you. You tend to post numerous assertions as factual even when they are entirely unsupported and even when they are dead wrong, so this will be a valuable learning experience for you, and one that is very easy to resolve. That is why I want you to do it for yourself.





The answer will be obvious to you - as it is to nearly everyone else on the planet - once you engage in the straightforward process noted above.





Yes, your reframing of the matter at issue was and remains utter nonsense.




Wrong again. On all counts.

There is nothing whatsoever in my post that amounts to circular or Nixonian logic. It is your own startlingly poor reading comprehension that leads you astray once again.

You really have to do better if you expect anyone to take you seriously. Try reading for comprehension and try getting a grasp on statutory interpretation before you embarrass yourself further.





Why, yes. Yes, I can. Unfortunately for you, however, the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the current discussion, and your use of it will not cajole me into giving you the answer since, as I've stated previously, the purpose is to get you to educate yourself on certain points that you erroneously, and repeatedly, post as factual when they are not. You seem most unwilling to do so. Why is that?





See above.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604815b725af6ba.jpg

"Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh!"

[jaydeehess]

Let me take a stab at this.

In order for there to have been an infraction concerning the destruction of evidence in a crime the material in question must be shown to directly involved in said crime. Material is only considered 'evidence' when a crime has been determined to have taken place and only if it can supply information on that specific crime.

The TM assumes an ill defined crime first, that it was not the aircraft impact and resultant fires that caused the collspes but rather something, anything, else. There is no logical reason to suspect anything other than the aircraft impacts and resultant fires caused the collapses. There is therefore no crime in which the steel is evidence for.


The steel of the buildings has no bearing whatsoever on the actual crimes committed, the hijacking of and deliberate crashing of those aircraft into buildings to commit mass murder and suicide. Thus the steel is of no evidentiary concern and is nothing more than rubble. Had the DFDR and cockpit voice recorder been recovered and found usable then their destruction after the fact would have indeed constituted tampering with evidence since they would shed light on the only real crime for which there is any reason to believe was committed that day.

-------------------------------

If a person (or persons) is killed in a 25 car pile up on a highway caused by a tractor-trailer jacknifing on the freeway the police will not be keeping the wreckage of the 25 cars and the tractor-trailer. If the truck driver is found on the scene to be intoxicated, the police will also not keep the wreckage of the truck as evidence either. The crime was DUI and causing death but the wreckage serves no evidentiary purpose. In a trial all that would be required are pictures of the scene.

[Christopher7]

Not at all. I've told you that the answer is easy to findThat's not the way a debate works. If you make a claim, you have to back it up.
I posted the state law stating that it is a felony to destroy physical evidence that "is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding."
The law applies because:
The unprecedented total collapse of 3 skyscrapers requires an official proceeding to determine the cause. An official proceeding was inevitable.

You say the law doesn't apply. State your reason.

Furthermore, you refuse to post the federal statute on destruction of physical evidence because it probably says the same thing.
This was definitely a federal crime scene. Do you agree?


Originally Posted by C7
The removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence needed to determine the cause of the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a violation of this law [it happened in the state of NY] and federal law.

Yes, your reframing of the matter at issue was and remains utter nonsense. I'm stating the reason for the law.
FACT:
The removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence severely hampered the ability of NIST to determine how the Trade Towers and building 7 collapsed completely.

Are you saying that the physical evidence was not important to the investigation?

FACT:
Lacking sufficient physical evidence, NIST did not, because they could not, explain anything past the initiation of the collapse of the Trade Towers, in their FINAL report!

Are you saying that is not important to determine the cause of the total collapse of all 3 buildings?

Quote:
Second, no, the removal, sale and/or destruction of the steel by those authorized to do so was not a violation of the law, either state or federal.
Originally Posted by Christopher7
Circular [Nixonian] logic. No one is authorized to break the law. Whoever authorized the removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence, broke the law.
There is nothing whatsoever in my post that amounts to circular or Nixonian logic.Nix nix
We are a nation of laws. No one is allowed to break the law.
Who was authorized to ignore this state and federal laws? Show me the statute.

[Christopher7]

In order for there to have been an infraction concerning the destruction of evidence in a crime the material in question must be shown to directly involved in said crime.Wrong.
It is not necessary for there to be a crime, only that the physical evidence "is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding."

[Jonnyclueless]

He still doesn't get it, figures.

[DGM]

By his interpretation of that code it would be a felony to throw anything away. Are we all felons Chris?

[Jwheelz]

Wrong.
It is not necessary for there to be a crime, only that the physical evidence "is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding."

NYC Penal Law Article 215.40 states ---

S 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence.
A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. With intent that it be used or introduced in an official proceeding
or a prospective official proceeding, he (a) knowingly makes, devises or
prepares false physical evidence, or (b) produces or offers such
evidence at such a proceeding knowing it to be false; or
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or
used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and
intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act
of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force,
intimidation or deception against any person.
Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.

To understand what they mean by physical evidence and "official proceeding" they have included Section 215.35 which states ---

S 215.35 Tampering with physical evidence; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to section 215.40:
1. "Physical evidence"; means any article, object, document, record or
other thing of physical substance which is or is about to be produced or
used as evidence in an official proceeding.
2. "Official proceeding" means any action or proceeding conducted by
or before a legally constituted judicial, legislative, administrative or
other governmental agency or official, in which evidence may properly be
received.

The question then becomes, what official proceeding, and which legally constituted judicial, legislative, administrative or other governmental agency or official were about to have this evidence presented to them.

It simply isn't feasible or even reasonable to keep every last piece of matter connected to any particular crime packed up until every last person on the earth is satisfied with the results. It should be fairly obvious to anyone without the CT goggles on that a plane flying into each of the twin towers was the initial cause of the collapses.

The steel involved might make for study material for architects or engineers to better understand the collapses but kept as evidence of a crime???

Only in the eyes of CT's is there any type of a push for a new investigation. Only in the eyes of CT's are there still questions that haven't been answered a thousand times over. Your tiny pathetic movement is severely lacking of competent individuals and educated professionals in any of the relevant fields which is why the most that the 911 truth organizations can do is poison the Internet with their garbage and stay far away from debating true professionals.

I find it absolutely amazing that someone like Chris would come here and try to act like he has a better understanding of the law than some of the people he is debating with who have studied and worked in the legal field for years.

Just keep on bending the facts to support your delusions - that is certainly the twoof mantra.

[Christopher7]

NYC Penal Law Article 215.40 states ---

S 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence.
A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. With intent that it be used or introduced in an official proceeding
or a prospective official proceeding, he (a) knowingly makes, devises or
prepares false physical evidence, or (b) produces or offers such
evidence at such a proceeding knowing it to be false; or
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or
used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and
intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act
of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force,
intimidation or deception against any person.
Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.

To understand what they mean by physical evidence and "official proceeding" they have included Section 215.35 which states ---

S 215.35 Tampering with physical evidence; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to section 215.40:
1. "Physical evidence"; means any article, object, document, record or
other thing of physical substance which is or is about to be produced or
used as evidence in an official proceeding.
2. "Official proceeding" means any action or proceeding conducted by
or before a legally constituted judicial, legislative, administrative or
other governmental agency or official, in which evidence may properly be
received.

The question then becomes, what official proceeding, and which legally constituted judicial, legislative, administrative or other governmental agency or official were about to have this evidence presented to them.FEMA and then NIST.

It simply isn't feasible or even reasonable to keep every last piece of matter connected to any particular crime packed up until every last person on the earth is satisfied with the results.On the other hand, the destruction of 99% of the physical evidence severely hampered the ability of FEMA and NIST to determine the cause of the total collapse of all 3 buildings.
The physical evidence could have and should have been preserved at the Fresh Kills site and other sites.

It should be fairly obvious to anyone without the CT goggles on that a plane flying into each of the twin towers was the initial cause of the collapses.NIST did NOT explain the total collapse. They stopped at the collapse initiation.

The steel involved might make for study material for architects or engineers to better understand the collapses but kept as evidence of a crime??? Read the law you just posted. There is no mention of a crime being necessary, just an official proceeding, or a prospective official proceeding
The physical evidence was essential to determine the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

Only in the eyes of CT's is there any type of a push for a new investigation.Actually, a majority of Americans want a new investigation.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5039

And that number is growing.

[DGM]

Chris:
How'd you make out with the NY DA?

[jaydeehess]

Chris:
How'd you make out with the NY DA?

Oh yeah, didn't someone ask Chris why, if this crime is so very blatant and obvious and would contravene NYC, NY State, and Federal laws concerning evidence tampering, have there been no city, state or federal charges or investigations about it. It is also noteworthy that no citizen has brought this to a court either. Surely if Morgan Reynolds can go to court saying that the planes were faked then someone can go to court and ask a judge to look into the charge that laws were broken in the disposal of the steel.

It truly boggles the mind that other than Reynolds, it seems that no TM group is actually interested in pursueing what they state they are interested in pursueing.

All they wanna do it argue about it on the interwebs.

[LashL]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170604815b725af6ba.jpg

"Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter! Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh! Oooohhhh!"


Arnold was always my favourite character on that show. :D

[LashL]

If you make a claim, you have to back it up.

Yes, indeed, and you have not yet supported your claims that the NY state law you cited applies or that it means that the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of steel from the WTC site constitutes a felony.

You have merely cited the existence of a NY state law, misinterpreted it badly because you haven't a clue about how the law actually works, haven't a clue about statutory interpretation, haven't a clue about the elements of the offence that you claim have been met somehow, (heck, you probably don't even know what the "elements of the offence" means, let alone how to figure out whether or not the elements have been met), and you are simply taking a few words out of a statute and erroneously interpreting them in a way that suits your delusions.

Were you contemplating supporting your claim any time soon?


I posted the state law stating that it is a felony to destroy physical evidence that "is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding."


Ah, now, here is a valuable learning opportunity for you. Statutory interpretation 101: The drafters of statutes are presumed to have chosen their words carefully, and it is presumed that all of the words in any given statute have meaning. In other words, you cannot take only a few words out of a statute, ignore the rest, ignore their definitions, ignore their interplay with other sections and other statutes, and claim that the few words you've chosen to address mean what you want them to mean.

So, take a look at all of the important words that you have been ignoring, and that will give you a clue as to why and how you have gone so wrong.

I'll give you a couple of hints, since you seem to be struggling so badly: pay particular attention to the type of proceeding to which the state statute applies, and pay particular attention to the words that go to the mens rea and the actus reus of the offence.


The law applies because:


Wrong.


I'm stating the reason for the law.


No, you aren't. You have stated nothing but your own uneducated and uninformed interpretation of it, which has no basis in fact or law.


Nix nix.
We are a nation of laws. No one is authorized to break the law.
Who was authorized to ignore this state and federal law?


What on earth are you talking about? It appears that your lack of reading comprehension skills are once again on display for all to see. I did not say or suggest that anyone was authorized to ignore the state law you’ve cited or any particular federal law. You really need to brush up on your reading skills.

[jhunter1163]

I get feeling all squishy inside when LashL uses her lawyer voice.

(I'm kidding, for the benefit of those lurkers who happen to be married to me.)

[Christopher7]

Yes, indeed, and you have not yet supported your claims that the NY state law you cited applies or that it means that the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of steel from the WTC site constitutes a felony. The law:

NYC Penal Law Article 215.40 states ---

S 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence.
A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. With intent that it be used or introduced in an official proceeding
or a prospective official proceeding, he (a) knowingly makes, devises or
prepares false physical evidence, or (b) produces or offers such
evidence at such a proceeding knowing it to be false; or
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or
used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and
intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act
of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force,
intimidation or deception against any person.
Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.

To understand what they mean by physical evidence and "official proceeding" they have included Section 215.35 which states ---

S 215.35 Tampering with physical evidence; definitions of terms.
The following definitions are applicable to section 215.40:
1. "Physical evidence"; means any article, object, document, record or
other thing of physical substance which is or is about to be produced or
used as evidence in an official proceeding.
2. "Official proceeding" means any action or proceeding conducted by
or before a legally constituted judicial, legislative, administrative or
other governmental agency or official, in which evidence may properly be received.


Let's take this one step at a a time.

The evidence was about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding,

Yes or no?

[GlennB]

The law:

NYC Penal Law Article 215.40 states ---

S 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence.
A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. ...
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or
used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and
intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act
of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force,
intimidation or deception against any person.
...

This offence seems to require there to be an official proceeding in the offing, at which the evidence would likely be produced.

At the time of the disposal of WTC7 remains was there any such proceeding imminent or predictable in which debris would be needed in evidence?

If you're saying that all evidence from all damaging occurences must be kept forever in case legal prodeedings might, conceivably, one day, require them as evidence then we'll need some pretty damn huge storage facilities. For example, the remains and contents of every accidentally burned-down house would have to be kept in case someone - years down the line - shouted 'arson'.

But then, I'm no lawyer.

[Christopher7]

This offence seems to require there to be an official proceeding in the offing, at which the evidence would likely be produced.

At the time of the disposal of WTC7 remains was there any such proceeding imminent or predictable in which debris would be needed in evidence?An investigation into these deadly building collapses was not only predictable, it was a certainty.
[There's probably a law requiring the preservation of evidence in a large structure collapse, but i'm not a lawyer either]

FEMA and NIST have since investigated the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the "progressive collapse" of all 3 buildings.

The lack of physical evidence severely hampered the investigations.

NIST did not and CANNOT explain the total collapse of the Trade Towers.

[tsig]

I get feeling all squishy inside when LashL uses her lawyer voice.

(I'm kidding, for the benefit of those lurkers who happen to be married to me.)

Makes me so glad I am not Chris. Those cuts have gotta hurt!

Lie about the law, die by LashL.

[tsig]

An investigation into these deadly building collapses was not only predictable, it was a certainty.
[There's probably a law requiring the preservation of evidence in a large structure collapse, but i'm not a lawyer either]

FEMA and NIST have since investigated the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the "progressive collapse" of all 3 buildings.

The lack of physical evidence severely hampered the investigations.

NIST did not and CANNOT explain the total collapse of the Trade Towers.

It's not the collapse but that they stood so long.

Gravity is the reason someday it will be your season.

I hope you open your eyes before the fall.

[Jwheelz]

An investigation into these deadly building collapses was not only predictable, it was a certainty.
[There's probably a law requiring the preservation of evidence in a large structure collapse, but i'm not a lawyer either]

FEMA and NIST have since investigated the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7.

The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the "progressive collapse" of all 3 buildings.

The lack of physical evidence severely hampered the investigations.

NIST did not and CANNOT explain the total collapse of the Trade Towers.

Here you are mixing your opinion in with what actually happened. Both NIST and FEMA Investigated the structural steel. Neither organization has claimed that they planned to use discarded steel in any form of an official procedure. In order for there to be a crime under the penal law you posted, NIST/FEMA would have had to say that they did indeed wish to use some of the discarded steel in an official proceeding. Neither organization has done so.

Chris thinking that they should have saved more of the steel does not equal any obligation/want that either NIST or FEMA had to save the steel.

YOU are the one stating that THEY should have saved more of the structural steel. YOU do not get to set up an investigation on THEIR part. YOU can form as many opinions about their work as you like, it isn't going to make the removal of any of the debris illegal.

And by the way, nice link to the zogby poll. it is truly amazing the steps that truthers will take to make it seem like their case is a thousand times more important than it actually is.

[GlennB]

An investigation into these deadly building collapses was not only predictable, it was a certainty.

This may be where you're going wrong Chris, vis-a-vis the legal aspect. A technical investigation was a certainty, but legal investigations on the causes of the collapses were certainly not predictable. It took some years for 9/11 "truth" nuttery to build up a head of steam. But - as it happens - I can't even see many legal challenges being mounted by the 9/11 "truth" movement. D'oh! You totally expect legal challenges but don't mount any. Words fail me at this point.

[funk de fino]

NIST did not and CANNOT explain the total collapse of the Trade Towers.

Yes, they did, in their FAQs. In simple terms for stupid truthers

[Christopher7]

Both NIST and FEMA Investigated the structural steel. Neither organization has claimed that they planned to use discarded steel in any form of an official procedure. In order for there to be a crime under the penal law you posted, NIST/FEMA would have had to say that they did indeed wish to use some of the discarded steel in an official proceeding. Neither organization has done so.They should have.
The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the total collapse.
The samples that were saved showed maximum steel temperatures of 250°C. This was not sufficient to cause the collapse initiation.
They did not have sufficient samples to determine how the massive core columns in the lower part of the Trade Towers collapsed.
The numerous reports of explosions cannot be ignored and testing for explosives should have been done.

[Jwheelz]

They should have.
The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the total collapse.
The samples that were saved showed maximum steel temperatures of 250°C. This was not sufficient to cause the collapse initiation.
They did not have sufficient samples to determine how the massive core columns in the lower part of the Trade Towers collapsed.
The numerous reports of explosions cannot be ignored and testing for explosives should have been done.

I understand it is your opinion that "they should have" however, they didn't. They didn't announce any plans to use any of the now discarded steel in an official presentation.

Can you agree to that?

Will you now stop saying that it was illegal to discard steel from the WTC site?

You can wish it to be illegal all you want, that doesn't make it illegal.

[adoucette]

They should have.
The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the total collapse.
The samples that were saved showed maximum steel temperatures of 250°C. This was not sufficient to cause the collapse initiation.
They did not have sufficient samples to determine how the massive core columns in the lower part of the Trade Towers collapsed.
The numerous reports of explosions cannot be ignored and testing for explosives should have been done.

And its fine that you have YOUR opinion.

But

I'm curious Christopher,

How would NIST have unambiguously identify SPECIFIC pieces of steel in WTC 7 since they didn't have location markings like WTC columns?

How would NIST have determined the difference between damage caused BEFORE the collapse, DURING the collapse or AFTER the collapse (in the fires in the debris pile or in the process of recovery)?

Why would anyone who had witnessed the top down global collapse following the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires think that the study of the lower core columns would be in any way relevant to WHY the towers collapsed?

[Christopher7]

It's not the collapse but that they stood so long.

Gravity is the reason someday it will be your season.Just saying that gravity caused the collapse does not qualify as an answer to how the Trade Towers collapse completely. It has to be proven that gravity caused the total symmetrical collapse of both towers. NIST did not.

[funk de fino]

They should have.
The physical evidence was essential to determine the cause of the total collapse.
The samples that were saved showed maximum steel temperatures of 250°C. This was not sufficient to cause the collapse initiation.
They did not have sufficient samples to determine how the massive core columns in the lower part of the Trade Towers collapsed.
The numerous reports of explosions cannot be ignored and testing for explosives should have been done.

I do hope you are not suggesting fire temps in the twin towers did not reach 250 deg C? You have already had your ass handed to you over fire temps Chris.

The samples saved that they knew the location of pre collapse were the inportant ones Chris. You do know that those samples were sent to independant investigators and they agreed with NIST?

Can you verify that the forensic tests carried out at the staging areas did not include explosives checks?

[funk de fino]

Just saying that gravity caused the collapse does not qualify as an answer to how the Trade Towers collapse completely. It has to be proven that gravity caused the total symmetrical collapse of both towers. NIST did not.

NIST explain it Chris. If you disagree with their claims and findings on that then I suggest this is the time to show us your work?

I will give you a wee clue here. Gravity did not cause it. Fire did not cause it. Plane smashing into building did not cause it.

A combination of all of the above caused it. Please be accurate in your claims.

[Christopher7]

How would NIST have unambiguously identify SPECIFIC pieces of steel in WTC 7 since they didn't have location markings like WTC columns?If they were allowed to inspect and select the evidence at the collapse site, they would have been able to positively identify steel from WTC 7.

How would NIST have determined the difference between damage caused BEFORE the collapse, DURING the collapse or AFTER the collapse (in the fires in the debris pile or in the process of recovery)? NIST would have been able to identify steel framework deformed due to intense fire or severed with cutting charges.

Why would anyone who had witnessed the top down global collapse following the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires think that the study of the lower core columns would be in any way relevant to WHY the towers collapsed?They were part of the collapse.
The question is: why did all three buildings collapse totally?
NIST does not answer this question.
They stop at collapse initiation.

[Christopher7]

I understand it is your opinion that "they should have" however, they didn't. They didn't announce any plans to use any of the now discarded steel in an official presentation*.
Can you agree to that? [*proceeding] Yes

Will you now stop saying that it was illegal to discard steel from the WTC site?
No. FEMA's failure to request that the physical evidence be preserved resulted in NIST not having enough to determine the cause of the collapse.

99% of the physical evidence was destroyed before NIST got involved.

NIST studied the samples that FEMA saved and found that:
Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature greater than 250°C
Two core columns in impact area with sufficient paint
• Columns 603 (floors 92-93) and 605 (floors 98-99)
• Paint analysis indicate both columns less than 250°C
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

These temperatures were not sufficient to weaken the perimeter or core columns.
Due to the lack of sufficient physical evidence, NIST was unable to confirm steel temperatures sufficient to cause the initiation of the collapses.

[funk de fino]

If they were allowed to inspect and select the evidence at the collapse site, they would have been able to positively identify steel from WTC 7.

