Any hypothesis on pools of metal?

[Devil's Advocate]

First off, I would like to state for the record that I am not on any 'side', as it were, on the debate. I think there are many points of both sides that lead to interesting questions.

My belief of 9/11.
Two planes hit two towers.
One plane hit the Pentagon.

As far as Flight 93 goes, I have not looked into it as much as I would have liked up to this point. I would like to couple ground evidence with the flight data before I formulate evidence to conclusion. What was the last reported altitude and pitch (degree of angle) the plane was in relation to the impact site.
So couple the crafts altitude, speed, pitch, location, etc, to see if it is possible with the data to end up in a dart like impact with the ground.
I have not been looking hard on this point as yet, and like to avoid websites that have an obvious agenda. (If there is any information regarding this, I would be thankful for it.)

As to the topics title, I have not found anything that tries (through scientific method) to explain the reported pools of molten metal under the towers and building seven without seeing the words Thermite/Thermate in them.
I am sure there are studies out there that show other possible explanations to this event, but I have not found any up to this point.
Again, if you know of a direction to point me in, I would be most thankful.

I would also like to add that I have been reading debates where for a few days now, and I think people from both sides should tone down the belittling of the other. The attacks and degrading debate slinging profanity is uncalled for in my opinion. Questioning someones intelligence, grasp on reality, name calling such as 'Troofers', 'Agents', 'Brainwashed', etc, only add to resentment and puts the debate into a second rate joust of insults. If you have good points, you should never have to lower yourself to attacks and name calling.
Sorry if I sound a bit preachy, but I hate to see a debate fall because of ego's getting in the way.
It seems far too many people have already closed their minds to the possibility that they could be mistaken, and I see that as a failure in logic and reasoning on both sides.

Thanks for your time, and I look forward to reading and posting in the future.

 

[DarkMagician]

There are a few. Some I recall:

* The metals are those with a lower melting point than steel, like aluminum.
* Some of the metal was caught in a simple stove* setting, allowing it to reach temperatures hotter than the contributing fire and thus hit melting points easier than without the setting.

On the other hand, thermite and thermate have some big problems in using. Both are fast-burning and wouldn't have enough heat to keep the metal melted, unless there was a large supply. Furthermore, thermate has a few barium compounds that haven't been found in the debris.

* related to kitchen stoves as much as simple machines (like levers) are related to a modern machine (like a car)

 

[PhantomWolf]

As to the topics title, I have not found anything that tries (through scientific method) to explain the reported pools of molten metal under the towers and building seven without seeing the words Thermite/Thermate in them.
I am sure there are studies out there that show other possible explanations to this event, but I have not found any up to this point.
Again, if you know of a direction to point me in, I would be most thankful.

Well the main problem here is that there has never actually been any evidence of said pools actually existing. It's a little hard to explain something that hasn't ever been shown to exist, it's a little like scientifically explaining the digestion systems of an Extra-Terrestrial Biological Entity.

Let me explain further. Pools of moltem metal... Well what sort of metal? Was it Aluminium, copper, zinc, brass... All of these were present in large quanties and have low melting points and so could have pooled. The Truther movement want you to accept that such metal was steel, but the truth is that no pools were positively identified and certainly never tested to determine their make up if they did exist.

The only evidence of such pools is eye witnesses, but even then there is the problem that none of the people reporting them were the eye-witnesses, they were people reporting what they had been told others had seen, or people speculating on the conditions in the piles. At best it was heresay, at worse, total speculation.

So really it comes down to the fact that there doesn't have to be an explaination for them, because there isn't a need until a) it's proven they exisited, and b) it's shown what they actually were.

 

[Gravy]

Hello, DA, and welcome to the forums.

If you don't believe all the evidence, including all the witnesses and investigators, that flight 93 crashed, then you most certainly have taken a side. You have some reading to do:
Flight 93 / Shanksville Summary of Evidence, many links

Dark Magician covered the molten metal issue simply and eloquently.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

There are a few. Some I recall:

* The metals are those with a lower melting point than steel, like aluminum.
* Some of the metal was caught in a simple stove* setting, allowing it to reach temperatures hotter than the contributing fire and thus hit melting points easier than without the setting.

On the other hand, thermite and thermate have some big problems in using. Both are fast-burning and wouldn't have enough heat to keep the metal melted, unless there was a large supply. Furthermore, thermate has a few barium compounds that haven't been found in the debris.

* related to kitchen stoves as much as simple machines (like levers) are related to a modern machine (like a car)

Thank you for the reply. However, I have a problem with it. Aluminum is silver when it is melted, not 'lava like' orange. Has the hypothesis of the 'oven effect' been tested to any degree?
You do not have to mention cutting compounds. I seek alternate means of the event. I am not even close to sold on the thermite/thermate theory. It is just one of the topics I have not seen much research or debate on without those two compounds coming up.

