Not exactly but like I pointed out before, molten steel is used as evidence of thermite because of the temperatures involved. If the steel 'melted' through sulfidation at 1000C then it is no evidence of thermite and irrelevant to the claim.
Johnny come lately?
- Thread starter Boone 870
- Start date
Not exactly but like I pointed out before, molten steel is used as evidence of thermite because of the temperatures involved. If the steel 'melted' through sulfidation at 1000C then it is no evidence of thermite and irrelevant to the claim.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
This might give some evidence, at 520c sulfur oxidizes out of FeS.
If it is in oxygen we should see sulfide melts solidifying on contact with oxygen that is not the case in the substance seen.
However aluminum and lead with inclusions is very likely the substance, and temperatures of black body radiation have to be accounted for.
You can create inclusions below the oxide layer only though forceful impacts, the oxide layer is the key get below it and the inclusions will not separate from the melt.
Last edited:
Thanks, as they say, "long time Reader, first time Poster"
The picture is found on a website on making Aluminum, so many thought that the picture was of an Aluminum pour.
The actual photo however is of an Iron pour as the actual builder of the home foundry points out on his web site.
h ttp://stephenchastain.com/metaltalk.htm
Scroll to second page under "Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion"
Arthur
Arthur, thanks for answering my question. I apologize that it was a stupid question. I was confused about which photo and author you were referring to, which I wouldn't have been had I simply re-checked the post by Par that you were commenting on.
Respectfully,
Myriad
A W Smith
Philosopher
Thanks, as they say, "long time Reader, first time Poster"
The picture is found on a website on making Aluminum, so many thought that the picture was of an Aluminum pour.
The actual photo however is of an Iron pour as the actual builder of the home foundry points out on his web site.
http://stephenchastain.com/metaltalk.htm
Scroll to second page under "Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion"
Arthur
Fixed your link. also from that site on page two of the message board. Theres a thread titled
Trade center, Molten flows & Structural failure
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Please prove this claim that steel melted. If you do, you will be the first person in the world to do so.
Par
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,768
1. Stop saying people are denying the PRESENCE of MOLTEN STEEL/IRON at GZ, unless you want to give specific examples. You have done it 3 or 4 times now, despite my explaining to you that it is the POOLS of molten STEEL that people contest, and the reason they do so is due to a lack of physical evidence supporting POOLS of molten STEEL. Asking for evidence to prove your claim is not the same as denying what you have put forth is true.
2. The reason the "Pools" aspect of it is important, is because the truthers opine that the presence of such large quantities of MOLTEN STEEL is evidence of THERMITE, because only THERMITE use at GZ could explain the presence of such large quantities.
3. I expect now that this has been addressed, you will soon begin some questioning of what processes existing in the WTC rubble could have lead to Sulfidation, Socrates?
TAM
Last edited:
You're referring to Mark Loizeaux. He did not report molten steel. He was misquoted by (dun-da-dah!) Chris Bollyn. See here.
There are, in fact, exactly zero credible reports of molten steel. Leslie Robertson was similarly misquoted by a reporter covering one of his talks, and he has personally stated that he did not claim and could not have determined molten steel. The other fleeting references are second-hand reports from people with no relevant expertise whatsoever.
Not true. See the WPI reports. They have nearly all of the few sulfidized steel pieces recovered. Only one piece from the Towers -- both of them -- was sulfidized. A handful came from WTC 7.
The WPI reports also describe sulfidized steel that did not melt. Had it melted, it would have dissociated. The WPI steel has a maximum temperature, at any time, of about 850oC, which is totally consistent with an office building fire, and well below steel melting temperature. Any hotter and the metallurgical structures they detected would have been destroyed.
We deny because there's no evidence. But you're right, if the Pile had gotten hot enough to melt steel, it would have been unusual yet not at all impossible. The existence of melted steel after collapse does not challenge the NIST hypothesis. Still, since we don't see it, for sake of thoroughness we are bound to report that it didn't hapen.
Correct, it wouldn't prove anything. It is also correct that sulfur lowers the melting and working temperature of steel.
Since there's only one piece from the Towers that exhibits sulfidation, we assume this effect was negligible in the Towers. However, in WTC 7 it may have been more widespread. I am eagerly anticipating what NIST has to say about this in their WTC 7 final report, since it could be a factor there.