All evidence should have been left in place at the site? I do not think you would have had the balls to tell the firefighters that when they were trying to save people. You really are a fantasist aren't you?

NIST would have been able to identify steel framework deformed due to intense fire or severed with cutting charges.

The stleel had already been forensically examined and catalogued

They were part of the collapse.
The question is: why did all three buildings collapse totally?
NIST does not answer this question.
They stop at collapse initiation.

You have either got me on ignore or you are a nasty little liar. NIST answer the collapse theory in their FAQs.

[DC]

Removing the steel from ground zero is a good thing, but melt it was a very very bad idea.......

[gumboot]

Removing the steel from ground zero is a good thing, but melt it was a very very bad idea.......

What should they have done with it?

[DC]

What should they have done with it?

store it till the investigation is completly done.

[Christopher7]

I do hope you are not suggesting fire temps in the twin towers did not reach 250 deg C? No. steel temps did not exceed 250 °C.

The samples saved that they knew the location of pre collapse were the inportant ones Chris. You do know that those samples were sent to independant investigators and they agreed with NIST?What did they agree on?

Can you verify that the forensic tests carried out at the staging areas did not include explosives checks?The forensic tests were for DNA.
There was NO mention of forensic tests for explosives in the FEMA or any other reports.

FEMA did report in appendix C:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting . . . . . . The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F)


The only known explanation for these results is Thermate.

[DC]

NIST jumped to a conclusion and the total NIST report is only directed in that jumped on conclusion.

[applecorped]

lol! Yes, that must be the ONLY explanation! Everything else is bunk and you are right. Feel better now?

[DC]

No. steel temps did not exceed 250 °C.

What did they agree on?

The forensic tests were for DNA.
There was NO mention of forensic tests for explosives in the FEMA or any other reports.

FEMA did report in appendix C:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting . . . . . . The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F)


The only known explanation for these results is Thermate.

no they try to explain that away with "acid rain" after collapse.

[Christopher7]

All evidence should have been left in place at the site?No, the location of the physical evidence should have been photographed and it's location plotted before removal. The forensic testing for possible explosives should have been done upon arrival at the salvage sites.

NIST would have been able to identify steel framework deformed due to intense fire or severed with cutting charges.
The stleel had already been forensically examined and catalogued
99% was destroyed. The forensic tests were for DNA.
No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7.

[tsig]

Just saying that gravity caused the collapse does not qualify as an answer to how the Trade Towers collapse completely. It has to be proven that gravity caused the total symmetrical collapse of both towers. NIST did not.

The collapses were caused by airplanes creating structural damage and the fires that weakened the steel afterwards.

Once the buildings were no longer able to sustain their own weight gravity took over.

[tsig]

No, the location of the physical evidence should have been photographed and it's location plotted before removal. The forensic testing for possible explosives should have been done upon arrival at the salvage sites.


99% was destroyed. The forensic tests were for DNA.
No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7.

How do you test steel for DNA?

[Jwheelz]

No. FEMA's failure to request that the physical evidence be preserved resulted in NIST not having enough to determine the cause of the collapse.

99% of the physical evidence was destroyed before NIST got involved.

NIST studied the samples that FEMA saved and found that:
Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature greater than 250°C
Two core columns in impact area with sufficient paint
• Columns 603 (floors 92-93) and 605 (floors 98-99)
• Paint analysis indicate both columns less than 250°C

[/FONT][/COLOR]These temperatures were not sufficient to weaken the perimeter or core columns.
Due to the lack of sufficient physical evidence, NIST was unable to confirm steel temperatures sufficient to cause the initiation of the collapses.

Again, I understand that it is your opinion NIST should have had more of the steel saved. They however never requested to use any of the now disposed of steel in an official proceeding. Your opinion that they should have does not take precedence over the fact that they DIDN'T.

Can you agree that NIST didn't announce plans to use the steel in an official proceeding?

[Christopher7]

The collapses were caused by airplanes creating structural damage and the fires that weakened the steel afterwards.

Once the buildings were no longer able to sustain their own weight gravity took over.That is the official theory, unfortunately, NIST did not conform that either part of that theory.

They cannot confirm steel temperatures above 250 °C.
That isn't hot enough to weaken the perimeter or core columns enough to cause a collapse.

NIST did not explain how gravity caused the total collapse of the Trade Towers.
To say gravity caused the total collapse is speculation, not investigation.

[Christopher7]

How do you test steel for DNA?With a swab.

[Evilgiraffe]

....
FEMA did report in appendix C:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting . . . . . . The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F)


The only known explanation for these results is Thermate.

Hold your horses there Christopher. The only thing these results, in isolation, tell us is that this particular piece of steel was hot and in the presence of both oxygen and sulphur.... Nothing more!

We know that there was plenty of heat since the towers were on fire when they collapsed, and continued to smoulder for many weeks afterwards. There was also a plentiful supply of sulphur from wallboard in the towers. I don't think these facts are in dispute, are they?

So, we have a perfectly good explanation for the oxidative corrosion of steel recovered from the rubble pile. Why do we need to invoke thermate to account for these findings?

Oh, that's right, we dont.

[Christopher7]

Again, I understand that it is your opinion NIST should have had more of the steel saved. They however never requested to use any of the now disposed of steel in an official proceeding.
Can you agree that NIST didn't announce plans to use the steel in an official proceeding?FEMA was handling the inspection of the steel. NIST did not get involved until after 99% of the steel had been destroyed.

[Jwheelz]

FEMA was handling the inspection of the steel. NIST did not get involved until after 99% of the steel had been destroyed.

So, would it be safe to say that NIST didn't have plans to use the steel in an official proceeding before it was discarded?

[GlennB]

No. steel temps did not exceed 250 °C.

What did they agree on?

The forensic tests were for DNA.
There was NO mention of forensic tests for explosives in the FEMA or any other reports.

FEMA did report in appendix C:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting . . . . . . The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F)


The only known explanation for these results is Thermate.

:eek:

I distinctly recall that - a month or two ago - we discussed the fact that temperatures in office and house fires regularly reach these temperatures. You seemed to accept this at the time, even adding some of the links given to your bookmarks, if I recall correctly.

Did you change your mind?

[DC]

:eek:

I distinctly recall that - a month or two ago - we discussed the fact that temperatures in office and house fires regularly reach these temperatures. You seemed to accept this at the time, even adding some of the links given to your bookmarks, if I recall correctly.

Did you change your mind?

Temperatures of the fires in burning offices yes. But that does not neceseraly mean that the steel will reach those temps.

[applecorped]

Temperatures of the fires in burning offices yes. But that does not neceseraly mean that the steel will reach those temps.

What is your evidence that WTC7 was a CD?

[DC]

What is your evidence that WTC7 was a CD?

Alex Jones said it.

[applecorped]

Alex Jones said it.

No, you stated it. You didn't ascribe to anyone else when you made the post. What is your evidence that WTC7 was a CD?

[DC]

No, you stated it. You didn't ascribe to anyone else when you made the post. What is your evidence that WTC7 was a CD?

oh i do indeed agree on AJ on this one.

[funk de fino]

No. steel temps did not exceed 250 °C.

Either claim is wrong anyway

What did they agree on?

have you not read the report?

The forensic tests were for DNA.

How do you know? Can you verify exactly what testing was done at the staging area?

There was NO mention of forensic tests for explosives in the FEMA or any other reports.

You know what they say about absence of evidence.....

FEMA did report in appendix C:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting . . . . . . The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F)


The only known explanation for these results is Thermate.

Bolded part is a lie and politically motivated garbage

[funk de fino]

That is the official theory, unfortunately, NIST did not conform that either part of that theory.

They cannot confirm steel temperatures above 250 °C.
That isn't hot enough to weaken the perimeter or core columns enough to cause a collapse.

NIST did not explain how gravity caused the total collapse of the Trade Towers.To say gravity caused the total collapse is speculation, not investigation.

You are lying again. I have already told you they did.

The NIST FAQs explain the collapse.

[adoucette]

How would NIST have unambiguously identify SPECIFIC pieces of steel in WTC 7 since they didn't have location markings like WTC columns?

If they were allowed to inspect and select the evidence at the collapse site, they would have been able to positively identify steel from WTC 7.
But that is not what I asked. How would they be able to tell which steel pieces went where in the original 47 story building, since the columns weren't marked as to location?

How would NIST have determined the difference between damage caused BEFORE the collapse, DURING the collapse or AFTER the collapse (in the fires in the debris pile or in the process of recovery)?
NIST would have been able to identify steel framework deformed due to intense fire or severed with cutting charges.

Again, NOT what I asked. Try again.

The steel however was examined and unless you know something the rest of us don't, there were NONE that were saved that had been severed by cutting charges.

Why would anyone who had witnessed the top down global collapse following the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires think that the study of the lower core columns would be in any way relevant to WHY the towers collapsed?


They were part of the collapse.
The question is: why did all three buildings collapse totally?
NIST does not answer this question.
They stop at collapse initiation.

Again, you don't answer the question that I asked.

Try again.

[Christopher7]

Hold your horses there Christopher. The only thing these results, in isolation, tell us is that this particular piece of steel was hot and in the presence of both oxygen and sulphur.... Nothing more!

We know that there was plenty of heat since the towers were on fire when they collapsed, and continued to smoulder for many weeks afterwards. There was also a plentiful supply of sulphur from wallboard in the towers. I don't think these facts are in dispute, are they?

So, we have a perfectly good explanation for the oxidative corrosion of steel recovered from the rubble pile.That theory is pure speculation, nothing more.
Nothing like that has ever happened before and no one has demonstrated how it could happen.

Fires smolder when they were starved for oxygen.
There is little oxygen in a debris pile because there is no ventilation.
Oxygen starved fires don't burn as hot as ventilated fires. [far below 1,000 °C.]

Samples show as much as 5.4% sulfur in the debris dust.
No one has demonstrated how this amount of sulfur in the debris dust could cause the spike seen in the chemical analysis of the beam sample.


On the other hand, Thermate supplies it's own oxygen and sulfur.
Thermate creates temperatures in excess of 1,000 °C.
The chemical signature with the tell tale spike of sulfur matches that of Thermate.

[DGM]

That theory is pure speculation, nothing more.
Nothing like that has ever happened before and no one has demonstrated how it could happen.

Fires smolder when they were starved for oxygen.
There is little oxygen in a debris pile because there is no ventilation.
Oxygen starved fires don't burn as hot as ventilated fires. [far below 1,000 °C.]

Samples show as much as 5.4% sulfur in the debris dust.
No one has demonstrated how this amount of sulfur in the debris dust could cause the spike seen in the chemical analysis of the beam sample.


On the other hand, Thermate supplies it's own oxygen and sulfur.
Thermate creates temperatures in excess of 1,000 °C.
The chemical signature with the tell tale spike of sulfur matches that of Thermate.
You do know that Dr Jones has dropped the sulfur based thermate claims? Seems like he couldn't support his assertions.

[GlennB]

Fires smolder when they were starved for oxygen.
There is little oxygen in a debris pile because there is no ventilation.
Oxygen starved fires don't burn as hot as ventilated fires. [far below 1,000 °C.]


Except, perhaps, when there's a subway system just underneath feeding air up through the debris pile? Is that possible? I think I read something about this somewhere ...

Oh .. and there's also just a chance it happened before collapse too. Dang.

Chris, your long-maintained veneer of rationality seems to have cracked.

[adoucette]

FEMA did report in appendix C:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting . . . . . . The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F)


The only known explanation for these results is Thermate.

Hardly.

While the FEMA researchers only had a COUPON cut from the column, the NIST scientists had the entire column (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Fig 6-20 pg 262) and thus could determine that:

The column type (50ksi type 143) means that this core column was no higher than the 53rd floor of either tower, and since the collapse began 25+ floors above that at the fire impact floors it is clear that this damage played no role in the collapse of the towers.

Similarly, as seen in 1-3C fig 6-20, while the damage is locally extensive, there is no bending of the column, indicating there was little to no load on the column when the damage occurred, again, consistent with damage in the debris pile.

The damage was only on the web portions with minimal damage to the flanges, and because there was significantly more damage to the outer web than the inner web indicates that the damage occurred in a horizontal position, progressing from the outer web to the inner web (pg 231). Since the position of this column type in the tower is vertical this would indicate the damage occurred in the debris pile.

The microstructure of the material indicates that the plate temperature in this region exceeded 830 C (above the critical temp to enter the austenitic region) for a short time, but this did not happen to the lower part of the column and that the microstructure also shows that this area cooled down very slowly, again something which is consistent with conditions in the debris pile.

[Christopher7]

So, would it be safe to say that NIST didn't have plans to use the steel in an official proceeding before it was discarded?Yes.
I see your point, however, FEMA's failure to demand that the physical evidence be preserved was a dereliction of duty and resulted in NIST's inability to verify steel temperatures in excess of 250 °C and therefore their ability to confirm the official collapse initiation theory.

The physical evidence was essential to a real investigation of the total collapse of all three buildings.
FEMA and NIST ignored the numerous accounts of explosions and limited their investigation to a predetermined theory.
That's not a real investigation, it's a cover up like the 911 Commission report.


The World Trade Center was a federal crime scene and an official investigation by the FBI was mandatory.
I don't know the statute and LashL will not post it because he/she knows it requires the preservation of evidence at a crime scene involving multiple deaths.

The administration was and is in control of the FBI, FEMA and NIST.
It's like having murder inc. investigate itself.

[Christopher7]

No. steel temps did not exceed 250 °C.
Either claim is wrong anywayYour proof please.

have you not read the report?What report? Please post the URL.

NIST would have been able to identify steel framework deformed due to intense fire or severed with cutting charges.
The stleel had already been forensically examined and catalogued The forensic tests were for DNA.
How do you know? Can you verify exactly what testing was done at the staging area?
Here's a report on the forensic identification of 911 victims.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=525937&page=1

Rather than asking me to prove a negative, please provide a source for your claim that the steel had been forensically examined for cutting charges.

You know what they say about absence of evidence.....You can't make a claim without evidence to back it up.

[LashL]

Well, I'm very disappointed, Christopher7.

I offered you a valuable learning opportunity and you failed and refused to avail yourself of it. I gave you a road map to educate yourself on the matter and instead of even attempting to do so, you simply repeated one of your previous (uneducated and erroneous) posts.

*sigh*

See:


Yes, indeed, and you have not yet supported your claims that the NY state law you cited applies or that it means that the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of steel from the WTC site constitutes a felony.

You have merely cited the existence of a NY state law, misinterpreted it badly because you haven't a clue about how the law actually works, haven't a clue about statutory interpretation, haven't a clue about the elements of the offence that you claim have been met somehow, (heck, you probably don't even know what the "elements of the offence" means, let alone how to figure out whether or not the elements have been met), and you are simply taking a few words out of a statute and erroneously interpreting them in a way that suits your delusions.

Were you contemplating supporting your claim any time soon?

Ah, now, here is a valuable learning opportunity for you. Statutory interpretation 101: The drafters of statutes are presumed to have chosen their words carefully, and it is presumed that all of the words in any given statute have meaning. In other words, you cannot take only a few words out of a statute, ignore the rest, ignore their definitions, ignore their interplay with other sections and other statutes, and claim that the few words you've chosen to address mean what you want them to mean.

So, take a look at all of the important words that you have been ignoring, and that will give you a clue as to why and how you have gone so wrong.

I'll give you a couple of hints, since you seem to be struggling so badly: pay particular attention to the type of proceeding to which the state statute applies, and pay particular attention to the words that go to the mens rea and the actus reus of the offence.


And what did you respond with? Nothing but a cut and paste of one of your previous (incorrect and uneducated) posts.

See:

The law: <snipped>

Snipped because you have once again selectively and wrongly cherry picked the statute; you have entirely failed to acknowledge key elements; you do not recognize the requisite elements; and you demonstrate that you do not even know what "the elements" means, never mind the interplay that words have with other sections, prescribed definitions, other statutes, and judicial precedent as to the meaning and interpretation of words used in statutes.

The choices are few here. Either (a) you didn't even try; (b) you did try but failed to comprehend; or (c) you did follow the road map I gave you, comprehended the results, realized how and why you went wrong and then chose to pretend otherwise with your responding post above.

So, which is it?

In any event, your response is disappointing, yet completely unsurprising.


Let's take this one step at a a time.

The evidence was about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding,

Yes or no?


The answer to your question is, "No."

That's not the only reason that your claim (i.e., that the removal and eventual sale of some of the steel = a felony) is wrong, by the way. Had you done what I suggested in the 'statutory interpretation' portion of my post above, you may very well have figured out the other reasons why your claim is wrong. I wish you would have at least tried to educate yourself on the matter, though. Obviously, you are not interested in doing so.

[Christopher7]

How would they be able to tell which steel pieces went where in the original 47 story building, since the columns weren't marked as to location?Column 79 was unique [3"x26" cover plates]. It would have been easy to identify.
Column 79 supported the largest floor area and it is probably the column NIST is referring to as the initiating event.

They could have identified columns 1,15(?),28,42,70,73,76,80 and 81 by their web plates.
NIST Final pg 11
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
[note: floor plan upside down and backwards in relation to the built up columns]

They could have identified the unique trusses 1 & 2 that are a vital part of the NIST hypothesis.
FEMA-5 pg 8-9
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Since WTC 1 & 2 had floor trusses and WTC 7 had floor beams, these floor beams were different from anything in WTC 1 & 2 and could therefore be identified as being from WTC 7.
NIST L pg 5 [pg 6 - column numbers]
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf


adoucette
How would NIST have determined the difference between damage caused BEFORE the collapse, DURING the collapse or AFTER the collapse (in the fires in the debris pile or in the process of recovery)?
Column and beam distortions due to intense fire would have happened before the fire. Any distortions due to heat after the collapse would be due to the molten metal [reported to Mark Loiseaux by contractors he had been working with] and would have been found in close proximity of the molten metal.
Anydamage due to cutting charges, explosives, etc., would have occurred prior to the collapse.

The steel however was examined and unless you know something the rest of us don't, there were NONE that were saved that had been severed by cutting charges.
You don't know that.
Some of the steel was cut up at the site before it was sent to a salvage yard and inspected.
The SEAoNY engineers might not be able to discern a cutting charge cut from a torch cut.

There were 131 "engineer visits" to the salvage sites.
They had to climb around in piles of unsorted steel trying to find and identify pieces from certain areas of the 3 buildings.
[see pg 3-4]
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

They inspected a small percentage of the steel. [much of it was buried and unaccessible]

None of the saved pieces has been tested for explosives.
pg 4-5
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

[Christopher7]

Well, I'm very disappointed, Christopher7.

I offered you a valuable learning opportunity and you failed and refused to avail yourself of it. I gave you a road map to educate yourself on the matter and instead of even attempting to do so, you simply repeated one of your previous (uneducated and erroneous) posts.
*sigh*I love it when you talking to me that way dear. It makes the children feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[Jwheelz]

Yes.
I see your point, however, FEMA's failure to demand that the physical evidence be preserved was a dereliction of duty and resulted in NIST's inability to verify steel temperatures in excess of 250 °C and therefore their ability to confirm the official collapse initiation theory.

Even though I disagree with your entire line of thinking, I am going to hang in there with you for another comment. If NIST/FEMA didn't have plans to use the steel in an official proceeding then the statute you cited was not violated. That is all I was getting at. You can say it was a dereliction of duty but that doesn't make disposing of the steel illegal.

The World Trade Center was a federal crime scene and an official investigation by the FBI was mandatory.

And they conducted largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI. Here is a little tidbit of their investigation (sorry can't post links yet) -- "Nationwide we covered over 500,000 investigative leads and conducted over 167,000 interviews. We collected over 7,500 pieces of evidence which were submitted for analysis. Working in conjunction with New York City agencies and authorities, we helped process over 1.8 million tons of debris for investigative leads and victim identification and took more than 45,000 crime scene photographs."

The problem is that you believe they should have been investigating for controlled demolition. From their standpoint, they knew a 767 had flown into each of the towers, each of which caught fire after the resulting fireballs. The collapse of the towers came as a result of the structures being SEVERELY and CRITICALLY weakened where massive fires continued to burn at the very weakest parts of what was left of each of the buildings. There was absolutely no sign of a controlled demolition. The random explosions that were heard were very obviously not that of a sequence as used in a controlled demolition. THEY HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

You spend so much time trying to analyze the work of professionals when you couldn't hold a candle to their expertise. I don't mean that as an insult, seriously, have you looked into the backgrounds and histories of the investigators? There are thousands of the most highly qualified professionals who investigated this hands on - not from a computer over the Internet. To say that there was controlled demo also says that either these highly educated/experienced people are freaking incompetent or many of them are in on it. They sifted more than a million tons of debris - notice THEY as in thousands of investigators - and not a lick of evidence was found for controlled demolition.

You can say they weren't looking for controlled demolition but we are talking about people who are trained to identify just about any kind of explosive you could think of. Yeah, they didn't have a goal of finding evidence of CD but there would be no slipping the amount of CD material it would take by the people who spent months combing all the debris.