 

[Gravy]

The only evidence of such pools is eye witnesses, but even then there is the problem that none of the people reporting them were the eye-witnesses, they were people reporting what they had been told others had seen, or people speculating on the conditions in the piles. At best it was heresay, at worse, total speculation.

Correction: there were eyewitnesses who reported seeing molten metal and steel, but they had no way of making the determination of what it was.

 

[Myriad]

My understanding is that there are no first-hand eyewitness reports of the existence of "pools of molten metal." (If you do have knowledge of such a first-hand report, though, please let me know so I do not remain in error.) And no reports of soilidifed pools of previously molten metal in the debris, which would have been quite distinctive in shape.

First-hand witnesses did report "molten metal" and occasionally "molten steel." How they could have distinguished one molten metal from another is not clear. What's also not always clear is whether when they say "molten" they mean fully liquid, or merely softened. (Though one described the molten metal as "dripping" which strongly suggests liquid.)

All references to "pools" are, to my knowledge, second-hand at best. What I conjecture happened is that listening to first-hand witnesses describe "molten metal," and interpreting that as "large quantities of liquid metal," some reporters assumed that naturally such liquid would inevitably form pools. They then passed on reports of "pools of molten metal."

The same way a reporter might report information that "there were dirty dishes everywhere" as "there were stacks of dirty dishes" without necessarily verifying that the dishes were actually in stacks.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[PhantomWolf]

I would also like to add that I have been reading debates where for a few days now, and I think people from both sides should tone down the belittling of the other. The attacks and degrading debate slinging profanity is uncalled for in my opinion. Questioning someones intelligence, grasp on reality, name calling such as 'Troofers', 'Agents', 'Brainwashed', etc, only add to resentment and puts the debate into a second rate joust of insults. If you have good points, you should never have to lower yourself to attacks and name calling.
Sorry if I sound a bit preachy, but I hate to see a debate fall because of ego's getting in the way.

It sounds like you might be new to this. Unfortunately when you have read 1000 posts by a guy that claims that Flight 175 didn't exist purely because he assumes the towerrs were blown up and that means the plane had to hit the building, ergo they wouldn't have used hijackers, and when you ask for evidence that the buildings were blown up he goes on on a rant about how it's obvious they were just by looking at them..., well tempers tend to fray somewhat.

 

[BeAChooser]

As to the topics title, I have not found anything that tries (through scientific method) to explain the reported pools of molten metal under the towers and building seven without seeing the words Thermite/Thermate in them.

First, you need to prove there were "pools" of molten metal. Because as far as I know, no actual eyewitness has used the word "pool" to describe what they saw. That's an invention of the CT community.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Hello, DA, and welcome to the forums.

If you don't believe all the evidence, including all the witnesses and investigators, that flight 93 crashed, then you most certainly have taken a side.

Dark Magician covered the molten metal issue simply and eloquently.


[/SIZE]

No Sir, you are mistaken. I have not taken a side in any way shape or form. I understand there is debate with regard to the event, and want to see all sides of the debate coupled with the evidence to see what is real and what is speculation.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Correction: there were eyewitnesses who reported seeing molten metal and steel, but they had no way of making the determination of what it was.

Hmm, well I know you know the witness reports far better than I do Gravy, so could you point me to first hand accounts of pools of molten metal?

 

[Gravy]

Thank you for the reply. However, I have a problem with it. Aluminum is silver when it is melted, not 'lava like' orange.

From my site. Keep in mind that it was dark where the molten metal was reported.

Does molten aluminum glow? It sure can.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1280681.html?page=2
http://www.world-aluminium.org/production/processing/casting.html
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html
http://www.bn.saint-gobain.com/Data...ation_edit.asp?ele_ch_id=A0000000000000001326
http://www.metaullics.com/sams.html
http://www.energysolutionscenter.org/HeatTreat/MetalsAdvisor/aluminum/casting/casting_equipment.htm
http://www.granton.k12.wi.us/highSchool/teched/index.htm
http://www.uhigh.ilstu.edu/tech/tech gallery.htm

On this page, note the difference between the aluminum that's just out of the furnace and the aluminum that's still molten, but cooler.

The site debunking 911 myths has an interesting page about this subject. Note their observation about the material falling from the south tower: it appears to turn silvery as it cools:
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 

[cmcaulif]

Well the main problem here is that there has never actually been any evidence of said pools actually existing. It's a little hard to explain something that hasn't ever been shown to exist, it's a little like scientifically explaining the digestion systems of an Extra-Terrestrial Biological Entity.