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
1. Stop saying people are denying the PRESENCE of MOLTEN STEEL/IRON at GZ, unless you want to give specific examples. You have done it 3 or 4 times now, despite my explaining to you that it is the POOLS of molten STEEL that people contest, and the reason they do so is due to a lack of physical evidence supporting POOLS of molten STEEL. Asking for evidence to prove your claim is not the same as denying what you have put forth is true.
2. The reason the "Pools" aspect of it is important, is because the truthers opine that the presence of such large quantities of MOLTEN STEEL is evidence of THERMITE, because only THERMITE use at GZ could explain the presence of such large quantities.
3. I expect now that this has been addressed, you will soon begin some questioning of what processes existing in the WTC rubble could have lead to Sulfidation, Socrates?
TAM
Steel does not have to melt to be flowing from the towers, though that is the main problem with truthers arguments and steel flowing does not mean thermite.
Low melt ferris-es exist and one of them is ironIIIchlorate. Which by the way oxidizes at over 700C so it could be the compound seen.
The compound could also be aluminum with iron dust included inside the oxide layer, from impact, or lead and iron dust.
It could also be the plastic PVC covering of the lead acid batteries combined with lead going though chemical reactions.
Without a sample of the material it is impossible to say what it is, however it is definitely not molten steel.
Regarding sulfidation of steel. As I understand it we are talking about something that occurred at micro level in the presence of a sulfur rich atmosphere at high temperature. From the WPI report posted by Mackey.
So as I understand it, this was a corrosive process eating away the steel over time, hours, not something that would in anyway whatsoever create flows of molten iron sulfide, or flows of molten steel as some truhters imagine. I can not see that this point have been stated clearly anywhere, and therefore this could easily lead to misunderstandings if you do not take the time to read up on the issue.
From Corrosive high temperature environments:
The question is if the diesel fuel stored in WTC 7 could be the source. I would expect with certainty that the structural steel was not made of steel alloys resistant to hot corrosion. It is also to be noted that diesel engines are protected by the motor oil against among other things sulfur corrosion. There are of course also lots and lots of literature on protecting engines, turbines etc against hot corrosion. (Just to counter the claim, why aren't diesel engines, etc eaten away and so forth in advance)
It could be a possiblety that the diesel fuel stored inside WTC 7 had high sulfur content:
According to NIST all the underground fuel tanks were installed before 1993. Depending on how much the emergency generators were used, it is possible to speculate that they still contained large quantities of old high sulfur diesel. Based on this there could have been a diesel fuel fire, for instance in the south west corner generator room area, supplied by fuel from the tanks, burning throughout day and eating away on unprotected steel. This area, as we know, sustained heavy debris damage from WTC 1 that very likely knocked off the fire protection of the steel. There could also be other sources within the building for all what I know. The question is if this scenario is likely within the given timeframe? And if sulifdation, whatever fuel source, played any significant role in weakening the structure of WTC 7 prior to the collapse at all?
As Mackey mentioned it would be interesting to see if the WTC 7 report contains the results of more research on this by the WPI-team. Whatever role sulfidation played, however insignificant, it is desirable to get to the bottom of it just to prevent further speculation. It is also to be noted that NIST has narrowed out diesel fuel fire from the initiating event in their working hypothesis, the working hypothesis now says ordinary office fire.
So as I understand it, this was a corrosive process eating away the steel over time, hours, not something that would in anyway whatsoever create flows of molten iron sulfide, or flows of molten steel as some truhters imagine. I can not see that this point have been stated clearly anywhere, and therefore this could easily lead to misunderstandings if you do not take the time to read up on the issue.
From Corrosive high temperature environments:
Underlining by me.
The question is if the diesel fuel stored in WTC 7 could be the source. I would expect with certainty that the structural steel was not made of steel alloys resistant to hot corrosion. It is also to be noted that diesel engines are protected by the motor oil against among other things sulfur corrosion. There are of course also lots and lots of literature on protecting engines, turbines etc against hot corrosion. (Just to counter the claim, why aren't diesel engines, etc eaten away and so forth in advance)
It could be a possiblety that the diesel fuel stored inside WTC 7 had high sulfur content:
Source
According to NIST all the underground fuel tanks were installed before 1993. Depending on how much the emergency generators were used, it is possible to speculate that they still contained large quantities of old high sulfur diesel. Based on this there could have been a diesel fuel fire, for instance in the south west corner generator room area, supplied by fuel from the tanks, burning throughout day and eating away on unprotected steel. This area, as we know, sustained heavy debris damage from WTC 1 that very likely knocked off the fire protection of the steel. There could also be other sources within the building for all what I know. The question is if this scenario is likely within the given timeframe? And if sulifdation, whatever fuel source, played any significant role in weakening the structure of WTC 7 prior to the collapse at all?