After they were done, it was just that, debris. Debris that the FBI determined was of no value to the investigation. As for NIST of FEMA, it isn't their job to perform a criminal investigation in place of the FBI. Suspecting CD would be the FBI's job. They might glance over it in the NIST report but if there was really any sign of CD, you can bet the FBI would be leading the way.

I'm pretty sure that my words are falling on deaf ears with you Chris and I am also sure that you will be formulating a response before you actually take time to read what I wrote. I can only hope that someone honestly looking for answers can take the words of an outsider to heart. For the record, I hate this administration and have also never voted republican. I just don't let that hate make me want to believe things which are nothing but passed on delusions from the same damn type of people who pass on delusions about all major events in history.

Chris, do you really think you have more to offer than an entire organization like NIST???

[Christopher7]

While the FEMA researchers only had a COUPON cut from the column, the NIST scientists had the entire column (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Fig 6-20 pg 262) and thus could determine that:Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2.
FEMA 403 C pg 1
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Nist said "No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."
NISTNCSTAR1-3B pg 27[on pg counter]
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

The column type (50ksi type 143) means that this core column was no higher than the 53rd floor of either tower, and since the collapse began 25+ floors above that at the fire impact floors it is clear that this damage played no role in the collapse of the towers.Agreed

Similarly, as seen in 1-3C fig 6-20, while the damage is locally extensive, there is no bending of the column, indicating there was little to no load on the column when the damage occurred, again, consistent with damage in the debris pile.Agreed

The damage was only on the web portions with minimal damage to the flanges, and because there was significantly more damage to the outer web than the inner web indicates that the damage occurred in a horizontal position, progressing from the outer web to the inner web (pg 231). Since the position of this column type in the tower is vertical this would indicate the damage occurred in the debris pile.
Agreed

The microstructure of the material indicates that the plate temperature in this region exceeded 830 C (above the critical temp to enter the austenitic region) for a short time, but this did not happen to the lower part of the column and that the microstructure also shows that this area cooled down very slowly, again something which is consistent with conditions in the debris pile.Agreed

[LashL]

I love it when you talking to me that way dear. It makes the children feel warm and fuzzy inside.


Another swing and another miss, Christopher7. I am quite certain that you know you aren't fooling anyone but yourself with that ridiculous and nonsensical post.

Please address the issues raised in my post above instead of dodging them yet again.

Frankly, I doubt that you will, because you've demonstrated that you are quite incapable of doing so, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

So far, you've demonstrated that you have no concept or knowledge whatsoever about the law that you purport to opine upon. You've shown that you are incapable of responding in any meaningful fashion whatsoever to legitimate questions. You've shown that you are wholly incapable and unqualified to opine on, well, just about everything that you have attempted to opine on since you started posting here. You've also shown that you are incapable of supporting your misinformed, uneducated opinions with anything other than repetitions of your unsupported, misinformed and uneducated opinions.

Sad, really.

Do I really have to re-post your (most recent) dodges, lies, and deceits yet again, or will you stop trying to change the subject and address them like a man? I suspect the former, but I'm hoping for the latter.

[Christopher7]

Even though I disagree with your entire line of thinking, I am going to hang in there with you for another comment. If NIST/FEMA didn't have plans to use the steel in an official proceeding then the statute you cited was not violated. That is all I was getting at. You can say it was a dereliction of duty but that doesn't make disposing of the steel illegal.Your point was well taken.
However
The intent of the law is to prevent what happened.
NIST did not have sufficient physical evidence to determine the cause of the collapse initiation, much less the total collapses.
Knowing why and how the 3 buildings collapsed completely and what changes need to be made in design requirements, is vital because this design has been used, and will continue to be used, in other buildings.

And they conducted largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI. Here is a little tidbit of their investigation (sorry can't post links yet) -- "Nationwide we covered over 500,000 investigative leads and conducted over 167,000 interviews. We collected over 7,500 pieces of evidence which were submitted for analysis. Working in conjunction with New York City agencies and authorities, we helped process over 1.8 million tons of debris for investigative leads* and victim identification and took more than 45,000 crime scene photographs."

*but they didn't test for explosives despite the numerous reports of explosions

The problem is that you believe they should have been investigating for controlled demolition. From their standpoint, they knew a 767 had flown into each of the towers, each of which caught fire after the resulting fireballs. The collapse of the towers came as a result of the structures being SEVERELY and CRITICALLY weakened where massive fires continued to burn at the very weakest parts of what was left of each of the buildings. And therein lies the rub.
They had determined the cause before the investigation began.

There was absolutely no sign of a controlled demolition.Pure denial.

The random explosions that were heard were very obviously not that of a sequence as used in a controlled demolition.You don't know that.
A building had never been destroyed in this manner before. It was done quite differently than other CD's.

THEY HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. They brushed off scores of first responders, witnesses and reporters who heard explosions.
They ignored the fact that all three buildings fell straight down thru what should have been the path of greatest resistance at near free fall, as in a CD.
They denied that there was molten metal at all three buildings.

In short, they looked only for evidence that supported their pre-investigation conclusion and ignored or denied any evidence to the contrary.

The FBI, FEMA and NIST are controlled by Cheney/Bush Appointees.
The Cheney/Bush administration systematically distorts scientific reports to further their political agenda.
The Cheney/Bush administration lied us into a war in Iraq to further their political agenda, the Project for a New AMERICAN Century.
So why do you believe these liars?

Your fanatic loyalty to the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory is rather transparent.
You parrot their talking points with passion.
You will never concede a point or even admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD.

Have a nice day.

[GlennB]

FEMA did report in appendix C:
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting . . . . . . The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F)

The only known explanation for these results is Thermate.

Given that you freely agree with adoucette's points about the sulphidated steel sample, are you now dropping the thermate claim?

If not, all I can see for you to believe is that the thermate had this effect on the steel in the debris pile. That is, it ignited after collapse. This would require the detonation system to survive the collapse and somehow be triggered while in a huge burning debris pile.

Then we can move on to the fact that there's no known mechanism for applying large quantities of therm?te in a horizontal manner.
You then counter with diagrams from that thermite cutter patent.
We point out that the containing vessel in that patent is much bulkier than the volume of thermite and that gangs of such cutters would be impossibly large, even when ignoring problems of scale.
An actual physicist then steps in with real calculations for melting a given box column to collapse point, and deduces that it would take devices the size of several small refrigerators to bring down even a single column (and that's without the attachment mechanism).
You then change the subject.

There ... that saved a lot of time didn't it?

[DC]

about steel sample 1 and 2 from Fema.

2 theorys try to explain it.

"Acid theory"
and
"Thermite Theory"

and i think the thermite theory is as good as the acid theory.

[DC]

Given that you freely agree with adoucette's points about the sulphidated steel sample, are you now dropping the thermate claim?

If not, all I can see for you to believe is that the thermate had this effect on the steel in the debris pile. That is, it ignited after collapse. This would require the detonation system to survive the collapse and somehow be triggered while in a huge burning debris pile.

Then we can move on to the fact that there's no known mechanism for applying large quantities of therm?te in a horizontal manner.
You then counter with diagrams from that thermite cutter patent.
We point out that the containing vessel in that patent is much bulkier than the volume of thermite and that gangs of such cutters would be impossibly large, even when ignoring problems of scale.
An actual physicist then steps in with real calculations for melting a given box column to collapse point, and deduces that it would take devices the size of several small refrigerators to bring down even a single column (and that's without the attachment mechanism).
You then change the subject.

There ... that saved a lot of time didn't it?

thats wrong, there are patents showing exactly this.

[beachnut]

thats wrong, there are patents showing exactly this.Source? Demo showing it can do the large columns of the towers please.
Why were these device not found at the WTC? You just proved thermite was not used. Good job.

Not a single thermite device used to cut steel in the horizontal was found at the WTC. And since the devices holds the thermite, and is not affected by the high temperature, the hundreds/thousands of device needed were not found. They would stick out like a sore thumb. But you have had thermo, and you say you know physics, if so, then you know impacts and fire alone were responsible for the WTC falling.

You have logically proven, in your single post, no thermite was used. Plus it is pure stupid to say there was molten metal in the basements due to thermite being planted. If you were good at research, you would have found Jones made up thermite out of the blue 4 years after 9/11. Jones has no clue, and as of this moment, 9/11 truth has failed to back up a single claim with evidence.

So what do you have for the damage done to WTC7 by the towers falling?

[DC]

Source? Demo showing it can do the large columns of the towers please.
Why were these device not found at the WTC? You just proved thermite was not used. Good job.

Not a single thermite device used to cut steel in the horizontal was found at the WTC. And since the devices holds the thermite, and is not affected by the high temperature, the hundreds/thousands of device needed were not found. They would stick out like a sore thumb. But you have had thermo, and you say you know physics, if so, then you know impacts and fire alone were responsible for the WTC falling.

You have logically proven, in your single post, no thermite was used. Plus it is pure stupid to say there was molten metal in the basements due to thermite being planted. If you were good at research, you would have found Jones made up thermite out of the blue 4 years after 9/11. Jones has no clue, and as of this moment, 9/11 truth has failed to back up a single claim with evidence.

So what do you have for the damage done to WTC7 by the towers falling?

did they look for those devices? did they know how they look like? or did they just asap remove all the rubble to maybe save some lives?

and did they find the blackboxes and was they still readable after collapse?
those balckboxes are designed to survie some of the worst things we can imagen. where are the reports about those 4 blackboxes?

[DC]

and btw, im not a jones fan. for someone that says he has found not only the smoking gun, but also the gun itself now, it is very silent from his side. would i have that stuff in my hands, and belive what he belives, i would run all over the world and try to present my evidence. my first adress would prolly be den haag.
but steven jones seems not to do anything atm.
but the same is on the acid side of the theory, FEMA clearly says, more research needed into it, and who is doing it ? noone, just some theorys what might explain those fema samples.......

[beachnut]

did they look for those devices? did they know how they look like? or did they just asap remove all the rubble to maybe save some lives?

and did they find the blackboxes and was they still readable after collapse?
those balckboxes are designed to survie some of the worst things we can imagen. where are the reports about those 4 blackboxes?
There were no black boxes at WTC7, you must be having problems keeping 9/11 facts straight.

[DC]

There were no black boxes at WTC7, you must be having problems keeping 9/11 facts straight.

you exactly know what i ment, nice dodging.

[GlennB]

Then we can move on to the fact that there's no known mechanism for applying large quantities of therm?te in a horizontal manner.
You then counter with diagrams from that thermite cutter patent.
We point out that the containing vessel in that patent is much bulkier than the volume of thermite and that gangs of such cutters would be impossibly large, even when ignoring problems of scale.
An actual physicist then steps in with real calculations for melting a given box column to collapse point, and deduces that it would take devices the size of several small refrigerators to bring down even a single column (and that's without the attachment mechanism).
You then change the subject.

There ... that saved a lot of time didn't it?
thats wrong, there are patents showing exactly this.

<groan>
If only you'd read a little more carefully and also on a little.
It's only a patent, DC. And the device is very large for the amount of thermite it claims to deliver. Then when scaled up, it doesn't necessarily work even if the device shown in the patente would work.

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

[DC]

<groan>
If only you'd read a little more carefully and also on a little.
It's only a patent, DC. And the device is very large for the amount of thermite it claims to deliver. Then when scaled up, it doesn't necessarily work even if the device shown in the patente would work.

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

i never called it something else than a patent.
and how big exactly would it have to be to cut a steel column on a higher floor? and how sure are you it would not work?

[funk de fino]

Your proof please.

Try watching videos of the perimeter columns bowing and then reading the reports from the chopper pilots saying there was glowing hot structure inside the structure. Where did the "flowing" substance seen coning from the tower appear from and what temp do you think it was?

What report? Please post the URL.

NIST report C7, I should not have to show it to you.


Here's a report on the forensic identification of 911 victims.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=525937&page=1

And? Does this prove what type of examination was done on the steel at the staging area.

Rather than asking me to prove a negative, please provide a source for your claim that the steel had been forensically examined for cutting charges.

I never made that claim you dishonest person. But here is a link to a witness to the chain of custody of the metal and the tests done on it.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

You can't make a claim without evidence to back it up.

Care to disagree with Brent Blanchard and his team or have you proof of what type of forensic tests were done?

If you cannot prove tests were not done for explosives or signs of demolition you should retract your claim.

[Christopher7]

Given that you freely agree with adoucette's points about the sulphidated steel sample, are you now dropping the thermate claim? No

If not, all I can see for you to believe is that the thermate had this effect on the steel in the debris pile.Yes

I don't know how the Thermate was used or how it came to effect the beam in question.

What i do know is this:
FEMA 403 apC pg 5
C.3 Summary for sample 1
The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

Fires smolder when they were starved for oxygen.
There is little oxygen in a debris pile because there is no ventilation.
Oxygen starved fires don't burn as hot as ventilated fires. [far below 1,000 °C]

Sulfur is added to Thermite making it Thermate. The sulfur causes steel to liquefy at a lower temperature than it's normal melting point.[around 1370 °C - 2500°F]
This is what the chemical analysis shows.
The only known explanation for the temperatures that caused the corrosion attack is Thermate. [unless you know of another explanation]

When you eliminate all other possibilities, what you have left is the answer.

[Open Blinded]

and did they find the blackboxes and was they still readable after collapse?
those balckboxes are designed to survie some of the worst things we can imagen.

Are you referring to black boxes from each of the 4 planes on 9/11 or just the twin towers? If you mean voice and data from each plane at the WTC site which equals 4 then no, they did not find them. They did find them at the other sites however.

Black boxes are not indestructible, no matter how many times Jesse Ventura repeats it. There are many crashes where they are too damaged to recover any information. For example, here is a pic of the CVR recovered from the Pentagon site.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5611/734/1600/cvr.jpg

where are the reports about those 4 blackboxes?
Spend less time asking questions and more time doing just a little research.

[GlennB]

No

Yes

I don't know how the Thermate was used or how it came to effect the beam in question.

What i do know is this:
FEMA 403 apC pg 5
C.3 Summary for sample 1
The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

Fires smolder when they were starved for oxygen.
There is little oxygen in a debris pile because there is no ventilation.
Oxygen starved fires don't burn as hot as ventilated fires. [far below 1,000 °C]

My previous answer to this:
Except, perhaps, when there's a subway system just underneath feeding air up through the debris pile? Is that possible?

[Dave Rogers]

Oxygen starved fires don't burn as hot as ventilated fires. [far below 1,000 °C]

Evidence? What is the maximum temperature attainable by an oxygen-starved fire in an environment providing good thermal insulation from the surroundings? Some references or calculations would be useful. Your entire line of argument here is based on an unsupported assertion that a specific phenomenon is impossible. If that assertion is not defensible, there's no argument left.

Dave

[Christopher7]

My previous answer to this:
Except, perhaps, when there's a subway system just underneath feeding air up through the debris pile? Is that possible?The concrete was reduced to dust and would have blocked any air from coming up thru several stories of debris.

Everything was reduced to small pieces [except for the steel] and spread throughout the debris pile. There were probably no concentrations of combustible material.

[Christopher7]

Evidence? What is the maximum temperature attainable by an oxygen-starved fire in an environment providing good thermal insulation from the surroundings? Some references or calculations would be useful. Your entire line of argument here is based on an unsupported assertion that a specific phenomenon is impossible. If that assertion is not defensible, there's no argument left.

DaveHere's the closest thing i could find:
Introduction to wildland fire: pg 23
Smoldering ground fires . . . can raise mineral soil temperatures above 300 °C (570 °F) for several hours with peak temperatures near 600 °C (1100 °F)
Although these are considerably lower than temperatures associated with flaming combustion which generally range from 800 to 1200 °C (1500 to 2000 °F) the duration of the heat at a point is much longer.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yT6bzpUyFIwC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=smoldering+fires,temp&source=web&ots=AffPTVbO-v&sig=MCCTn7cFB2JkIuMKgD8nuZ0mjVM&hl=en#PPA23,M1

[Horatius]

i never called it something else than a patent.
and how big exactly would it have to be to cut a steel column on a higher floor? and how sure are you it would not work?



You know, there are times I feel bad because I went and found those patents for you guys. I knew you'd latch onto them like a drowning man with a life preserver.


But then I realize, questions such as this one serve to show that, even when a document might support your position, you guys still don't read the darn things. How do I know this? Because if you'd actually read any of these documents, as opposed to just looking at the pretty pictures, you'd know that they give some guidelines for how large the devices must be to cut certain dimensions of metal.

And I'm not going to point you to where they say that. I want you to either go and actually read it for yourself, or continue to display your unwillingness to do even that little thing to prove your point, so that all and sundry here can see exactly how much of an intellectual fraud a twoofer really is.

[DC]

Are you referring to black boxes from each of the 4 planes on 9/11 or just the twin towers? If you mean voice and data from each plane at the WTC site which equals 4 then no, they did not find them. They did find them at the other sites however.

Black boxes are not indestructible, no matter how many times Jesse Ventura repeats it. There are many crashes where they are too damaged to recover any information. For example, here is a pic of the CVR recovered from the Pentagon site.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5611/734/1600/cvr.jpg


Spend less time asking questions and more time doing just a little research.

i talk only about the 4 blackboxes from the Twintowers.
i know the NTSB reports about AA77 and UA93.
but didnt find the other reports.
i did do my research :)
and i never claimed they are undestructable. and i really dont care what this Ventura guy says.

[DGM]

This is one of my favorite articles about what may have been going on it the piles.
http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

[DC]

You know, there are times I feel bad because I went and found those patents for you guys. I knew you'd latch onto them like a drowning man with a life preserver.


But then I realize, questions such as this one serve to show that, even when a document might support your position, you guys still don't read the darn things. How do I know this? Because if you'd actually read any of these documents, as opposed to just looking at the pretty pictures, you'd know that they give some guidelines for how large the devices must be to cut certain dimensions of metal.

And I'm not going to point you to where they say that. I want you to either go and actually read it for yourself, or continue to display your unwillingness to do even that little thing to prove your point, so that all and sundry here can see exactly how much of an intellectual fraud a twoofer really is.


erm do you really think me or others would not be able to find those patents?
pls, and what patent exactly are you talking about ? patent nr.? cause there are diffrent patents.

and why do you have troubles presenting exactly why you think they will not work or would be to big?

[Christopher7]

This is one of my favorite articles about what may have been going on it the piles.
http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htmThere is a fatal flaw in the reasoning at your debunking site:

How did the temperature get to 2,000 °F [1,093 °C] in the first place?

[DGM]

There is a fatal flaw in the reasoning at your debunking site:

How did the temperature get to 2,000 °F [1,093 °C] in the first place?




Read the article (including the experiment).

[Christopher7]

Read the article (including the experiment).I scanned the atricel and read portions of that double talk.I didn't see any experiment that would explain how the temp reached 2,000 °F in the first place.
Where is the experiment and did it explain how the temp reached 2,000 °F?

[DGM]

I scanned the atricel and read portions of that double talk.I didn't see any experiment that would explain how the temp reached 2,000 °F in the first place.
Where is the experiment and did it explain how the temp reached 2,000 °F?
The article (if you ever bother to actually read it) talks about the chemical reactions (oxidation) that starts at room temperature and goes up from there. The decomposing gypsum in the piles (drywall) accelerates this causing more heat.
The other interesting thing about "iron fire" (fast oxidation of iron) is that it creates a "vacuum" of sorts that "sucks" oxygen to itself. Ordinary carbonaceous "fire" creates carbon monoxide (CO) or carbon dioxide (CO2), which are gases that can take the place of consumed oxygen (02) gas. Carbon monoxide production releases two molecules of CO gas per one O2 molecule consumed. Thus, such a carbon fire requires a "convection" current to remove the hot carbon mon/dioxide (out the top) to make room for more cold oxygen to be brought in (at the bottom).
By contrast, an "iron fire" converts the oxygen gas (and possibly also nitrogen gas, but that is tangent) into a solid (rust). Thus, the burning iron metal effectively sucks atmospheric oxygen INTO the pile of burning metal, regardless of convection currents. Convection currents are a strong mechanism for REMOVING heat from a fire. Of course convection currents will also be present even in a huge iron pile furnace, but a result of direct conversion of oxygen gas into a solid (rust) is that there are weaker convection currents and that means that the heat of combustion escapes more slowly from the metal fire furnace than from a carbonaceous fire furnace. Thus, since the heat of combustion does not leave with the combustion products, a metal-air furnace could become much "hotter" faster than a carbon-air furnace of the same scale (e.g., at the same oxygen demand level).
Theoretically, there is no limit upon the temperature that such a large air-metal-fire could attain. It could, in theory, attain a temperature high enough to not only melt iron, but also to boil (vaporize) iron, but not at the same location at the same time. (You cannot maintain solid, liquid, and gaseous iron at the same location, because "melting" and "vaporization" occur at greatly different temperatures). The difficulty with that however is that the molten (burning) iron would tend to settle into a pool, having a smaller surface area (on its top surface only), thus reducing its rate of oxidation.