Let me explain further. Pools of moltem metal... Well what sort of metal? Was it Aluminium, copper, zinc, brass... All of these were present in large quanties and have low melting points and so could have pooled. The Truther movement want you to accept that such metal was steel, but the truth is that no pools were positively identified and certainly never tested to determine their make up if they did exist.

The only evidence of such pools is eye witnesses, but even then there is the problem that none of the people reporting them were the eye-witnesses, they were people reporting what they had been told others had seen, or people speculating on the conditions in the piles. At best it was heresay, at worse, total speculation.

So really it comes down to the fact that there doesn't have to be an explaination for them, because there isn't a need until a) it's proven they exisited, and b) it's shown what they actually were.

Were the ground temperatures at ground zero even hot enough to keep steel in the liquid state for as long as the pools were present?

 

[Furcifer]

To kinda add to what Myriad said, no one (there he is again) has defined what a pool is. Is it Barbie dreamhouse size? One of them Turtle kiddie pools, Olympic? This would go along way to help clarify this issue if we stopped refering to them as "pools" and defined a mass and area.

 

[Gravy]

No Sir, you are mistaken. I have not taken a side in any way shape or form. I understand there is debate with regard to the event, and want to see all sides of the debate coupled with the evidence to see what is real and what is speculation.

Very good. My concern is that you're aware of the denialist claims but not the official evidence. I salute you for coming here and asking...this is a great resource...but there's no substitute for reading the investigation reports and witness accounts.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Correction: there were eyewitnesses who reported seeing molten metal and steel, but they had no way of making the determination of what it was.

Wow, I feel so alone. haha.
I am sorry I cannot get back to every reply because after I reply to one, there are five more replies.

Ok, so there is eyewitness testimony? So is that reason enough to investigate what it was/could have been?
I just wanted to know if there was anything on that event. I will say however that I do not believe it should be ignored until it can be explained.
Unless of course the witness testimony is to be disregarded. Which I do not think it should.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

From Keep in mind that it was dark where the molten metal was reported.

Does molten aluminum glow? It sure can., note the difference between the aluminum that's just out of the furnace and the aluminum that's still molten, but cooler.

The site debunking 911 myths has an interesting page about this subject. Note their observation about the material falling from the south tower: it appears to turn silvery as it cools:

Very good stuff! Thank you for that. Oh, I cannot post links yet, so I have to cut your reply a bit to remove your links. Otherwise, I cannot use your reply in mine.

So I guess the next thing to do is try to get an idea of how much molten material there was in 'pools.'
And that may prove difficult.

 

[Revolutionary91]

Here are two sites with many testimonies of molten steel, with links to original sources.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wow, I feel so alone. haha.
I am sorry I cannot get back to every reply because after I reply to one, there are five more replies.

Ok, so there is eyewitness testimony? So is that reason enough to investigate what it was/could have been?
I just wanted to know if there was anything on that event. I will say however that I do not believe it should be ignored until it can be explained.
Unless of course the witness testimony is to be disregarded. Which I do not think it should.

Well that depends on what the witnesses said. Gravy is likely to link to any that claim to have seen pools of molten metal if his response was to the pools claims and not just the molten metal claims. Note that these are different, and there are indeed photos of red hot steel that appears to have some other molten metal dripping off of it. Again, other metals have a far lower melting point than steel and so would cetainly have been molten at the temperatures of the fire and the piles and so need no explaination beyond that. Pools of steel would need it, but there is as of yet no evidence that such existed, and as I stated before, why try and explain what hasn't been shown to exist. Can you explain the reproduction systems of a Venusian chromic rattle snake? I'd suggest not, and it'd be a silly question to ask, even if you were an expert of rattlesnakes, until I could actually prove that such a venusian chromic rattle snake existed.

 

[e^n]

Ok, so there is eyewitness testimony? So is that reason enough to investigate what it was/could have been?
I just wanted to know if there was anything on that event. I will say however that I do not believe it should be ignored until it can be explained.
Unless of course the witness testimony is to be disregarded. Which I do not think it should.

Investigation is all well and good, but you will inevitably arrive with an unfortunate set of facts:

• Were there any recorded temperatures high enough to melt steel?
  No
• Were there any tests done on molten material to determine it's composition?
  No
• Is there any verified evidence confirming existence of molten steel?
  No

There are so many plausible explanations to the 'molten metal' claim and very few pieces of evidence on which to support the claim it was steel. I'm not ruling it out as the evidence is equally poor on both sides, but there are explanations which are more plausible (lead, zinc, copper, aluminium etc).