As Mackey mentioned it would be interesting to see if the WTC 7 report contains the results of more research on this by the WPI-team. Whatever role sulfidation played, however insignificant, it is desirable to get to the bottom of it just to prevent further speculation. It is also to be noted that NIST has narrowed out diesel fuel fire from the initiating event in their working hypothesis, the working hypothesis now says ordinary office fire.
adoucette
Scholar
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2007
- Messages
- 109
Correct. In NIST NCSTAR 1-3C pg 229, they point out that this was a UNIQUE piece of Perimeter Column. They also point out the various tests that they performed and add this important point as to why they have different conclusions then FEMA reported:
NIST 1-3C pg 233 said:
NIST could not identify the specific as built location, but they could determine that it was a 50 ksi Type 143 column which would put it no higher than the 53rd floor. This pretty much precludes it from being damaged while in the tower.
Other findings and tests that NIST performed, which they discuss in detail in 1-3C, show the damage clearly occured, over time, in the rubble pile.
Arthur
This also leads to the question of wether or not the corrosion in the WTC 7 samples occurred before or after the collapse. But we will have to wait for the WTC 7 report to get NIST's take on this. Thanks for clearing this up Arthur.
From the link above:
Here is a picture of orange glowing aluminum melted in a dirty environment as described in the quote above. Actually hard drives. Also contains pictures of red hot steel parts from the hard drives that of course did not melt. If you want a 100% secure method to delete sensitive data, this is the way to do it!
http://eecue.com/log_archive/eecue-log-533-Drive_Slagging_Repost.html
Some more pictures in the full photo album accompanying the blog article:
http://eecue.com/images_archive/eecue-album-1274-2-drive_slagging.html
Last edited:
where is the aluminum-boiler in the WTC?
Jones:
"If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal."
http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf
1. You initial question is just stupid.
2. Molten Aluminum, when contaminated with organic materials, can have a color different from its color when molten and pure. This is the point trying to be made, and you know it.
3. Jones' idea of a rebuttal to the above was to take some molten aluminum in a container, add a few woodchips to it, and when it didn't change color, declare victory.
Yah, really scientific.
TAM
2. Molten Aluminum, when contaminated with organic materials, can have a color different from its color when molten and pure. This is the point trying to be made, and you know it.
3. Jones' idea of a rebuttal to the above was to take some molten aluminum in a container, add a few woodchips to it, and when it didn't change color, declare victory.
Yah, really scientific.
TAM
1. You initial question is just stupid.
2. Molten Aluminum, when contaminated with organic materials, can have a color different from its color when molten and pure. This is the point trying to be made, and you know it.
3. Jones' idea of a rebuttal to the above was to take some molten aluminum in a container, add a few woodchips to it, and when it didn't change color, declare victory.
Yah, really scientific.
TAM
please provide scientific reference for above claim. We are talking about "inpure" molten Aluminum, around 650-700 Celsius hot, with yellow-orange colour.
No.
But This is good enough for me, and is the reason why I made the statement.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
TAM
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Why do truthers keep claiming molten steel? Is molten steel something that occurs in controlled demolitions?
No.
But This is good enough for me, and is the reason why I made the statement.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
TAM
These sentences sound vaguely, almost weird. Did NIST some tests and prove it? I think not, please feel free to correct me.
Dr. Jones tried it at least and failed (in your eyes). But Jones tried and NIST did not even try to prove their claim. What is more unscientific?
Furthermore Dr. Jones claims that, it cannot be Aluminum, because it is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures…:
Your response "Chief-Debunker".
quote from the paper of Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley, published in bentham, The Open Civil Engineering Journal:
NIST: “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out”.4
“NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower”.3
We agree and congratulate NIST for including these observations of an “unusual flame... which is generating a plume of white smoke” 4 “followed by the flow of a glowing liquid” having “an orange glow” [3]. With regard to the “very bright flame… which is generating a plume of white smoke”, NIST effectively rules out burning aluminum, because “Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures…”.3