Read, educate.

[Christopher7]

The article talks about the chemical reactions (oxidation) that starts at room temperature and goes up from there. Nowhere in the article does it say iron can start at room temperature and "go up from there" to 2,000 °F.
If it could, all iron would self destruct.
Nowhere in that article does it explain how the temperature got to 2,000 °F in the first place!

The decomposing gypsum in the piles (drywall) accelerates this causing more heat.That is as unprecedented and unproven theory.

[Dave Rogers]

Here's the closest thing i could find:
Introduction to wildland fire: pg 23
Smoldering ground fires . . . can raise mineral soil temperatures above 300 °C (570 °F) for several hours with peak temperatures near 600 °C (1100 °F)

Is that seriously the nearest thing you can find? It could hardly be more irrelevant. Ground fires are not insulated. There's nothing to stop the heat escaping by convection, so the temperature doesn't get very high.

The situation you're supposed to be looking at is an underground fire, where there's a pile of rubble preventing heat from escaping, and the fire is continuing to generate heat. If heat continues to be supplied to the system faster than it can escape, the temperature will continue to rise. The rate of heat conduction through the rubble will also increase with temperature, so that at some point a dynamic equilibrium will be reached. The temperature at which this can occur depends on how well insulated the region around the fire is, and on how fast the fire is burning. Give me some numbers or a reference that indicates that this must be below 1000ºC, and you've got a point. At the moment, you haven't.

Dave

[DC]

The Truth is that: HOT STEEL WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERGO EXOTHERMIC OXIDATION REACTIONS WHILE EXPOSED TO AIR, CAUSING IRON TO INCREASE ITS TEMPERATURE UNTIL IT MELTS, FORMING POOLS OF MOLTEN IRON.

pls? so when i get steel glowing red, and expose it to AIR, it will eract? or will it react when i add oxygen under pressure?

[DC]

Jones has no clue

Jones clearly missed it

Professor Jones" (among the "9-11 Scholars") is an incompetent ignoramus

lol what idiot wrote that "paper"?
i dont know if i want to read further.......

[DC]

strange, FEMA didnt know the stuff claimed in linked articel .....

[e^n]

pls? so when i get steel glowing red, and expose it to AIR, it will eract? or will it react when i add oxygen under pressure?

Both, Steel reacts at room temperature with oxygen, this creates rust. Such a reaction is exothermic, that is it releases heat. The more concentrated the oxygen supply and the higher the temperature of the steel (and surface area of unoxidized material) the higher the reaction rate.

Typical fires with the same fuel load readily achieve 1100C+ temperatures which leads to 700C+ temperatures in unprotected steel. I made these graphs a while ago to illustrate this, the source for these is the Cardington Fire Tests. These were done by a NGO in the UK.

http://xs124.xs.to/xs124/08092/pro10624.png
http://xs124.xs.to/xs124/08092/pro11133.png
http://xs124.xs.to/xs124/08092/pro4483.png

[DC]

Both, Steel reacts at room temperature with oxygen, this creates rust. Such a reaction is exothermic, that is it releases heat. The more concentrated the oxygen supply and the higher the temperature of the steel (and surface area of unoxidized material) the higher the reaction rate.

Typical fires with the same fuel load readily achieve 1100C+ temperatures which leads to 700C+ temperatures in unprotected steel. I made these graphs a while ago to illustrate this, the source for these is the Cardington Fire Tests. These were done by a NGO in the UK.

http://xs124.xs.to/xs124/08092/pro10624.png
http://xs124.xs.to/xs124/08092/pro11133.png
http://xs124.xs.to/xs124/08092/pro4483.png

oc steel will react, thats true, but relatively slow, oxidation.
but we often make steel glowing red form it and let it cool down, sometimes we help cooling it, with water or oil to make it harder.
but also when we just let it cool down in a room full of air, it will cool down, it will not rise.

in the pile the steel was most prolly not exposed to air like in a room full of air.
it was covered with dust and other stuff, and the air had not so easy acces to the steel.

[DC]

you got a link to more details about that firetest?

found it sorry :)

[DGM]

That is as unprecedented and unproven theory.

The effects of sulfur dioxide on iron has been known for hundreds of years. It's kind of why blacksmiths used high sulfur charcoal (wood fire oh no.........) to melt and form steel.

[DC]

The effects of sulfur dioxide on iron has been known for hundreds of years. It's kind of why blacksmiths used high sulfur charcoal (wood fire oh no.........) to melt and form steel.

and what do you thnk is the source for the sulfur FEMA found in theys samples?

[DC]

and also after stress relief annealing at 600°C i never saw oxidation.
i find that theory very strange and not convincing.

[SpitfireIX]

Arnold was always my favourite character on that show. :D


You might appreciate this story, then. My father's best friend, Rex, used to teach high school, and back in the 1980s, he was dating a woman from Canada. One day Rex brought her to school with him, and afterwards she commented, "I never believed that American schools were like they're shown on Welcome Back, Kotter, but I was wrong." :D

[Christopher7]

The situation you're supposed to be looking at is an underground fire, where there's a pile of rubble preventing heat from escaping, and the fire is continuing to generate heat.You are asking for something that doesn't exist. There has never been a case where there were smoldering fires under the debris of a collapsed steel and concrete building.

If heat continues to be supplied to the system faster than it can escape, the temperature will continue to rise until the temperature of the smoldering fire is reached.
The rate of heat conduction through the rubble will also increase with temperature,until the temperature of the smoldering fire is reached.

so that at some point a dynamic equilibrium will be reached. The temperature at which this can occur depends on how well insulated the region around the fire is, and on how fast the fire is burning.How fast and hot a fire can burn is determined by the air supply.
There was no air supply in the debris pile.
The concrete and everything else was pulverized and mixed together leaving few if any air pockets.
It is doubtful that there were any concentrations of combustible material.


Give me some numbers or a reference that indicates that this must be below 1000ºC, and you've got a point. At the moment, you haven't.

Dave NIST FAQ
Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


NISTIR 7213 PG 41[43 on pg counter]
Temperatures in this simulated room fire were 700-800 °C.
When the window was opened, the temperature rose to 900-1,000 °C.
Thats a difference of 200 °C.
An oxygen starved fire would smolder at a lower temperature than the unventilated room.

The molten steel was burning the combustible material scattered throughout the debris, not the other way around.

[adoucette]

The molten steel was burning the combustible material scattered throughout the debris, not the other way around.

Really?

The steel stayed molten all the way until DECEMBER?

But your theory fails on many levels.

Particularly the USGS surveys that show the fires MOVED around.in the rubble pile over time.

[jaydeehess]

I scanned the atricel and read portions of that double talk.I didn't see any experiment that would explain how the temp reached 2,000 °F in the first place.
Where is the experiment and did it explain how the temp reached 2,000 °F?

Chris, in Canada woodstove chimneys must pass tests to 2100oF

Why would you think that is since wood does not burn close to that temp?

[jaydeehess]

NISTIR 7213 PG 41[43 on pg counter]
Temperatures in this simulated room fire were 700-800 °C.
When the window was opened, the temperature rose to 900-1,000 °C.
Thats a difference of 200 °C.
An oxygen starved fire would smolder at a lower temperature than the unventilated room.

The situation is simply not a well insulated system such as an underground fire. there were enough spaces in the rubble to allow several people to survive being trapped in it, smoke escaped from the rubble indicating nothing near the solid cap of concrete dust you propose.

The molten steel was burning the combustible material scattered throughout the debris, not the other way around.

Steel cannot 'burn' anything. It can cause items it touches to reach ignition temperature. Are you proposing that the molten steel gave up heat to combustibles in order to raise their temp to ignition, then moved on to other combustibles and continued doing so for months? What then supported the combustion of the combustibles that were ignited by the molten steel? I though you said that there was no oxygen to do so.

[Open Blinded]

i talk only about the 4 blackboxes from the Twintowers.

Ok, just wanted to get that clear.

i know the NTSB reports about AA77 and UA93.

Good, you did some research.

but didnt find the other reports.

It didn't cross your mind that there might not be reports because they were not recovered from the debris?

i did do my research :)

No, you didn't. This is my point, if you had done your research you would have found that they were not recovered.

and i never claimed they are undestructable. and i really dont care what this Ventura guy says.

Ok, but you did say:

those balckboxes are designed to survie some of the worst things we can imagen.

Yes, they are built to withstand a lot, but they don't always survive intact. Can you accept that they were either never found in the rubble or just damaged beyond recognition?

Does this answer your questions?

[Christopher7]

N.

The situation is simply not a well insulated system such as an underground fire.The fires under a pile of rubble would have less air and would therefore not burn as hot as a fire in a room.

there were enough spaces in the rubble to allow several people to survive being trapped in it,
Near the top and on the fringes of the pile.

The molten metal was found in the basement, deep in the pile

smoke escaped from the rubble indicating nothing near the solid cap of concrete dust you propose.Smoke is expanding gas and will find a way out thru small openings or force it's way out thru dust.

Steel cannot 'burn' anything. It can cause items it touches to reach ignition temperature. Are you proposing that the molten steel gave up heat to combustibles in order to raise their temp to ignition, then moved on to other combustibles and continued doing so for months? I'm suggesting that the intense heat of the ongoing Thermate reaction heated the surrounding debris and ignited any nearby combustible matter. I'm not suggesting that the molten steel moved around.

What then supported the combustion of the combustibles that were ignited by the molten steel? I though you said that there was no oxygen to do so.Things smolder rather than flame when deprived of air. This creates a lot more smoke because the lower temperature fires don't burn the fuel clean.


The point here is: There was very limited air in the debris pile. The air flow determines how hot a fire burns.
There was a 200 °C increase when the window was opened in the test.
Conversely, the limited the air in a debris pile would be much less than the unventilated room which was already too low to cause the steel on the beam to melt. [700-800 °C]

[DC]

Ok, just wanted to get that clear.



Good, you did some research.



It didn't cross your mind that there might not be reports because they were not recovered from the debris?



No, you didn't. This is my point, if you had done your research you would have found that they were not recovered.



Ok, but you did say:



Yes, they are built to withstand a lot, but they don't always survive intact. Can you accept that they were either never found in the rubble or just damaged beyond recognition?

Does this answer your questions?

so i did not do my research? well when you would have done your research you would know that the blackboxes was reported to be found........

[DC]

and no i does not answer my question :)
try harder

[Dave Rogers]

You are asking for something that doesn't exist. There has never been a case where there were smoldering fires under the debris of a collapsed steel and concrete building.

The how do you claim to know for certain that temperatures over 1000ºC cannot be reached in such a situation? Your entire argument rests on the assumption that you know something that you now admit that you don't know and can't possibly know.

until the temperature of the smoldering fire is reached.
until the temperature of the smoldering fire is reached.

You don't understand enough about thermodynamics to have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. You're treating the smouldering fire as a thermal reservoir with a specific temperature. It isn't; it's a source of thermal energy. If that energy can't escape at the same rate it's generated, the temperature will rise. The fire itself doesn't have a specific temperature; it attains an equilibrium temperature when the rate of energy loss is equal to the rate of energy release. Therefore, there is no such thing as "the temperature of the smouldering fire"; fire is a process, not an object.

Dave

[Christopher7]

The how do you claim to know for certain that temperatures over 1000ºC cannot be reached in such a situation? Your entire argument rests on the assumption that you know something that you now admit that you don't know and can't possibly know.

You don't understand enough about thermodynamics to have the faintest idea of what you're talking about. You're treating the smouldering fire as a thermal reservoir with a specific temperature. It isn't; it's a source of thermal energy. If that energy can't escape at the same rate it's generated, the temperature will rise. The fire itself doesn't have a specific temperature; it attains an equilibrium temperature when the rate of energy loss is equal to the rate of energy release. Therefore, there is no such thing as "the temperature of the smouldering fire"; fire is a process, not an object.These facts we both know.

1) The combustible materials in a building burn at about 900-1000 °C in a ventilated room and about 700-800 °C in a non ventilated room.
The highest air temperatures in the Trade Towers were about 1000 °C
That is consistent with the tests NIST conducted.

2) Everything in the Trade Towers, except the steel, was pulverized and mixed together in the debris pile.

Do you agree?

[jaydeehess]

These facts we both know.

1) The combustible materials in a building burn at about 900-1000 °C in a ventilated room and about 700-800 °C in a non ventilated room.
The highest air temperatures in the Trade Towers were about 1000 °C
That is consistent with the tests NIST conducted.

Yes, and this has very little to do with the behaviour of an underground and well insulated fire.
You're comparing an underground fire to a large volume room fire and the two behave very differently.
In an underground fire the air supply enters the fuel volume and the fire occurs closest to that supply. In burning it releases heat that is absorbed by nearby mass. If that mass is itself conbustible it will reach its combustion temp BUT not combust until it gets an oxygen supply. Many materials will undergo a breakdown in such a situation and the resultant compounds can have a higher combustion temp than the original material.

This is similar to the situation in a wood stove chimney. The difference is that when the wood actually combusts it releases gases some of which do not burn. They then condense on the cooler chimney in the form known as creasote. That creasote has a much higher combustion temp than does dry wood. If one does not clean out the chimney it can build up and when it does ignite it can burn through a stainless steel chimney. That is why a wood stove chimney must be rated to withstand 2100 F. If one does have a chimney fire one is supposed to have the chimney inspected and in many cases the chimney must then be replaced. The rated chimney has kept the house from burning down though.

In an underground situation those gases are produced by raising the temp of the material in the absence of oxygen. Those gases may now travel through the mass, at a temp at which when they contact oxygen they will immediatly react with it and combust. As the material at the fire front is consumed the passage of air goes further into the mass allowing more areas to be on fire. The entire volume has also been continually heating, releasing gases percolating those gases to areas that have oxygen or simply building up there until oxygen reaches it and then burning at a temp higher than the materail from which the gas orginates. Furthermore the longer this goes on the more water is released from the underground mass due to heating. The drier material will burn hotter when it finally does become involved in the fire and the drier mass becomes a better insulator as well. Because of the nature of the covering of debris not a lot of the water being poured on top actually reaches the deeper fires just as standing under a tree in a rain can keep uou dry.

2) Everything in the Trade Towers, except the steel, was pulverized and mixed together in the debris pile.




No, I do not agree with your characterization of 'pulverized'. Broken up, twisted, smashed and some portion of the concrete was broken down into dust but you have continued to try and characterize the underground situation as a solid mass of material with very little ability to pass gasses through it.


I'm suggesting that the intense heat of the ongoing Thermate reaction heated the surrounding debris and ignited any nearby combustible matter. I'm not suggesting that the molten steel moved around.

On going thermite reaction Chris?? Just how much thermite was planted in the complex to allow it to continue reacting for weeks? Still postulating massive amounts of thermite being placed throughout the towers or in the underground complex. Does your woo now know no bounds? Next thing you know, you'll be a no-planer!
Face it Chris, the best explanation for the movement of the underground fire is that it followed the fuel and was burning in the same fashion that a coal seam fire does.

[LashL]

The World Trade Center was a federal crime scene and an official investigation by the FBI was mandatory.


The FBI did investigate, Christopher. Your persistently pretending otherwise does not change reality.


I don't know the statute and LashL will not post it because he/she knows it requires the preservation of evidence at a crime scene involving multiple deaths.


That is not only untrue, it is also stupid to suggest that either the state or federal statute required the preservation of all of the steel, etc. from the site. There was absolutely nothing illegal about the removal of the steel, or the eventual destruction of some of it.


Even though I disagree with your entire line of thinking, I am going to hang in there with you for another comment. If NIST/FEMA didn't have plans to use the steel in an official proceeding then the statute you cited was not violated. That is all I was getting at. You can say it was a dereliction of duty but that doesn't make disposing of the steel illegal.

And they conducted largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI. Here is a little tidbit of their investigation (sorry can't post links yet) -- "Nationwide we covered over 500,000 investigative leads and conducted over 167,000 interviews. We collected over 7,500 pieces of evidence which were submitted for analysis. Working in conjunction with New York City agencies and authorities, we helped process over 1.8 million tons of debris for investigative leads and victim identification and took more than 45,000 crime scene photographs."

<snipped for brevity, although the entire post is worthy of re-reading several times.>


That was a terrific post, Jwheelz.


However
The intent of the law is to prevent what happened.


No, that is not the intent of that law at all. You really should stop making pronouncements on legal issues when it is obvious that you lack - profoundly - the education, knowledge, training, or ability to do so correctly.


Your fanatic loyalty to the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory is rather transparent.
You parrot their talking points with passion.


Now, that is just stupid. Jwheelz did not write anything that could rationally lead you to such lame and unfounded accusations. You seem to be getting upset, Christopher7. Perhaps you need a little lie down.


The concrete was reduced to dust and would have blocked any air from coming up thru several stories of debris.


What a staggeringly ignorant comment that is.


You [Christopher7] don't understand enough about thermodynamics to have the faintest idea of what you're talking about.


Ahh, the beauty of a well placed understatement is a sight to behold. :D


You might appreciate this story, then. My father's best friend, Rex, used to teach high school, and back in the 1980s, he was dating a woman from Canada. One day Rex brought her to school with him, and afterwards she commented, "I never believed that American schools were like they're shown on Welcome Back, Kotter, but I was wrong." :D


Heh! That's a great story!

[Christopher7]

Yes, and this has very little to do with the behaviour of an underground and well insulated fire.
You're comparing an underground fire to a large volume room fire and the two behave very differently.The amount of air determines the how fast and how hot a fire burns.

Do you agree?

In an underground fire the air supply enters the fuel volume and the fire occurs closest to that supply. There is far less air in a debris pile than there is in a non ventilated room.

Do you agree?

In burning it releases heat that is absorbed by nearby mass. If that mass is itself conbustible it will reach its combustion temp BUT not combust until it gets an oxygen supply.If that mass is itself combustible.
The debris pile was mostly pulverized* concrete, drywall, insulation, pieces of metal desks and filing cabinets etc.
*dust and gravel

Do you agree?

Many materials will undergo a breakdown in such a situation and the resultant compounds can have a higher combustion temp than the original material. This is similar to the situation in a wood stove chimney. The difference is that when the wood actually combusts it releases gases some of which do not burn. They then condense on the cooler chimney in the form known as creasote. That creasote has a much higher combustion temp than does dry wood. If one does not clean out the chimney it can build up and when it does ignite it can burn through a stainless steel chimney. The creosote is in the smoke and builds up in the chimney over a period of time.
Do you have any data on the buildup of compounds in smoldering fires that burn at 1000 °C ?

In an underground situation those gases are produced by raising the temp of the material in the absence of oxygen. Those gases may now travel through the mass, at a temp at which when they contact oxygen they will immediatly react with it and combust.The debris pile was smoking, not burning, because the temperature of the smoke was below the flash point.

As the material at the fire front is consumed the passage of air goes further into the mass allowing more areas to be on fire. The entire volume has also been continually heating, releasing gases percolating those gases to areas that have oxygen or simply building up there until oxygen reaches it and then burning at a temp higher than the materail from which the gas orginates.There was a very limited air supply in the debris pile.
As you have stated, the fires in the debris pile were well insulated, that is to say, airflow was very restricted.

Furthermore the longer this goes on the more water is released from the underground mass due to heating. The drier material will burn hotter when it finally does become involved in the firebut not as hot as an open air fire.

No, I do not agree with your characterization of 'pulverized'. Broken up, twisted, smashed and some portion of the concrete was broken down into dust but you have continued to try and characterize the underground situation as a solid mass of material with very little ability to pass gasses through it.All of the concrete was broken down to gravel and dust. There were no large chunks. There were no pieces of furniture, carpet, computers or other combustibles larger than a telephone keypad.

On going thermite reaction Chris?? Just how much thermite was planted in the complex to allow it to continue reacting for weeks? I don't know. That's why i said "suggesting".

You have offered nothing to support your contention that smoldering fires in the debris pile could burn hotter that a fire in an unventilated room.

[Major_Tom]

Dave comments:

You don't understand enough about thermodynamics to have the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

Industrial processes which generate extreme heat have existed for a long time.

The making of ceramics and the melting of metals have existed long before classical or quantum thermodynamics.

Heat generated during these processes tend to be related to the capacity to force-feed oxygen and the fuel used.

I'm not aware of extreme heat generating methods in industrial processes that favor smoldering the fuel supply as opposed to force-feeding oxygen.

Dave, given the fuel supplies within the WTC rubble and your advanced understanding of thermodynamics, could you please explain how smoldering a fire can produce higher temperatures than allowing a steady oxygen supply?

Metal smelters throughout the ages have seemed to prefer to feed oxygen rather than smolder their fuel sources.



jaydeehess comments:

This is similar to the situation in a wood stove chimney.

Anyone who has used a Franklin stove (sealed stove) to control a fire and produce heat for their home, be they man or woman, old or young, Physicist or hermit, will quickly learn how to control the damper and air intake to warm their home.

The chimney is hottest when you allow full oxygen flow (sometimes too hot).

Your house is warmest when it is half shut down (lessening the heat but redirecting it into the home rather than up the chimney).

You almost totally close the vent (smolder the fire) when you go to bed to lessen the heat and preserve your coals until the morning. If you don't do this you won't have any red coals in the morning.

If you totally shut down the stove, you'll probably kill the fire.



Note: I'm not a big fan of the notion that thermite reactions continued in the rubble for a month or more. It, too, would burn up it's self-contained supply of oxygen rather quickly.

But the argument that smoldering fires burn hotter is silly and is not to be found in heat generating processes that have existed for thousands of years.



Christopher7: If you recall, I asked you whether you have summerized many of the points you are making in this thread in a more presentable and linkable form. You referred me to some threads in the new Loose Change forum.

I checked those links, but I find your arguments in this thread to be much better than the links you gave me.

I'm particularly interested in your analysis of the fake NIST photo showing damage to the SW corner of WTC 7, among other points you have raised. I would like to be able to link to your arguments through other websites but I cannot link to a 117 page thread and not confuse the reader.

So I assume you have not condensed these arguments into a more digestible form, like a PDF or a power-point presentation? Have you?

If not, I guess I will try to extract them myself. Your presentation is very good.

[Dave_46]

I'm going to comment on the first two points.
The amount of air determines the how fast and how hot a fire burns.

Do you agree?



No. This is one of the factors that "determines the how fast and how hot a fire burns"

Other factors are (including, but not limited to) fuel type, fuel configuration (geometry, volume:surface ratio), thermal feedback from surroundings.

There is far less air in a debris pile than there is in a non ventilated room.

Do you agree?



No. There may be "far less air in a debris pile than there is in a non ventilated room", but there may not be. If the unventilated room has had a fire in it, the fire has probably gone out, due to lack of oxygen. A debris pile could well have air channels through it, so there could be more air available in a debris pile than an unventilated room.


Christopher. You seem intent on oversimplifying fire. Fire is a complex phenomenon, and it is not correct to generalise as you seem to be doing. If you are going to draw comparisons then you will have to specify the conditions you are comparing.

Dave

[DC]

i see i see

the magic debris pile, was a superb insulation while it still had a good ventilation for months.

[Dave_46]

i see i see

the magic debris pile, was a superb insulation while it still had a good ventilation for months.

I was making a general point, in response to Christopher7's general point. He said "a" debris pile not "the" debris pile.

I was making the point that fire is complex, and one should be careful not to oversimplify.

I think that English is not your first language. If so it is understandable that you may have misunderstood what I was posting.

Dave

[DC]

collapses are also very complex and one should be careful not to oversimplify.

[Christopher7]

Dave comments:

Industrial processes which generate extreme heat have existed for a long time.

The making of ceramics and the melting of metals have existed long before classical or quantum thermodynamics.

Heat generated during these processes tend to be related to the capacity to force-feed oxygen and the fuel used.

I'm not aware of extreme heat generating methods in industrial processes that favor smoldering the fuel supply as opposed to force-feeding oxygen.

Dave, given the fuel supplies within the WTC rubble and your advanced understanding of thermodynamics, could you please explain how smoldering a fire can produce higher temperatures than allowing a steady oxygen supply?

Metal smelters throughout the ages have seemed to prefer to feed oxygen rather than smolder their fuel sources.


jaydeehess comments:

Anyone who has used a Franklin stove (sealed stove) to control a fire and produce heat for their home, be they man or woman, old or young, Physicist or hermit, will quickly learn how to control the damper and air intake to warm their home.

The chimney is hottest when you allow full oxygen flow (sometimes too hot).

Your house is warmest when it is half shut down (lessening the heat but redirecting it into the home rather than up the chimney).

You almost totally close the vent (smolder the fire) when you go to bed to lessen the heat and preserve your coals until the morning. If you don't do this you won't have any red coals in the morning.

If you totally shut down the stove, you'll probably kill the fire.Well stated. Thank you

Note: I'm not a big fan of the notion that thermite reactions continued in the rubble for a month or more. It, too, would burn up it's self-contained supply of oxygen rather quickly.The fact is, there was molten metal in the basement of both towers and under the debris pile of WTC 7, three to five weeks after 9/11. This was reported by several people including Peter Tully of Tully Construction and Mark Loiseaux who said "It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with."

I don't know how long a thermate reaction continues but the release of oxygen is a chemical process and could last a while.
I would suggest that the debris pile provided an insulating blanket that kept the metal molten.

But the argument that smoldering fires burn hotter is silly and is not to be found in heat generating processes that have existed for thousands of years.



Christopher7: If you recall, I asked you whether you have summerized many of the points you are making in this thread in a more presentable and linkable form. You referred me to some threads in the new Loose Change forum.

I checked those links, but I find your arguments in this thread to be much better than the links you gave me.

I'm particularly interested in your analysis of the fake NIST photo showing damage to the SW corner of WTC 7, among other points you have raised. I would like to be able to link to your arguments through other websites but I cannot link to a 117 page thread and not confuse the reader.

So I assume you have not condensed these arguments into a more digestible form, like a PDF or a power-point presentation? Have you?
No, but here is a list of URLs for the specific threads:

Flaws and omissions in NIST hypothesis
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52284/1/#new

No evidence to support NIST hypothesis
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52282/1/#new

No "10 story gouge" in the middle of WTC 7
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52258/1/#new

Fires at south west corner
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/47142/1/#new

Damage to SW part of WTC 7; had no significant effect on AIE
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52274/1/#new

If not, I guess I will try to extract them myself. Your presentation is very good.Thank you. If you have any suggestions as to how i could condense, clarify and improve the summaries, i would love to hear them.
Given your arguments in this post, i'm sure you could make some improvements. Feel free to post or PM any thoughts you may have.

[bonavada]

These facts we both know.

2) Everything in the Trade Towers, except the steel, was pulverized and mixed together in the debris pile.

Do you agree?


No:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8748456afd2214fc5.jpg


I think we see more than steel in the debris pile here.

Do you agree?

BV

[Christopher7]

No. This is one of the factors that "determines the how fast and how hot a fire burns"

Other factors are (including, but not limited to) fuel type,[1] fuel configuration (geometry, volume:surface ratio)[2], thermal feedback from surroundings[3].
1] office contents
2] small pieces mixed with a greater volume of noncombustibles
3] please explain how thermal feedback works, with references.

No. There may be "far less air in a debris pile than there is in a non ventilated room", but there may not be. If the unventilated room has had a fire in it, the fire has probably gone out, due to lack of oxygen.When the fire went out the temperature dropped to less than 100 °C.

A debris pile could well have air channels through it, so there could be more air available in a debris pile than an unventilated roomthat has run out of oxygen. [no air]


Christopher. You seem intent on oversimplifying fire. Fire is a complex phenomenon, and it is not correct to generalise as you seem to be doing. If you are going to draw comparisons then you will have to specify the conditions you are comparing.

DaveOK
1] ventalited room [ample air] 900-1000 °C
2] unventilated room [limited supply of air] 700-800 °C
3] debris pile [less air than in an unventilated room] ???
4] unventilated room [no air/oxygen] less than 100 °C

Trying to say the combustibles in a debris pile, mixed with and surrounded by noncombustibles, could burn as hot as a well ventilated fire with combustibles like bunk beds surrounded by air, is just silly.

[Dave_46]

1] office contents
2] small pieces mixed with a greater volume of noncombustibles
3] please explain how thermal feedback works, with references.



I don't know what you're getting at with 1 and 2. with regard to 3, any basic fire engineering text book should help.


When the fire went out the temperature dropped to less than 100 °C.

that has run out of oxygen. [no air]



Not sure what you're getting at, but you seem to be moving from general to specific, and I was posting in general terms. Do I detect shifting goalposts.

OK
1] ventalited room [ample air] 900-1000 °C
2] unventilated room [limited supply of air] 700-800 °C
3] debris pile [less air than in an unventilated room] ???
4] unventilated room [no air/oxygen] less than 100 °C

Trying to say the combustibles in a debris pile, mixed with and surrounded by noncombustibles, could burn as hot as a well ventilated fire with combustibles like bunk beds surrounded by air, is just silly.

Agian i'm not sure what you're getting at. I was not trying to claim what you say I was. I was making the point that fire is very complex, and you seemed to be oversimplifying.

Dave

[GlennB]

When the fire went out the temperature dropped to less than 100 °C.


No.

That's where you're thinking of water going off the boil.

Is there no end to your ignorance?

[A W Smith]

i never called it something else than a patent.
and how big exactly would it have to be to cut a steel column on a higher floor? and how sure are you it would not work?
And how many of these devices were recovered in the rubble? or do they auto destruct like the tape on the mission impossible TV series? surely they would need to survive to successfully deliver their payload.
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/thermitecutter.jpg

[Jonnyclueless]

Has Christopher yet listed the evidence of explosives in WTC 7?

[GlennB]

Why not?

Get serious.
The removal and destruction of 99% of the physical evidence needed to determine the cause of the total collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 was a violation of this law and federal law.

Once again, will you please post the federal statute regarding the destruction of evidence and when it applies?

You live and learn ...

While researching the Fresh Kills recovery operation I spotted this at
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf :

"On the night of September 12, 2001the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island [I]was designated a crime scene and trucks began arriving from Ground Zero with steel and crushed debris that was once the World Trade Center."

Note the bolded part. Even if Chris7 has correctly interpreted his much-quoted statute, there is still no crime to answer for.

[DC]

And how many of these devices were recovered in the rubble? or do they auto destruct like the tape on the mission impossible TV series? surely they would need to survive to successfully deliver their payload.
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/thermitecutter.jpg

did they look for metalic objects in the rubble or was they looking for survivors and death peoples?

[GlennB]

did they look for metalic objects in the rubble or was they looking for survivors and death peoples?


Look at the reports here (http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf)and here (http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/sortingprocess.html)

The debris was meticulously examined. Countless keys, wallets and many other small personal items were recovered in the process.

[Dave Rogers]

The making of ceramics and the melting of metals have existed long before classical or quantum thermodynamics.

Heat generated during these processes tend to be related to the capacity to force-feed oxygen and the fuel used.

I'm not aware of extreme heat generating methods in industrial processes that favor smoldering the fuel supply as opposed to force-feeding oxygen.

Dave, given the fuel supplies within the WTC rubble and your advanced understanding of thermodynamics, could you please explain how smoldering a fire can produce higher temperatures than allowing a steady oxygen supply?

Metal smelters throughout the ages have seemed to prefer to feed oxygen rather than smolder their fuel sources.

A fire generates heat depending on its combustion rate, which is limited by the oxygen supply. The heat escapes from the fire depending on the thermal conductivity of the surroundings, at a rate which increases with increasing temperature. The temperature of the fire rises until the two are equal. If you want to create a hotter fire, you can either (a) increase the combustion rate using forced ventilation, or (b) reduce the heat loss using thermal insulation. The latter approach restricts access to the fire, and will also require that the fire be left a longer time to reach equilibrium. For an industrial process, where objects are required to be placed close to the fire and heated, the faster approach is the obvious choice, because metal smelters want their metal smelted some time this week. The argument is not that smouldering fires burn hotter; it's that the equilibrium temperature of the fire is dependent on the rate of escape of heat.

The thermite argument, on the other hand, is utterly without merit. Since thermite requires no oxygen source, its combustion cannot possibly be slowed to a smoulder, therefore it could not possibly have continued to burn for months in the rubble pile.

Since we've eliminated thermite, what other possibility is there? DEW?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

The amount of air determines the how fast and how hot a fire burns.

Do you agree?

No. The amount of air determines how fast a fire burns. The rate of heat generation and the temperature dependence of the rate of heat loss together determine the temperature. This is simple, basic thermodynamics - nothing advanced or complicated about it - and if you don't understand it, your opinion on fires is worthless.

You have offered nothing to support your contention that smoldering fires in the debris pile could burn hotter that a fire in an unventilated room.

You have offered nothing to support your contention that smouldering fires in a debris pile could not have reached 1000ºC, and even less to support your contention that therm*te could have produced high temperatures in the rubble piles months after the collapses.

Dave

[DC]

Look at the reports here (http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf)and here (http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/sortingprocess.html)

The debris was meticulously examined. Countless keys, wallets and many other small personal items were recovered in the process.

oh then they also found the 4 blackboxes?

[adoucette]

1] Trying to say the combustibles in a debris pile, mixed with and surrounded by noncombustibles, could burn as hot as a well ventilated fire with combustibles like bunk beds surrounded by air, is just silly.

http://www.vtap.com/video/Roaring+Bright+Red-Orange+1500F+Core+in+WTC+Ruins+6+Weeks+Later/CL0035377564_66361482


Fire Chief from 27th Batallion, FDNY describes the scene at Ground Zero almost 6 weeks after September 11, 2001: 'This is how it's been since day one. ['How?'] Oh, it's unbelievable; and this is 6 weeks later - almost 6 weeks later. And as we get closer to the center of this, it gets hotter and hotter; it's probably 1500. We've had some small windows into, um, what we thought was the core at some point, and it looked like a, uh, an oven, you know. It was just roaring inside and it just had a bright, bright reddish-orange color. See that stuff he's pulling out? ['What was that, Chief?'] You're going to- we're going to hold off on the water. See the stuff he's pulling out? ['Yeah'] If we hit it, too much steam and he won't be able to see what he's doing ['Okay. Great.'].'

As to the lack of ventilation, remember the exterior columns were hollow tubes with large bolt access holes at either end. There were thousands of them in the rubble pile providing pathways for ventilation.

[GlennB]

oh then they also found the 4 blackboxes?

For the moment, could you just concede that they would certainly have found the thousands of 'patented' thermite cutting devices that would have been required to CD the Towers? That is the subject you were discussing when you asked the original question.

[DC]

For the moment, could you just concede that they would certainly have found the thousands of 'patented' thermite cutting devices that would have been required to CD the Towers? That is the subject you were discussing when you asked the original question.

there is it again.

You belive the towers camedown without anysuch devices.
but simehow you belive it would need 1000's of those devices to do what you belive was done without any.

that makes no sence at all.

[A W Smith]

there is it again.

You belive the towers camedown without anysuch devices.
but simehow you belive it would need 1000's of those devices to do what you belive was done without any.

that makes no sence at all.

tell us how much larger than a black box your magic thermite cutting devices would have to be to cut through a 3 inch cross section of steel. and explain to us why something so large could not be found. balls in your court Paul, the freedom of the entire world depends on it.

[DC]

tell us how much larger than a black box your magic thermite cutting devices would have to be to cut through a 3 inch cross section of steel. and explain to us why something so large could not be found. balls in your court Paul, the freedom of the entire world depends on it.

so the red colored blackboxes was not found?

[adoucette]

so the red colored blackboxes was not found?

These black boxes are in the rear of the aircraft, while this is better to survive most typical crash scenarios, this means they probably ended up roughly in the middle of the fire/impact floors. Most likely damaged but still in reasonable shape.

Of course after fires burned around them for upwads of an hour, they probably weren't red anymore.

Of course after the towers collapsed with them in it they probably weren't boxes anymore.

Of course, now they were in the debris pile where they had many floors of material above them and fires burning below them.

So, after several weeks to several months in the burning debris pile, they probably were indistinguishable from the thousands upon thousands of PCs and Server remains that were also in the buildings.

[A W Smith]

so the red colored blackboxes was not found?


Im pretty sure no planes flew into building seven. so why would black boxes be expected to be found there? Listen. when you have lost an argument. Changing the subject doesn't help. Again. how large were the alleged thermite devices and why was no evidence of them found?

[DC]

ah i see the object that was mostly designed to survive hard impacts and fire etc was after the collapse not recognisable anymore.

how would themire charges look after the collapses?

[GlennB]

there is it again.

You belive the towers camedown without anysuch devices.
but simehow you belive it would need 1000's of those devices to do what you belive was done without any.

that makes no sence at all.

I don't know for sure if you're trolling here, but it sounds like it.

[A W Smith]

ah i see the object that was mostly designed to survive hard impacts and fire etc was after the collapse not recognisable anymore.

how would themire charges look after the collapses?

There were no black boxes in building seven. But now you are saying 'thermite charges" no longer "cutting devices"
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/thermitecutter.jpg


This is not going well for you is it Paul? We already know that "thermite charges" cannot cut on a horizontal plane. Produce a device or charge that can cut on a horizontal plane or accept defeat of this argument.

[A W Smith]

double post. site is lethargic

[Jonnyclueless]

ah i see the object that was mostly designed to survive hard impacts and fire etc was after the collapse not recognisable anymore.

how would themire charges look after the collapses?


Why don't you and Chris just provide us with the physical evidence of your controlled demolition and be done with this.

[jaydeehess]

1] office contents
2] small pieces mixed with a greater volume of noncombustibles


,,, and automobiles in the garage areas, and transformers with their oil supply etc.. In point of fact Chris, your arguement seems to be that there is not enough combustible material in an office building to support a large fire. That is shown to be incorrect in that office fires do occur just fine with the amount of fuel available. The ratio of non-combustibles to combustibles remains the same in a building that has been destroyed as it was when the building stood.
The combustible material has also been shredded which would increase its ratio of surface area to volume meaning that more material can be presented to an available oxygen supply and thus burn more efficiantly.

BTW has anyone here actrually argued that any material burns hotter in low oxygen than in high oxygen. Fact is that the flame itself will always be at the same temp. If a specific reaction requires oxygen and s exothermic then it will aways release the same amount of heat. All that changes in a well ventilated situation is that more material is undergoing that reaction AND the air entering the combustion is taking heat away. By forcing air in you aloow more material to burn at the same time thus increasing the amount of heat produced which is then relaesed to the surroundings. So to increase the temp one can burn more stuff(ie increase the oxygen supply) or decrease the ability of the surroundings to take that heat away. In a room in which there is a fire and if one then slows the oxygen supply less material will now be burning BUT since the room(or woodstove for that matter) still can transfer heat away as well as it could before and so the room cools.
Take the same situation and as you slow the oxygen supply also blanket the room with an greater insulation and the room will cool slower and never get as cool as it would have without adding that insulation.

Insulate a woodstove enough and you will easily reach the point where the steel is red hot even if you restrict the airflow. (of course also restrict chimney size to allow gasses to exit only as fast as oxygen is entering the system so as to again decrease the hat loss.)



that has run out of oxygen. [no air]

Specious arguement. An unventilated anything in which one means absolutly no oxygen supply means no fire and thus no heat being produced and thus the temperature of that room will depend soley on its heat loss by convection and radiation.

OK
1] ventalited room [ample air] 900-1000 °C
2] unventilated room [limited supply of air] 700-800 °C
3] debris pile [less air than in an unventilated room] ???
4] unventilated room [no air/oxygen] less than 100 °C


Why would a debris pile have "less air than in an unventilated room"? You still have not made that arguement stick Chris. Obviously there were some voids in the pile as people were found in the debris. You say they were on near the surface buit you also state that the pile was covered by concrete that had been reduced to gravel or smaller chunks as well as all office material reduced to chunks no bigger than a telephone. That would preclude any survivors at all, anywhere in the debris pile. In fact all survivors were people who were near the ground level when collapse started so 110 stories of debris came down around them. It has been pointed out that the subway allowed a way for air to enter, the hollow columns allow a way for air to enter[/quote]

Trying to say the combustibles in a debris pile, mixed with and surrounded by noncombustibles, could burn as hot as a well ventilated fire with combustibles like bunk beds surrounded by air, is just silly.

What?? bunk beds??

As air came to a fire face it would burn only that material of the surface area it came in contact with. It would release heat and expanding gases. The heat is absorbed by the surrounding mass. The material burns through and the air supply follows the opening passage created by the smaller volume of materail as it is consumed in the fire and at the same time the heat being produced is not escaping readily thus the nearby volume heats up. Now the fire is more efficient as the material about to be burned is already close to or even at, its ignition temp when it gets oxygen.
You now have a situation in which much of the surrounding non-combustible amterial can reach a temp where it glows red hot. If aluminum or copper is present it can reach its melting point and become liquid. Steel and iron deform under any strain, torgue or tension as it has lost much of its strength.

Thermite requires no oxygen, it reacts rapidly, very rapidly, and even a large amount will be gone within minutes releasing a very large amount of heat in a very localised volume. It will chew through steel and spall concrete and fireball of such a large mass will head for the center of the earth creating something that will resemble a small volcanic pipe. It will not do what was seen to occur in the debris pile where the fire travelled around the pile.

[jaydeehess]

CORRECTION:
in my above post I wrote
AND the air entering the combustion is taking heat away

more to the point its is the large convection currents in the room which allow for the heat to escape to the walls or be carried away in the gases. Radiative heat is collected by the soot that also escapes and to the walls of the room.

[GlennB]

CORRECTION:
in my above post I wrote
AND the air entering the combustion is taking heat away

more to the point its is the large convection currents in the room which allow for the heat to escape to the walls or be carried away in the gases. Radiative heat is collected by the soot that also escapes and to the walls of the room.

jaydee - the following quote might be of interest. A few years ago I was trying to learn more about this entire subject and I put some questions to a UK fire technician over on the UK firefighters forum. He replied:

"A fire in solid fuel which is heat-limited will smoulder and the maximum expected temperatures would be in the order of 500 - 600°C rather than the normal values of 900°C.

The rate of combustion is very slow. Pyrolysis of any flammable material will produce smoke, but the radiant heat output is insufficient to ignite the gases, or other solid objects in the scene. Some convection may be present in the immediate vicinity but the lower temperatures cannot develop a plume so ventilation which is limited anyway can not develop and therefore the fire cannot generate a sustainable self perpetuating air flow. This lack of oxygen will limit the development of the fire and not permit a flaming fire to occur... there is just enough air entering the system to allow the pyrolosis of the materials.

Smouldering fires are slow, circa 5-6cm / hour, so the heat build up tends to be local and can maintain the peak for periods of weeks given the circumstances of building collapses, especially when buried under materials such as concrete which give some insulation but more they hold the heat well (look at the principle of electric storage heaters).

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

Given the idea of temperature gradient, we then have to conclude that no amount of insulation will get the surroundings of a smouldering fire to a higher temperature than the fire itself.

This appears to suggest that the higher temperatures required for the eutectic corrosion would need to be present at the point of collapse (then maintained for a time, presumably) or there were areas where the flames were being fed by localised air supply (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread).

[Christopher7]

jaydee - the following quote might be of interest. A few years ago I was trying to learn more about this entire subject and I put some questions to a UK fire technician over on the UK firefighters forum. He replied:

"A fire in solid fuel which is heat-limited will smoulder and the maximum expected temperatures would be in the order of 500 - 600°C rather than the normal values of 900°C.Steel melts at about 1464°C
So to answer your question... no the temperature of a smouldering fire cannot get hotter than a flaming fire.... if it did the smouldering material would burst into flame."

Given the idea of temperature gradient, we then have to conclude that no amount of insulation will get the surroundings of a smouldering fire to a higher temperature than the fire itself.

This appears to suggest that the higher temperatures required for the eutectic corrosion would need to be present at the point of collapse (then maintained for a time, presumably) or there were areas where the flames were being fed by localised air supply (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread).Even with a localized air supply, the fires would be 400-500°C shy of melting steel.

[funk de fino]

What melted steel?

[Christopher7]

What melted steel?

Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.


Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.
Regards,
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926



http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1925/moltenmetalcr4.jpg

[GlennB]

Mr. Bryan:
.... There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy...


http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1925/moltenmetalcr4.jpg

Ah, cunning.


You support the idea of molten steel being "dipped" by an excavator bucket by showing us something unidentified - that is also clearly not molten - being lifted with a grab . Brilliant.

[funk de fino]

Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.


Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.
Regards,
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926



http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1925/moltenmetalcr4.jpg


Is that all you have? I need to see a source that can identify molten steel from any other molten metal. I'm afraid hearsay and speculation do not wash here. You have no proof of molten steel thererfore we do not require the extreme temps.

What do you think excavators buckets are made of Chris?

Anyway this is off topic as it clearly mentions tower 2 and this is WTC7 thread.

[Christopher7]

Is that all you have? I need to see a source that can identify molten steel from any other molten metal. I'm afraid hearsay and speculation do not wash here. You have no proof of molten steel thererfore we do not require the extreme temps.
This is one of the photographs that Mark Loizeaux referred to.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf)

Molten metals glow orange to yellow at roughly 900-1100°C.
They glow white at about 1200°C
Aluminum melts at 660°C, therefore, this glob is not aluminum.

The molten metal is most likely steel.
However, it does not matter.
Planck’s Radiation Law—See
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf)

Planck’s Law gives the spectral radiance of electromagnetic radiation of a black body. This is a function of frequency (or, equivalently, wavelength) and temperature. This law embodies the concept that the radiated spectrum as a function of frequency at a given temperature is the same shape for all radiating materials. The only factor affecting the radiated spectrum that depends on the nature of the material is emissivity, a constant, independent of frequency.

What do you think excavators buckets are made of Chris? These machines are necessarily very robust.
No doubt the claw [perhaps several] was ruined, but that was the only way to remove the molten metal.
The claw was in contact with the molten metal for the short time. [pick up to drop]
It would take longer than that to transfer enough heat to melt the crab claw teeth. IMO, the problem would be metal solidifying and sticking to the crab claw.

Anyway this is off topic as it clearly mentions tower 2 and this is WTC7 thread.Molten metal was found under WTC 7.
This discussion is currently about what that molten metal was and what melted it in the first place.

[applecorped]

These machines are necessarily very robust.
No doubt the claw [perhaps several] was ruined, but that was the only way to remove the molten metal.


What does robust mean?
In reference to the claw, you stated "perhaps several". Do you have any proof of this?

[Dave Rogers]

This is one of the photographs that Mark Loizeaux referred to.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf)

Molten metals glow orange to yellow at roughly 900-1100°C.
They glow white at about 1200°C
Aluminum melts at 660°C, therefore, this glob is not aluminum.

The molten metal is most likely steel.


Chris, your reasoning is precisely inverted. The orange-yellow material is molten at a temperature of less than 1200ºC. Aluminium melts at 660ºC, strutural steel at 1510ºC, and iron at about 1530ºC. Since the material is molten at less than 1200ºC, it may possibly be aluminium, but cannot possibly be iron or steel. Why do truthers have such a hard time grasping this? It should be obvious to a primary school pupil, or even a professor from Brigham Young.

Dave

[Christopher7]

Chris, your reasoning is precisely inverted. The orange-yellow material is molten at a temperature of less than 1200ºC. Aluminium melts at 660ºC, strutural steel at 1510ºC, and iron at about 1530ºC. Since the material is molten at less than 1200ºC, it may possibly be aluminium, but cannot possibly be iron or steel.
DaveYour double talk is inverted.
The glob of molten metal is orange to yellow - 900-1100ºC. [roughly]
Aluminum is a liquid at those temperatures.

[Dave Rogers]

Your double talk is inverted.
The glob of molten metal is orange to yellow - 900-1100ºC. [roughly]
Aluminum is a liquid at those temperatures.

Do you seriously not know the definition of the word "molten"?

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


Melting is a process that results in the phase change of a substance from a solid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid) to a liquid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid). The internal energy of a solid substance is increased (typically by the application of heat) to a specific temperature (called the melting point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_point)) at which it changes to the liquid phase. An object that has melted completely is molten.


"Molten metal" means "liquid metal". The glowing liquid pouring from the 82nd floor cannot be molten iron or steel (or liquid iron or steel, which is the same thing) because it's orange to yellow (900-1100ºC). The same is true of your glob of molten metal. Iron or steel is a solid at those temperatures.

I don't know what you think you're trying to say here, but you're making no sense whatsoever.

Dave

[GlennB]

The claw was in contact with the molten metal for the short time. [pick up to drop]

Chris - I notice you ignored my previous post from a few weeks back .... ah, but what the hoo. But this latest of yours makes no sense. If the metal was molten, the claw could not pick it up. The molten metal would run away, just as you and I cannot pick up liquid water from a bowl in our fingers. The best we can do is get our hands wet.

It's MOLTEN , therefore it flows. That stuff in the photo didn't flow, Chris.

[Christopher7]

Do you seriously not know the definition of the word "molten"?
Encarta dictionary:
molten:
1)melted
changed into liquid form by heat
2)glowing
glowing with great heat


The glowing liquid pouring from the 82nd floor cannot be molten iron or steel (or liquid iron or steel, which is the same thing) because it's orange to yellow (900-1100ºC). We are discussing the molten metal in the debris pile.

The same is true of your glob of molten metal. Iron or steel is a solid at those temperatures.The glob is semi solid [pliable] with white hot liquid metal dripping off the bottom.

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/7007/moltensteelincrabclawce0.jpg

The molten metal is most likely steel. [definitely not aluminum]
What other metal is semi solid at those temperatures?
Metal . . . melting point ºC
gold . . . . . . 1063
copper . . . . 1083
cast iron . . . 1100-1300
manganese . 1225
steel . . . . . . 1400-1500
nickel . . . . . 1450
cobalt . . . . . 1480

http://www.weights-and-measures.com/xcommetalsalt.html


Carbon based fires cannot heat any metal to 1100ºC + outside of a blast furnace or kiln with the aid of force fed oxygen.

Thermite or Thermate* is the ONLY known explanation for the molten metal under all three buildings.

*The sulfur in Thermate lowers the melting point of steel.

[GlennB]

Encarta dictionary:
molten:
1)melted
changed into liquid form by heat
2)glowing
glowing with great heat


We are discussing the molten metal in the debris pile.

The glob is semi solid [pliable] with white hot liquid metal dripping off the bottom.

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/7007/moltensteelincrabclawce0.jpg

The molten metal is most likely steel. [definitely not aluminum]
What other metal is semi solid at those temperatures?


Problem 1 - nobody else in the world takes "glowing with great heat" as any kind of definition of molten. Molten is from the same root as melt. Use a better dictionary.

Problem 2 - you cannot possibly know that there's molten anything falling off that glowing lump. You merely want to believe it and are prepared to make the assertion.

Problem 3 - why can't it be aluminium? Why can't it be a burning cupboard or cubicle partition with cinders falling off it?

[A W Smith]

could be sheet metal, a hollow core steel door. or light gage steel from office furniture or office partitions. Interior or exterior architectural cladding. Does not look like any heavy structural steel to me. And its not molten or a grapple would not pick it up.

[gumboot]

"A fire in solid fuel which is heat-limited will smoulder and the maximum expected temperatures would be in the order of 500 - 600°C rather than the normal values of 900°C.


Burning Mountain in Australia is "a fire in solid fuel" and smoulders (I am not sure what is meant by "heat-limited").

Temperatures in the Burning Mountain seam are approximately 1700 degrees C.

The Burning Mountain seam is 30m below ground, so it is very well insulated. Perhaps in other building fires expected smouldering temperatures are expected to be this low because the amount of insulation would be limited - how many building fires end with 30m deep debris piles?

In many ways the WTC debris piles were a unique phenomenon, and as such what we "expect" may not be what actually was there.

[gumboot]

The glob is semi solid [pliable] with white hot liquid metal dripping off the bottom.

The molten metal is most likely steel. [definitely not aluminum]
What other metal is semi solid at those temperatures?

That steel is nowhere near molten. The majority of steel that digger is picking up isn't even incandescent at all. You simply couldn't get that degree of temperature range in a piece of steel that small. Even just taking the glowing section into account you have a temperature range of about 800 - 1000 degrees C. You are claiming that the very peripheral sections are a further 500 degrees C hotter than that? No way.


Carbon based fires cannot heat any metal to 1100ºC + outside of a blast furnace or kiln with the aid of force fed oxygen

This is untrue.

[GlennB]

could be sheet metal, a hollow core steel door. or light gage steel from office furniture or office partitions. Interior or exterior architectural cladding. Does not look like any heavy structural steel to me. And its not molten or a grapple would not pick it up.

Quite.

And why the clear line between the glowing material and the dark material in the main body of the grab? If the glowing stuff were steel, why would the rest *not* be glowing? In fact, how could it *not* be glowing?

[Christopher7]

Problem 1 - nobody else in the world takes "glowing with great heat" as any kind of definition of molten. Molten is from the same root as melt. Use a better dictionary.

Problem 2 - you cannot possibly know that there's molten anything falling off that glowing lump. You merely want to believe it and are prepared to make the assertion.

Problem 3 - why can't it be aluminium? Why can't it be a burning cupboard or cubicle partition with cinders falling off it?
1) Numerous witnesses saw molten metal [liquid]. The glob in the crab claw was 900-1200ºC. It is consistent with the photos Mark Loizeaux described.
If you don't want to use the word 'molten' to describe it, that's OK, but that doesn't change the fact that it was molten at one time and formed the glob after being cooled somewhat from all the water being applied.

2) The white hot metal dripping from the bottom is consistent with reports of beams dripping molten metal as they were removed.

3) Aluminum becomes a liquid at 660ºC. The glob is 900-1200ºC.

Why can't it be a burning cupboard or cubicle partition with cinders falling off it?In your dreams.


The point here is:

The existence of molten metal is confirmed by Mark Loizeaux and many others.

The glob in the crab claw is 900-1200ºC.

The fires in the debris pile were no where near 1200ºC.

The ONLY known explanation for the molten metal is Thermite.

[pomeroo]

1) Numerous witnesses saw molten metal [liquid]. The glob in the crab claw was 900-1200ºC. It is consistent with the photos Mark Loizeaux described.
If you don't want to use the word 'molten' to describe it, that's OK, but that doesn't change the fact that it was molten at one time and formed the glob after being cooled somewhat from all the water being applied.

2) The white hot metal dripping from the bottom is consistent with reports of beams dripping molten metal as they were removed.

3) Aluminum becomes a liquid at 660ºC. The glob is 900-1200ºC.

In your dreams.


The point here is:

The existence of molten metal is confirmed by Mark Loizeaux and many others.

The glob in the crab claw is 900-1200ºC.

The fires in the debris pile were no where near 1200ºC.

The ONLY known explanation for the molten metal is Thermite.


And yet, not a single demolition expert takes your uninformed fantasies about thermite seriously.

[Grizzly Bear]

[/B][/SIZE] The ONLY known explanation for the molten metal is Thermite.

I'm going to attack your postulation from the roots. If the only explanation for your molten metal observations is thermite perhaps you'd be capable of answering to the following:


How does the thermite sustain a reaction for an extended period of time?

How does the thermite retain a coherent form, or sufficient concentration to react now that the buildings have collapsed?

How does the thermite ignite if the fires in the debris pile are insufficient to ignite the postulated charges?

How does thermite account for the supposed molten metal weeks later? Did it magically ignite? Did it sustain a continuous reaction for several weeks?

If the previous question is a 'no', then how does the metal remain in a molten state without a sufficient heat source?

How does molten metal found weeks after the fact account for pre-collapse conditions?


Notice, that this doesn't even begin addressing pre-collapse... and the very UNLIKELY logistics of just 'sneaking' the postulated thermite in. I've yet to see viable photographic evidence that would corroborate the witness accounts of 'rivers of steel'.

[Christopher7]

And yet, not a single demolition expert takes your uninformed fantasies about thermite seriously.
You cannot dispute or deal with;

The existence of molten metal is confirmed by Mark Loizeaux and many others.

The glob in the crab claw is 900-1200ºC.

The fires in the debris pile were no where near 1200ºC.

The ONLY known explanation for the molten metal is Thermite.


so you shift to an argument about who believes what.

[Grizzly Bear]

You cannot dispute or deal with;
Wrong...


The fires in the debris pile were no where near 1200ºC.

Clearly not hot enough to ignite it if we assumed thermite were there in the first place. So what ignites it? Thermite requires a very hot flame to igniote the magnesium fuse. You can't have both a fire below 1000 oC and a high enough flame to ignite such components if we assumed you were correct.


The glob in the crab claw is 900-1200ºC.

Were any samples taken of that to determine its exact composition or is color the only evidence you're using to determine it's material make-up?



The ONLY known explanation for the molten metal is Thermite.


Reread my last post

[Christopher7]

I'm going to attack your postulation from the roots. If the only explanation for your molten metal observations is thermite perhaps you'd be capable of answering to the following:


How does the thermite sustain a reaction for an extended period of time?
How does the thermite retain a coherent form, or sufficient concentration to react now that the buildings have collapsed?
How does the thermite ignite if the fires in the debris pile are insufficient to ignite the postulated charges?
How does thermite account for the supposed molten metal weeks later? Did it magically ignite? Did it sustain a continuous reaction for several weeks?
If the previous question is a 'no', then how does the metal remain in a molten state without a sufficient heat source?
How does molten metal found weeks after the fact account for pre-collapse conditions?


Notice, that this doesn't even begin addressing pre-collapse... and the very UNLIKELY logistics of just 'sneaking' the postulated thermite in. I've yet to see viable photographic evidence that would corroborate the witness accounts of 'rivers of steel'.You are using reverse logic, demanding answers that require speculation and are therefore endlessly debatable.
Let's start at the beginning and look at what we know.

The existence of molten metal is confirmed by Mark Loizeaux and many others.

There was molten metal under all three buildings.

Are you with me so far?

[Grizzly Bear]

You are using reverse logic, demanding answers that require speculation and are therefore endlessly debatable.
Let's start at the beginning and look at what we know.

The existence of molten metal is confirmed by Mark Loizeaux and many others.

There was molten metal under all three buildings.

Are you with me so far?

Connecting the molten metal found post-collapse to thermite requires that the thermite was able to not only ignite under the given conditions, but be able to survive for several weeks, and sustain a reaction for an extended period of time. You are the one who states the only explanation for this is thermite. Given that very little of anything survived the collapses in any coherent form the same conditions would have been applied to thermite.

As for Mark Louzeaux, I am assuming you're talking about the controlled demolition's inc manager correct? I keep searching for his statements, and none of the sites that have them provide a source to refer back to:

Such as this one:
"Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”
Source (http://www.areal911commission.com/molten_steel.htm)

And

Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.

Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.


Which was exerpted by Thia site (http://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2008/04/), from an American Free Press Article.

and

"These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.
Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7 [...]"
And 911blogger which also cites the American free press source (http://911blogger.com/node/8569)

So apparently for your Mark Loizeaux testimony the websites I've seen either leave the source of the quote out, or those that do provide it all come from American free press. I think you should start reading up on the sources you're using to get an idea of what their histories are. Mark is actually unsupportive of the controlled demolition theory.


'And others': You mean fire fighters describing rivers of molten steal? Definitely heard the testimony, not extensively though, and no source has shown pictures of this apparently totally fluid steel and some sites, like one of the ones I linked to here use images like this one:
http://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.38/t.gif
To support the claims, except, at least for that one, those are work lights... If they were that close to a river of molten steel their faces would have burned off like the fourth of July.


Yes, I am with you... but barring the claims of molten metal, there's quite a few leaps just to assert thermite is even responsible for any genuine findings

[Jonnyclueless]

You are using reverse logic, demanding answers that require speculation and are therefore endlessly debatable.
Let's start at the beginning and look at what we know.

The existence of molten metal is confirmed by Mark Loizeaux and many others.

There was molten metal under all three buildings.

Are you with me so far?


Ah, so maybe you can go to the posts in this thread that appear every 10 pages or so explaining that no Mark did not see molten metal and the letter he wrote confirming this. And the reference was also to the South tower, NOT WTC 7. This is where you have just been caught fibbing Chris. And then also the little fact that metal is not the same as steel. Steel is just one of many metals.

OK ppl, who got Chris started again?

[pomeroo]

You cannot dispute or deal with;

The existence of molten metal is confirmed by Mark Loizeaux and many others.

The glob in the crab claw is 900-1200ºC.

The fires in the debris pile were no where near 1200ºC.

The ONLY known explanation for the molten metal is Thermite.


so you shift to an argument about who believes what.


Molten metal "cooked" under the rubble pile for many weeks. Nobody disputes that fact, but it lends no support whatever to your fantasies.

You haven't the faintest idea of the temperature of the "glob" in the crab claw or the fires in the debris.

Your ignorance of the properties and uses of thermite hardly qualifies you to speculate on the causes of the molten metal. Again, demolition professionals dismiss your fabrications as uninformed rubbish.

[Christopher7]

Clearly not hot enough to ignite it if we assumed thermite were there in the first place.Let's not assume anything.

So what ignites it? Thermite requires a very hot flame to igniote the magnesium fuse. You can't have both a fire below 1000 oC and a high enough flame to ignite such components if we assumed you were correct.
Don't change the subject.

Were any samples taken of that to determine its exact composition or is color the only evidence you're using to determine it's material make-up?You are avoiding the simple fact that:

The fires in the debris pile were no where near 1200ºC.

[phunk]

Let's not assume anything.

Don't change the subject.

You are avoiding the simple fact that:

The fires in the debris pile were no where near 1200ºC.

I'm confused. How can you be arguing that material was pulled out of the fire at 1200C and at the same time say that the fire it was pulled from was no where near 1200C?

[phunk]

but that doesn't change the fact that it was molten at one time and formed the glob after being cooled somewhat from all the water being applied.

How do you establish that the red-hot metal pulled from the fire was once molten and then cooled, rather than just being heated to red-hot (but never molten) temps?

[Jonnyclueless]

"Let's not assume anything. "

You mean like saying there was a controlled demolition?

[Grizzly Bear]

Let's not assume anything.

You said:

The fires in the debris pile were no where near 1200ºC.


I'm not assuming anything, I responded accordingly to the weakness in your claim. You are avoiding my question.
Thermite requires a very high activation temperature, the fires inside the debris pile would be insufficient to ignite anything that you assume to be in there. If the fires are of an insufficient temperature to ignite your proposed therm?te, then what leads to its ignition to ultimately connecting it as a cause for molten metal?

If they had an activation source how did such sources remain functioning after experiencing a building collapse?


Rather important detail that conflicts with your claim...

Once again this still assumes the massive logistical difficulties of getting it inside the buildings could have even been cleared.

[Christopher7]

Connecting the molten metal found post-collapse to thermite requires that the thermite was able to not only ignite under the given conditions, but be able to survive for several weeks, and sustain a reaction for an extended period of time.Reverse logic again. How the metal stayed molten for weeks is debatable.
How it got that hot in the first place is what we are discussing now.

You are the one who states the only explanation for this is thermite.Do you have another explanation?

Given that very little of anything survived the collapses in any coherent form the same conditions would have been applied to thermite. That has nothing to do with what melted the metal.

As for Mark Louzeaux, I am assuming you're talking about the controlled demolition's inc manager correct? Correct
American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Mark Loizeaux later qualified and extended his statement. He did not refute anything in his first statement.

Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926

'And others': You mean fire fighters describing rivers of molten steal?Abolhassan Astaneh is a professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and was one of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Describing the Oakland freeway overpass collapse he said:
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html


Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center. (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20020905195530/http:/www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html)


[B]Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, was interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news on October 10 2001:
GUMBEL: We’re seeing a lot of video of smoke pouring up from the debris.
ALLBAUGH: Correct.
GUMBEL: And we’re hearing there are places where temperatures are still approaching and sometimes exceeding a thousand degrees.
ALLBAUGH: That’s right.
GUMBEL: Why? Why do we have these hot spots? What’s going on?
ALLBAUGH: Well, you have normal debris, you know, computers, paper, you have some areas that are hot pockets because of fuel. It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into those areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material. (source_FEMA.gov) (http://www.fema.gov/doc/diz01/gumbel1004.doc)

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all subgrade levels, stated "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (source_SEAU.org) (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf)

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. (source) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html) (audio) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2007/05/10/20070510_overpass28.mp3)

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20021006003613/http:/www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm) (audio) (http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adis/rm/adis_trimpe.rm)

A NY firefighter described steel flowing at ground zero. "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel — molten steel! — running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry... like lava... from a volcano. (source) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en) (source) (http://governmentterror.com/images/UNFLINCHING%20LOOK%20AMONG%20THE%20RUINS_print.htm l) (hi-res_source) (http://www.stage6.com/user/nasathermalimages/video/2182380/Molten-Steel-at-the-World-Trade-Center-Site)

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." (source) (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm) (cached_copy) (http://governmentterror.com/images/77nwash.html)

The owner of Controlled Demolition Inc., Mark Loizeaux (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;) stated the molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,”. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;), which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20020905195530/http:/www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html)

Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. -Sarah Atlas of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue (source_upenn.edu) (http://web.archive.org/web/20021015213646/http:/www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html)

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." (source_jhsph.edu) (http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm)

A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,” he said. Additionally he stated "Shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering red hot metal beams excavated from deep beneath layers of sub-floors, exposing further dark crevasses." (source_neha.org) (http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html)

"They showed us many fascinating slides" he continued, "ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." -Dr Keith Eaton (source_istructe.org.uk) (http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/http:/www.istructe.org.uk/about/files/president/Tour-2002-NewYork.pdf)

"Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." -Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing (source) (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802#continue)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source) (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/)

"the ominous groaning of weakened structures overhead, or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." -William Langewiesche (source_p32) (http://www.amazon.com/American-Ground-Unbuilding-World-Center/dp/0865476756) (cached_copy) (http://nasathermalimages.com/images/BOOK_American_Ground_p32.png)

He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life. -Lee Turner of The Boone County Firefighters (source) (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm)

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (source) (http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news)

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source (http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948)) (http://web.archive.org/web/20041223152148/http:/www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm)

...numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (source_9-11commission.gov) (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing1/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-04-01.htm) (2) (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_holden.htm) (3) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030401-holden.htm)

Richard Garlock, a structural engineer for LERA said "Going below, it was smoky and really hot... The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running." (source) (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html)

Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC, reported the following to Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff Writer, on September 11, 2002 "a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel." (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20030521104203/http:/www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm)

Father Edward A. Malloy, on site 40 days after the disaster stated "Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500F so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down." (source_nd.edu) (http://www.nd.edu/%7Endmag/reflect/malloydiary.html)

Ed Pfister, a veteran of three hurricanes and two flood relief efforts, and a member of the elite Disaster Medical Assistance Team, wrote in his diary "deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and boiled with molten material. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above." (source_NIH.gov) (http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/10_30_2001/story01.htm)

Guy Lounsbury with the 109th Air Wing of the New York Air National Guard wrote "The men who work on this must constantly change their boots as the heat melts them. Two weeks after the attack, one fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains." (source) (http://home.nycap.rr.com/geljal/Documents/TWO%20WEEKS%20AT%20GROUND%20ZERO.htm)

A group of veteran ironworkers eating lunch while staring at the steel skeleton of a new building going up on West Third Street when one commented on "how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris." (source) (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D00E7DE1331F932A25752C1A9649C8B63)

Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue described the scope of the destruction, "Everything had its own look. In the area surrounding what was the two twin towers, there were several buildings still standing that were burned from top to bottom, and some of them were damaged by the collapse. But the two towers — they were 110-story buildings. And there was nothing that you could put your hands on that resembled anything that would tell you this once was two 110-story office buildings. What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel. (source) (http://www.theeagle.com/septanniv/091102firefighter.htm)

The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel. The health hazards are everywhere: the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies. (source) (http://www.illusiongenius.com/11-01.html)
http://nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D

You can rack your brain trying to find reasons to doubt all these reports or you can accept the reality that:

There is absolutely no doubt that there was molten metal under all three buildings.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Reverse logic again. How the metal stayed molten for weeks is debatable.
How it got that hot in the first place is what we are discussing now.

Do you have another explanation?

That has nothing to do with what melted the metal.

Correct
American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Mark Loizeaux later qualified and extended his statement. He did not refute anything in his first statement.

Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926

Abolhassan Astaneh is a professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and was one of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Describing the Oakland freeway overpass collapse he said:
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html


Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center. (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20020905195530/http:/www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html)


[B]Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, was interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news on October 10 2001:
GUMBEL: We’re seeing a lot of video of smoke pouring up from the debris.
ALLBAUGH: Correct.
GUMBEL: And we’re hearing there are places where temperatures are still approaching and sometimes exceeding a thousand degrees.
ALLBAUGH: That’s right.
GUMBEL: Why? Why do we have these hot spots? What’s going on?
ALLBAUGH: Well, you have normal debris, you know, computers, paper, you have some areas that are hot pockets because of fuel. It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into those areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material. (source_FEMA.gov) (http://www.fema.gov/doc/diz01/gumbel1004.doc)

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all subgrade levels, stated "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (source_SEAU.org) (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf)

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. (source) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html) (audio) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2007/05/10/20070510_overpass28.mp3)

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20021006003613/http:/www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm) (audio) (http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adis/rm/adis_trimpe.rm)

A NY firefighter described steel flowing at ground zero. "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel — molten steel! — running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry... like lava... from a volcano. (source) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en) (source) (http://governmentterror.com/images/UNFLINCHING%20LOOK%20AMONG%20THE%20RUINS_print.htm l) (hi-res_source) (http://www.stage6.com/user/nasathermalimages/video/2182380/Molten-Steel-at-the-World-Trade-Center-Site)

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." (source) (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm) (cached_copy) (http://governmentterror.com/images/77nwash.html)

The owner of Controlled Demolition Inc., Mark Loizeaux (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;) stated the molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,”. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;), which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20020905195530/http:/www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html)

Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. -Sarah Atlas of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue (source_upenn.edu) (http://web.archive.org/web/20021015213646/http:/www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html)

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." (source_jhsph.edu) (http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm)

A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,” he said. Additionally he stated "Shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering red hot metal beams excavated from deep beneath layers of sub-floors, exposing further dark crevasses." (source_neha.org) (http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html)

"They showed us many fascinating slides" he continued, "ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." -Dr Keith Eaton (source_istructe.org.uk) (http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/http:/www.istructe.org.uk/about/files/president/Tour-2002-NewYork.pdf)

"Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." -Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing (source) (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802#continue)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source) (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/)

"the ominous groaning of weakened structures overhead, or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." -William Langewiesche (source_p32) (http://www.amazon.com/American-Ground-Unbuilding-World-Center/dp/0865476756) (cached_copy) (http://nasathermalimages.com/images/BOOK_American_Ground_p32.png)

He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life. -Lee Turner of The Boone County Firefighters (source) (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm)

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (source) (http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news)

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source (http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948)) (http://web.archive.org/web/20041223152148/http:/www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm)

...numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (source_9-11commission.gov) (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing1/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-04-01.htm) (2) (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_holden.htm) (3) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030401-holden.htm)

Richard Garlock, a structural engineer for LERA said "Going below, it was smoky and really hot... The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running." (source) (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html)

Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC, reported the following to Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff Writer, on September 11, 2002 "a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel." (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20030521104203/http:/www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm)

Father Edward A. Malloy, on site 40 days after the disaster stated "Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500F so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down." (source_nd.edu) (http://www.nd.edu/%7Endmag/reflect/malloydiary.html)

Ed Pfister, a veteran of three hurricanes and two flood relief efforts, and a member of the elite Disaster Medical Assistance Team, wrote in his diary "deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and boiled with molten material. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above." (source_NIH.gov) (http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/10_30_2001/story01.htm)

Guy Lounsbury with the 109th Air Wing of the New York Air National Guard wrote "The men who work on this must constantly change their boots as the heat melts them. Two weeks after the attack, one fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains." (source) (http://home.nycap.rr.com/geljal/Documents/TWO%20WEEKS%20AT%20GROUND%20ZERO.htm)

A group of veteran ironworkers eating lunch while staring at the steel skeleton of a new building going up on West Third Street when one commented on "how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris." (source) (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D00E7DE1331F932A25752C1A9649C8B63)

Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue described the scope of the destruction, "Everything had its own look. In the area surrounding what was the two twin towers, there were several buildings still standing that were burned from top to bottom, and some of them were damaged by the collapse. But the two towers — they were 110-story buildings. And there was nothing that you could put your hands on that resembled anything that would tell you this once was two 110-story office buildings. What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel. (source) (http://www.theeagle.com/septanniv/091102firefighter.htm)

The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel. The health hazards are everywhere: the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies. (source) (http://www.illusiongenius.com/11-01.html)
http://nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D

You can rack your brain trying to find reasons to doubt all these reports or you can accept the reality that:

There is absolutely no doubt that there was molten metal under all three buildings.



Correct. Good Job.

[Grizzly Bear]

I'll address the lighter parts of your post first and then respond to the testimony...

Reverse logic again. How the metal stayed molten for weeks is debatable.

How it got that hot in the first place is what we are discussing now.


You stated that the only explanation is for it to have been made by thermite. You need to establish that any such thermite would be capable of function in the first place. I'm asking this for a reason. Metal will not stay in a molten state if the heat source sufficient is unavailable.


Do you have another explanation?
Corrosion reactions ranging from combustion, chemical reactions, all of which generate heat as an out put. Portions of the debris pile were already hot from the initial fires that were once in the upper floors.
Quite numerous causes possible, but beyond my field of knowledge. You want a better explanation ask someone who knows more about oxidation reactions than I do.

I am only working on establishing whether your claims of thermite are viable.

That has nothing to do with what melted the metal.
Your conclusion ultimately leads to thermite. For the cause to be thermite requires that it cleared such conditions. Simple as that.



To be continued....................

[Christopher7]

You haven't the faintest idea of the temperature of the "glob" in the crab claw or the fires in the debris.You missed this:
Molten metals glow orange to yellow at roughly 900-1100°C.
They glow white at about 1200°C.

The molten metal is most likely steel.
However, it does not matter.
Planck’s Radiation Law

Planck’s Law gives the spectral radiance of electromagnetic radiation of a black body. This is a function of frequency (or, equivalently, wavelength) and temperature. This law embodies the concept that the radiated spectrum as a function of frequency at a given temperature is the same shape for all radiating materials. The only factor affecting the radiated spectrum that depends on the nature of the material is emissivity, a constant, independent of frequency.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf)

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3070/colortempchartyq6.png

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9400/clawph1.jpg

Your ignorance of the properties and uses of thermite hardly qualifies you to speculate on the causes of the molten metal. Again, demolition professionals dismiss your fabrications as uninformed rubbish.Thermite burns at about 2500°C [4500°F] and can melt steel.
That is a fact, not a fabrication.

Thermite is a possible cause of the molten metal.

There are NO other possible causes.

[Christopher7]

I'm confused. How can you be arguing that material was pulled out of the fire at 1200C and at the same time say that the fire it was pulled from was no where near 1200C?The fires could not and did not melt the metal.
Thermite burns at 2500°C.
Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C*.
Steel melts at 1400-1500°C.
The glob in the crab claw is 900-1200°C.

*http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3699111#post3699111


Thermite is one possible explanation for the molten metal.

Do you know of another explanation?

[Grizzly Bear]

Correct
<snip for brevity>

Mark Loizeaux later qualified and extended his statement. He did not refute anything in his first statement.

Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926


His later statement is less specific than you implied:
The existence of molten metal is confirmed by Mark Loizeaux and many others.
At best his confirmation is anecdotal, based on second hand testimony. According to the email he did not see it personally, while interesting it only marginally lends to your claim.



Abolhassan Astaneh is a professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and was one of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11.

Describing the Oakland freeway overpass collapse he said:
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html
Marginally interesting, but not very specific on the molten steel claims. More than anything, the article describes that the collapse of the bridge, that is, the failure mode of the steel was similar to that of the trade centers:

The damage closed two heavily traveled freeways and caused commuters to alter their routes. The collapse of the freeways was more than just a local traffic nightmare; it was an object lesson in freeway construction and destruction. And it had many similarities to the obliteration of the World Trade Center.

Abolhassan Astaneh should know. He's a professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and was one of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley: In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed. In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures.

and a continuation to the quote you gave me:


SPENCER MICHELS: But they got soft, though, didn't they?

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Yes. When steel gets to 1,000 degrees, it loses its strength.

SPENCER MICHELS: Astaneh spent a lot of time attempting to make sure Caltrans didn't recycle the damaged steel, clues to the collapse.

CALTRANS EMPLOYEE: They've been cut; a lot of them have been cut.

CALTRANS EMPLOYEE: Yes, 40 foot. We cut them about in hal
Could the similarities between the tower mean that the bridge is yet another conspiracy!? Wow...

In all, he doesn't seem to have the same sentiment on the issue as you do.




Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center. (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20020905195530/http:/www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html)
Are there any non-conspiracy sources which corroborate this? The only sources I've found statements like this one is AFP, I try to find multiple sources, political, CT, and in between before making a decision. You should do some research on some of the sources you use before you decide on their credibility: AMP (http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_Domestic/9_11_conspiracy_theories.htm)


Added comments in red


Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, was interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news on October 10 2001:
GUMBEL: We’re seeing a lot of video of smoke pouring up from the debris.
ALLBAUGH: Correct.
GUMBEL: And we’re hearing there are places where temperatures are still approaching and sometimes exceeding a thousand degrees.

Fahrenheit or celsius? This is not specified. If this were 1000 oC the maximun temperature would equate to 1800 oF, in in celsius, then roughly ~510-520 oF. Neither unit of measure is hot enough to make molten steel

ALLBAUGH: That’s right.
GUMBEL: Why? Why do we have these hot spots? What’s going on?
ALLBAUGH: Well, you have normal debris, you know, computers, paper, you have some areas that are hot pockets because of fuel. It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into those areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material. (source_FEMA.gov) (http://www.fema.gov/doc/diz01/gumbel1004.doc)


The quote you posted here says nothing about molten metal. To be more specific it does not specify whether it is referring to molten steel molten plastic, molten lead... the term used is ambiguous, and doesn't really add to your claim.



Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all subgrade levels, stated "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (source_SEAU.org) (http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf)

Not much to criticize here other than it's not specific. The claims' there, but doesn't specify a location or details surrounding it. Simply mentions molten steel. While interesting it only marginally adds to your argument.


"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. (source) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html) (audio) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2007/05/10/20070510_overpass28.mp3)
This is largely a repeat of another quote addressed earlier...


"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20021006003613/http:/www.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/trimpe.htm) (audio) (http://www.thrnewmedia.com/adis/rm/adis_trimpe.rm)
Quote in full:


The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.

Another account which isn't terribly specific, and reliant on second hand testimony. Marginally interesting, but non-specific, and doesn't imply a conclusion to the degree which you have made.

I'm still listening to the RM file linked...

A NY firefighter described steel flowing at ground zero. "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel — molten steel! — running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry... like lava... from a volcano. (source) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en)

(source) (http://governmentterror.com/images/UNFLINCHING%20LOOK%20AMONG%20THE%20RUINS_print.htm l)
Link doesn't work

(hi-res_source) (http://www.stage6.com/user/nasathermalimages/video/2182380/Molten-Steel-at-the-World-Trade-Center-Site)
Link doesn't work


Saw the video so I know the claim is there... but the other links don't work...

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." (source) (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm)

(cached_copy) (http://governmentterror.com/images/77nwash.html)
Link doesn't work



The owner of Controlled Demolition Inc., Mark Loizeaux (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;) stated the molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,”. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;), which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20020905195530/http:/www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html)
Repeat quote... source cited is American Free Press


Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. -Sarah Atlas of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue (source_upenn.edu) (http://web.archive.org/web/20021015213646/http:/www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html)

Again, only marginally supportive, as like many of the sources thus far it's unspecific about the details... The claim is there, but otherwise little information following up on it.


"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." (source_jhsph.edu) (http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm)
-----------------------------

A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,” he said. Additionally he stated "Shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering red hot metal beams excavated from deep beneath layers of sub-floors, exposing further dark crevasses." (source_neha.org) (http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html)

Context of the molten steel claim seems more analogous than literal.... 'red hot' certainly does not indicate molten in the other portion of the quote...


"They showed us many fascinating slides" he continued, "ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." -Dr Keith Eaton (source_istructe.org.uk) (http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/http:/www.istructe.org.uk/about/files/president/Tour-2002-NewYork.pdf)

Red hot indicates a temperature of no greater than 600 oC. Now I know this one isn't a literal interpretation....


"Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." -Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing (source) (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802#continue)


A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source) (http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/)

....... will be addressed in general comment


"the ominous groaning of weakened structures overhead, or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." -William Langewiesche (source_p32) (http://www.amazon.com/American-Ground-Unbuilding-World-Center/dp/0865476756) (cached_copy) (http://nasathermalimages.com/images/BOOK_American_Ground_p32.png)
Marginally interesting, but molten 'metal' is ambiguous, and can be interpreted in any number of materials from aluminum, to lead, ect... this doesn't corroborate your claim of steel...


He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life. -Lee Turner of The Boone County Firefighters (source) (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm)

pinkish glow indicates a temperature well below 600 oC, which would be far too 'cold' to be liquid steel. I am beginning to wonder how ambiguosly the term 'molten' has been used by multiple parties during the eye witness account....

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (source) (http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html?topic=news)

If the beam is 'dripping' with liquid steel then the host beam must be in thermal equilibrium with the liquid portion. In other words, by pulling it out the beam would be heavily distorted or pulled apart like soft putty....

The only thing that is clear from his testimony is that he was in the area and not working to recover the steel, it's not clear if he has any expertise in metalurgy.


As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source (http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948)) (http://web.archive.org/web/20041223152148/http:/www.messenger-inquirer.com/news/attacks/4522011.htm)
Same as above:
If the beam is 'dripping' with liquid steel then the host beam must be in thermal equilibrium with the liquid portion. In other words, by pulling it out the beam would be heavily distorted or pulled apart like soft putty....


...numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (source_9-11commission.gov) (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing1/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-04-01.htm) (2) (http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_holden.htm) (3) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/9-11_commission/030401-holden.htm)
marginally interesting but not supportive of your claim. The term 'metal' in this context is ambiguous. Is it steel? Is it aluminum? Is it lead? etc?


Richard Garlock, a structural engineer for LERA said "Going below, it was smoky and really hot... The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running." (source) (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html)
Red hot indicates a temperature at or below 600 oC. The metal would not be 'molten' at this temperature as this is well below steels' melting point.



Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC, reported the following to Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff Writer, on September 11, 2002 "a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel." (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20030521104203/http:/www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm)

I didn't realize analogies could be taken so literally...


Father Edward A. Malloy, on site 40 days after the disaster stated "Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500F so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down." (source_nd.edu) (http://www.nd.edu/%7Endmag/reflect/malloydiary.html)

1500 oF is well below the melting point of steel. I'm wondering once again if the term is being used ambiguously by the witnesses. This is the 2nd instance where this seems to prove itself to be the case.


Ed Pfister, a veteran of three hurricanes and two flood relief efforts, and a member of the elite Disaster Medical Assistance Team, wrote in his diary "deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and boiled with molten material. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above." (source_NIH.gov) (http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/10_30_2001/story01.htm)

Molten material is an ambiguous term, which can mean metal, plastic, or something else. While interesting, it doesn't add to your claim.


Guy Lounsbury with the 109th Air Wing of the New York Air National Guard wrote "The men who work on this must constantly change their boots as the heat melts them. Two weeks after the attack, one fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains." (source) (http://home.nycap.rr.com/geljal/Documents/TWO%20WEEKS%20AT%20GROUND%20ZERO.htm)

Covered at end comment


A group of veteran ironworkers eating lunch while staring at the steel skeleton of a new building going up on West Third Street when one commented on "how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris." (source) (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D00E7DE1331F932A25752C1A9649C8B63)
'molten' in this quote appears to be used in the context of an analogy, again... not specific, and leads me to ask if the term 'molten' has been used ambiguously throughout witness accounts.


Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue described the scope of the destruction, "Everything had its own look. In the area surrounding what was the two twin towers, there were several buildings still standing that were burned from top to bottom, and some of them were damaged by the collapse. But the two towers — they were 110-story buildings. And there was nothing that you could put your hands on that resembled anything that would tell you this once was two 110-story office buildings. What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel. (source) (http://www.theeagle.com/septanniv/091102firefighter.htm)


The end of this quote peeks my interest, if the steel is molten and 2000+ oF I'm not so sure I'd be walking ON the molten steel.... At least not if I wanted to keep my legs, or even my life... Again context of the terms seems to be ambiguous.....

The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel. The health hazards are everywhere: the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies. (source) (http://www.illusiongenius.com/11-01.html)
http://nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D
Again... the context suggests that they were walking on top of this debris pile melting their boots... If this metal is a 2000 oF inferno, would you be walking on it?

[SIZE=2]You can rack your brain trying to find reasons to doubt all these reports or you can accept the reality that:[B]
I don't doubt all of them... nothing I can do about firefighters who claim to have seen rivers of molten steel... debunking the claims wasn't really what I had in mind, but many of your witness accounts are either non-specific (mentioning molten steel once in the entire article and not commenting further), or using the term molten is a very vague context. On top of that, many of your sources have forced me to question if some of the witness definitions of 'molten' are the same interpretations as the definition you or me place on it.

Statistics of the quotes

Claims w/no added commentary: 4
Based on second hand witnesses: 2
Claims involving analogies/similes/ambiguous term use: 9
Quotes taken from AFP: 2
Quotes which do not indicate liquid steel based on thermal color: 4


But you've yet to prove that any genuine claims are a result of thermite reactions.... and while some testimony is interesting, there have been no visual renditions shown to further corroborate the motel steel claim presented thus far.

[Jonnyclueless]

That sure was a long post of Chris's proving there was no actual confirmation or proof of molten steel. And let's recap what the evidence of a CD is:

"It looked like a CD to me".

[Christopher7]

His later statement is less specific than you implied:

At best his confirmation is anecdotal, based on second hand testimony. According to the email he did not see it personally, while interesting it only marginally lends to your claim.He quoted contractors he had worked with. He was confident that they were not imbeciles and could recognize molten metal when they saw it.

I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
Marginally interesting, but not very specific on the molten steel claims. More than anything, the article describes that the collapse of the bridge, that is, the failure mode of the steel was similar to that of the trade centers: Not very specific? What part of "melting" don't you understand?

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center. (source) (http://web.archive.org/web/20020905195530/http:/www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html)
Are there any non-conspiracy sources which corroborate this? The only sources I've found statements like this one is AFP, I try to find multiple sources, political, CT, and in between before making a decision. You should do some research on some of the sources you use before you decide on their credibility: AMP (http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Semitism_Domestic/9_11_conspiracy_theories.htm)You are looking for reasons to doubt.

So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material.
The quote you posted here says nothing about molten metal. To be more specific it does not specify whether it is referring to molten steel molten plastic, molten lead... the term used is ambiguous, and doesn't really add to your claim.
Each statement by itself is not conclusive but when you put them all together they spell "molten metal".

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and
molten steel was still running.
Not much to criticize here other than it's not specific. The claims' there, but doesn't specify a location or details surrounding it. Simply mentions molten steel. While interesting it only marginally adds to your argument.Not specific?

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat.
Another account which isn't terribly specific,Please

and reliant on second hand testimony."I talked to many contractors" Dou think the contractors he talked to were imbeciles?


I don't doubt all of them... nothing I can do about firefighters who claim to have seen rivers of molten steel...That's the point. There are enough credible witnesses, who's statements can be verified, that you cannot doubt or deny. These then, support the others.

Unless you can convince yourself that they are all wrong, you must accept the simple reality that they were all right.

But you've yet to prove that any genuine claims are a result of thermite reactions....Correct.
I can only state that:
There was molten metal and Thermite is the only known possible cause.

[Jonnyclueless]

Christopher, just because people thought what they saw was steel does not make it steel. if they said they saw peanut butter does that mean the building was made of peanut butter, or just that they thought it was?

Either show the metalurgy tests or accept that hearsay is not proof. There's going to be melted metal as there i in every fire, and it's even very plausible for there to be molten steel even in an office fire despite your attempts to claim otherwise. But you are using hearsay and assumptions and 2nd hand reports to make your claim.

And whats even more ironic is that it's to support a claim that is much more impossible than fires melting steel. At least that's plausible. Thermite keeping steel melted for months is completely impossible. Any way you add it up, your conclusions are impossible. It's bad enough that you use sources that intentionally lie.

So in the end, you have 0 proof of a controlled demolition. your only argument comes down to it looking to you like a CD. You have not one single piece of physical evidence and not one single person in the entire world has been able to write a paper proving your claims.

[phunk]

The fires could not and did not melt the metal.
Thermite burns at 2500°C.
Smoldering fires burn at about 500-600°C*.
Steel melts at 1400-1500°C.
The glob in the crab claw is 900-1200°C.

*http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3699111#post3699111


Thermite is one possible explanation for the molten metal.

Do you know of another explanation?


The metal in your picture is not molten.

[Dave Rogers]

Chris, I'm going to focus on this one sentence of your post, because (a) it is the foundation stone of this strand of your argument, and (b) it contains two unsupported assertions and one simple error.


The glob is semi solid [pliable] with white hot liquid metal dripping off the bottom.

(1) You are inferring the plasticity of a piece of material from a single photograph. This is impossible. You have no way of knowing whether the piece of metal being lifted is rigid or pliable.

(2) There is nothing visible in the photograph that is clearly white-hot.

(3) The smaller objects falling from the bottom of the "glob" cannot be identified as solid or liquid.

Therefore, you are stating two opinions and a mistaken observation. This invalidates your following reasoning.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

If you don't want to use the word 'molten' to describe it, that's OK, but that doesn't change the fact that it was molten at one time and formed the glob after being cooled somewhat from all the water being applied.

That is completely unfounded speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing whether a single irregularly shaped piece of metal was previously molten and had then solidified. Your guesses have no value as evidence.
The glob in the crab claw is 900-1200ºC.

The fires in the debris pile were no where near 1200ºC.

You're cherry-picking your own arguments here. Your lowest estimate for the temperature of the piece of metal in the grab claw is 900ºC, not 1200ºC. In fact, you earlier gave the temperature range as 900-1100ºC. If you accept that the temperature could have been as low as 900ºC, then there seems less of a problem with the fires creating the required temperatures.

Dave

[GlennB]

The glob in the crab claw was 900-1200ºC.

Chris - you must study "black body radiation" a little deeper. Better scientists than me might come by here and confirm that you need to analyse the spectrum of the hot body with a refractometer or spectrometer or somesuch, but I believe you cannot use the apparent colour of some hot stuff in a photo to give even a reasonably accurate estimate of its temperature. Let me illustrate with two photos I took of fires in my hearth. Please estimate the temperatures of these two fires :

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



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

[Jonnyclueless]

The irony is here we have one thread with a twoofer arguing that the temperatures couldn't have been above 1200 degrees, and another thread with a twoofer arguing the temperatures wouldn't have been below 1200. We should pair some of these guys up.

[Christopher7]

Christopher, just because people thought what they saw was steel does not make it steel. if they said they saw peanut butter does that mean the building was made of peanut butter, or just that they thought it was?Many witnesses, including contractors that Mark Loizeaux had worked with, said there was molten metal in the debris pile.
Do you think they were all lying?
Do you think they were all imbeciles that didn't know molten metal from peanut butter?

There's going to be melted metal as there i in every fire, and it's even very plausible for there to be molten steel even in an office fire despite your attempts to claim otherwise.Source?

And whats even more ironic is that it's to support a claim that is much more impossible than fires melting steel. At least that's plausible.Please site a case where this has happened.

Thermite keeping steel melted for months is completely impossible.Building contents burning in a debris pile could not keep metal molten for months.
Thermite burns at 2500°C [4500°F]. There were several stories of debris insulating the molten metal. This would keep the temperature above the melting point of steel for quite a while.

[Christopher7]

Chris, I'm going to focus on this one sentence of your post,and ignore the numerous witnesses whosaw molten metal in the debris pile.

Do you think all those witnesses were mistaken or lying?

[Christopher7]

That is completely unfounded speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing whether a single irregularly shaped piece of metal was previously molten and had then solidified.This is difficult for someone devoid of common sense to figure out.

Maybe this will help you:
The metal was in the form of a glob.
It had to melt before it could become a glob.


Your lowest estimate for the temperature of the piece of metal in the grab claw is 900ºC, not 1200ºC. In fact, you earlier gave the temperature range as 900-1100ºC. I corrected myself, something you are incapable of doing.

If you accept that the temperature could have been as low as 900ºC, then there seems less of a problem with the fires creating the required temperatures.orange is about 900ºC, yellow about 1100ºC and white 1200ºC and above

[Grizzly Bear]

Building contents burning in a debris pile could not keep metal molten for months.
Thermite burns at 2500°C [4500°F]. Several stories of debris insulated the molten metal. This would keep the temperature above the melting point of steel for quite a while.

Thermite definitely burns at 4000+ oF but then again you are forcibly attempting to validate it's ability to survive, a collapse, have a sufficient ignition source, and MAINTAIN an extremely long reaction time.... with nothing to support it! Holy crap, do you even care how all of this would be possible for thermite?


Besides the point, I don't think many of the witnesses are lying, but the context in which 'molten' is used implies that the definition of 'moplten' isn't the same as what you or me place on it.

Take these quotes for example:
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue described the scope of the destruction, "Everything had its own look. In the area surrounding what was the two twin towers, there were several buildings still standing that were burned from top to bottom, and some of them were damaged by the collapse. But the two towers — they were 110-story buildings. And there was nothing that you could put your hands on that resembled anything that would tell you this once was two 110-story office buildings. What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel. (source)"


Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
"The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel. The health hazards are everywhere: the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies. (source)

If you define molten metal as being in a liquid or semi-liquid state, it would require a temperature pretty damn near 2000 oF. Not something I you'd find me trying to skip my feet on.... Do you know what their definition of 'molten' is? I don't. Remember many of these people are'nt experts in metallurgy, they won't necessarily adhere to scientific terminology...

[GlennB]

and ignore the numerous witnesses whosaw molten metal in the debris pile.

Do you think all those witnesses were mistaken or lying?

I don't think any of us has a problem with molten metal at GZ. Aluminium melts well inside the temperature range for normal building fires.

If it's merely molten metal you claim then it's point conceded,at least as far as I'm concerned.

[Dave Rogers]

and ignore the numerous witnesses whosaw molten metal in the debris pile.

Do you think all those witnesses were mistaken or lying?

You're editorialising all those statements, and taking a report of molten metal to be incontravertible evidence of molten steel. Without any chemical analysis having been done on a sample of molten metal, I think it perfectly reasonable that all those witnesses may either have been mistaken in their identification of the molten metal as iron, or never attempted to identify it as molten steel in the first place.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

This is difficult for someone devoid of common sense to figure out.

Clearly.

Maybe this will help you:
The metal was in the form of a glob.
It had to melt before it could become a glob.

Again, this is simply your opinion. The metal in the photograph is of an indeterminate shape, and there is nothing about its shape to suggest that it must have been melted and re-solidified. You are simply seeing something you want to see.

I corrected myself, something you are incapable of doing.

Chris, you are giving the temperature as 900-1200ºC, then in the next line of the same post implying that the temperature is 1200ºC rather than 900ºC. You may not be able to see your own inconsistencies, but they're painfully obvious to the rest of us.

Dave

[Christopher7]

Better scientists than me might come by here and confirm that you need to analyse the spectrum of the hot body with a refractometer or spectrometer or somesuch[/Might come by?
The color chart is the standard for approximating the temperature of metals.
It reflects the known color/temp relationship.
http://www.cowtown.net/mikefirth/techspec.htm

[Christopher7]

Thermite definitely burns at 4000+ oF but then again you are forcibly attempting to validate it's ability to survive, a collapseWrong, I have said the Thermite would have been activated before the collapse.

have a sufficient ignition source, and MAINTAIN an extremely long reaction time....Wrong again, I said the several stories of debris would have insulated the molten metal.

Besides the point, I don't think many of the witnesses are lyingThen you believe some of them.
Were the contractors who told Mark Loizeaux there was molten metal lying?

but the context in which 'molten' is used implies that the definition of 'moplten' isn't the same as what you or me place on it.'moplten' ?

Do you believe that there was molten metal in the debris pile or not?

[Christopher7]

I don't think any of us has a problem with molten metal at GZ. Aluminium melts well inside the temperature range for normal building fires.Some people here are dodging the question, including you. "not having a problem with" is not-quite "there was molten metal".

Do you believe the witnesses were correct and there was molten metal ?

If it's merely molten metal you claim then it's point conceded,at least as far as I'm concerned.One step at a time.

[Christopher7]

You're editorialising all those statements, and taking a report of molten metal to be incontravertible evidence of molten steel.Wrong. I am taking the sum of those reports as confirmation that there was molten metal in the debris pile.

Without any chemical analysis having been done on a sample of molten metal, I think it perfectly reasonable that all those witnesses may either have been mistaken in their identification of the molten metal as iron, or never attempted to identify it as molten steel in the first place.

Dave Clever double talk.
They could not say for sure weather or not the molten metal was iron, but THEY WERE NOT MISTAKEN ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS MOLTEN !


Do you think there was molten metal in the debris pile or not ?

[Dave Rogers]

Do you think there was molten metal in the debris pile or not ?

There was aluminium in the debris, and temperatures above the melting point of aluminium were measured in the debris pile. I strongly suspect that there was molten aluminium present in the debris pile.

Meanwhile, is there anything in the shape of your "glob" of metal that shows, or even suggests, that it was previously molten?

Dave

[Grizzly Bear]

Wrong, I have said the Thermite would have been activated before the collapse.
And you are arguing that it caused molten metal to be found DAYS AND WEEKS LATER. Do you not see where this is headed? Thermite doesn't react for several days, let alone months.


Wrong again, I said the several stories of debris would have insulated the molten metal.
Apparently not during our current discussion.


Then you believe some of them.
Were the contractors who told Mark Loizeaux there was molten metal lying?
Did I say they were lying? I repeat my last post in context:

"Besides the point, I don't think many of the witnesses are lying, but the context in which 'molten' is used implies that the definition of 'molten' isn't the same as what you or me place on it.

How many of these witnesses are in metallurgy? Do you expects all of them to use the term in proper terminology, when they only describe it once in the entire article?



'moplten' ?

On this planet that would be called a typo.

[Christopher7]

There was aluminium in the debris, and temperatures above the melting point of aluminium were measured in the debris pile. I strongly suspect that there was molten aluminium present in the debris pile.I strongly suspect is shy of there was.

Do you believe the witnesses or not?

Meanwhile, is there anything in the shape of your "glob" of metal that shows, or even suggests, that it was previously molten?

DaveThe fact that it was a glob and it appears to be dripping metal off the bottom. This is consistent with several reports of beams dripping metal.
The photograph is described by Mark Loizeaux:
"There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators."

He has no doubt that there was molten metal in the debris pile, why do you?

[Dave Rogers]

I strongly suspect is shy of there was.

It's all you're getting. There are witness statements, which could be mistaken. This is always the case with witness statements.

The fact that it was a glob and it appears to be dripping metal off the bottom.

"The fact that it was a glob" is meaningless. You have chosen to describe the shape of the piece of metal by using the word "glob". What is it about the shape, specifically, that indicates that it must have previously been molten? Explain, preferably using measurements from the photograph, or you have nothing.

As for "appears to be dripping metal off the bottom", all that can be seen in the photograph is orange-yellow glowing material falling from the bottom edge. It's impossible to tell from the photo whether it's solid fragments or liquid drops. Again, there's no clear indication from the photograph that anything is liquid. And, since this is clearly the photo Loizeaux is referring to, his own testimony, given that he clearly states that he did not witness molten metal himself, is of very little value on this specific point.

Dave

[GlennB]

Some people here are dodging the question, including you. "not having a problem with" is not-quite "there was molten metal".

Do you believe the witnesses were correct and there was molten metal ?

One step at a time.

Yes, one step at a time.

A while back you were vigorously claiming molten steel. Now you're claiming molten metal and demanding a simple answer while already linking that answer to your original statements. For some reason I strongly suspect that an unequivoval "yes" to your question above will see you claiming that this would support the molten steel claim, which of course it wouldn't.

So, Chris, your question has changed. And this is why I and others are qualifying our answers. Until you clarify all I can do is repeat - I'd find molten aluminium at GZ perfectly feasible, but not molten steel.

p.s. if an incendiary had been used to bring down WTC1+2 then the resultant molten steel would be scattered to the four winds during the collapse. It wouldn't be lying around in "pools" any more than water from a ruptured water cooler or storage tank would lying in a pool at the end.

[Dave_46]

<snip. Until you clarify all I can do is repeat - I'd find molten aluminium at GZ perfectly feasible, but not molten steel.

<snip>

My bolding. Agreed. When testing fire doors the aluminium handles would melt and pool at the bottom of the test furnace. In a half hour test the temperarure reaches just under 850°C

Dave

[jaydeehess]

just for kicks I did a simple experiment with my wood stove at the cottage yesterday(cold rainy day for this time of year)
The stove has two swinging doors on the front that latch together in the center. Each door contains a damper that can be closed right off. There is also a screen that can be fitted to the opening while both doors are wide open. This is so that one can use the stove as a fireplace and watch the flames.

I started a fire and watched it burn with both doors open, no screen. It burned cheerily and well. I then closed only ONE door With its damper closed all the way) thus cutting off 1/2 of the available air supply. Did the fire suffer at all? NO, in fact the fire burned hotter as the air coming in simply sped up. I futher started to close the second door until only a 1 inch wide crack was supplying air and the air entering the fire box continued to speed up and the fire roared. I then closed both doors and opened the dampers slightly. The dampers are designed to slow the air as well as limit it and the fire slowed down.

[GlennB]

My bolding. Agreed. When testing fire doors the aluminium handles would melt and pool at the bottom of the test furnace. In a half hour test the temperarure reaches just under 850°C

Dave

Here's another example .. a car that was caught in an intense forest fire. The alloy wheels have melted, the steel body is merely singed. Looks like "rivers of molten steel" to me <sigh> .

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/meltedwheels-1.gif

[Jonnyclueless]

Chris is getting pretty desperate now. I guess if we found a guy who believed it was peanut butter, then we could scientifically conclude the towers were made of peanut butter.

[Christopher7]

It's all you're getting. There are witness statements, which could be mistaken. This is always the case with witness statements. Standard denial answer.
That might be true if only one or two people said they saw molten metal but we have over 20 firefighters, contractors and other witnesses.
Do you really think all these people can't recognize molten metal when they see it?
You are insulting the heroes of 9/11 by writing off their statements and effectively calling them either liars or idiots.

"The fact that it was a glob" is meaningless. IYO

As for "appears to be dripping metal off the bottom", all that can be seen in the photograph is orange-yellow glowing material falling from the bottom edge. The bottom of the glob is not orange to yellow it's yellow to white.


It's impossible to tell from the photo whether it's solid fragments or liquid drops. Solid fragments don't fall of a glob of metal.

Again, there's no clear indication from the photograph that anything is liquid. And, since this is clearly the photo Loizeaux is referring to, his own testimonyDo you see the steam and the water being sprayed on the pile in the foreground?
Do you doubt the reports of huge amounts of water being put on the debris pile?
The glob has been cooled enough to become semi solid. This is not difficult to figure out unless one has a mental block and cannot accept anything that proves the "official conspiracy throry" is not true.

given that he clearly states that he did not witness molten metal himself, is of very little value on this specific point. Mark Loizeaux believes that there was molten metal because he knows the contractors he has worked with can identify molten metal.
Why can't you accept that?

[Christopher7]

A while back you were vigorously claiming molten steel. Now you're claiming molten metal and demanding a simple answer while already linking that answer to your original statements.

I'd find molten aluminium at GZ perfectly feasible, but not molten steel.
The glob is orange to white 900-1200ºC.
Aluminum melts at 660ºC, there fore it is not aluminum.

What are the other possibilities?

p.s. if an incendiary had been used to bring down WTC1+2 then the resultant molten steel would be scattered to the four winds during the collapse. It wouldn't be lying around in "pools" any more than water from a ruptured water cooler or storage tank would lying in a pool at the end.Reverse logic again. "It couldn't be because. . . . ."