'Molten' metal found at WTC 1, 2, and 7, 8 weeks after 9-11?

[applecorped]

you think the micture of office materials and concrete/steel was enough heat source to melt steel?

Yes.

 

[gumboot]

you think the micture of office materials and concrete/steel was enough heat source to melt steel? what amount of steel?

You're the one that said:

in other words, it is possible Therm?te melted the steel, and do to the rubble and fires it was kept molten for weeks ?

In this scenario the mixture of office materials would have to be sufficient to melt steel on its own.

Yes, I personally believe that buried office contents are more than capable of generating temperatures hot enough to melt steel (about 1350 degrees C). How much steel? Depends on how much burning debris there is.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

wunky winky?
teletubys?

Not really. The teletubies have more credibility than guys who get caught with a pie in their face after failing miserably to make a conspiracy accusation and then pretend it never happened with the cop out of "I never made a claim". The funny part is that such children actually think people fall for that crap. And even funnier are the ones who do it over and over and continue to think that everyone around them is too stupid to know.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

BTW, did Dick address the question about what steel yet? You know the claim he never made *cough cough*?

 

[aggle-rithm]

you think the micture of office materials and concrete/steel was enough heat source to melt steel? what amount of steel?

The problem you're having is that the human brain isn't built to wrap itself around catastrophes on this scale. We evolved to handle the sorts of things you might find on the plains of Africa. When 1000-foot tall structures catch fire and collapse, the average person will find the effects counter-intuitive -- that is, it won't make sense to them.

That's why we have engineers and other specialists who are trained to model huge-scale events like this. These people have looked at the after-effects of 9/11 and find nothing suspicious about them.

You should listen to them.

 

[DC]

The problem you're having is that the human brain isn't built to wrap itself around catastrophes on this scale. We evolved to handle the sorts of things you might find on the plains of Africa. When 1000-foot tall structures catch fire and collapse, the average person will find the effects counter-intuitive -- that is, it won't make sense to them.

That's why we have engineers and other specialists who are trained to model huge-scale events like this. These people have looked at the after-effects of 9/11 and find nothing suspicious about them.

You should listen to them.

i "listened" to Dr. Bazant, didnt help

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm a US citizen and tax payer, so yes, I'm paying for it. Additionally, I'm not the only one asking for a new investigation - there are hundreds of architects, engineers, and scientists asking as well -- and last but not least, family members of the victims are asking. Who are you to question their right to find out the truth about what happened to their loved ones?

Congradulations, I also understand that many others here are US taxpayers (I am not among that number) and they would prefer not wasting their taxes on an investigation that would duplicate one that has already been carried out.

So the "I'm a tax payer..." arguement is a wash given that there will be more people opposed to such duplication than in favor of it.

As for melted steel, did I miss it or has DC now conceded that the molten metal reportedly in the underground rubble has never been shown to have been molten steel? If so then we can conclude this line of arguement since the underground fires fed by the building's infrastructure, office and parking garage contents could easily reach the temp at which other metals will melt.
If DC has not conceded that point then why has he made the "I did not make that claim..." statements?

BTW DC, yes, I believe that the underground fires consuming the building infrastructure (cabling, plastic pipes, elevator motor oils, shop oils and greases,,,), office contents (paper, carpets, plastic computer chassis, chairs, desks,,,), and parking garage contents (gasoline, tires, upolstery,,,) provided enough heat to melt metals (aluminum wires and wall studs, copper wiring, piping, tin desks and filing cabinets ,,, ).
No there have not been many instances in which conditions such as this have arisen and certainly not any in which it was the result of a 100+ storey building collapse. Thus few, if any examples of this occuring before.

 

[jaydeehess]

i "listened" to Dr. Bazant, didnt help

Exactly what did you have a problem with in Bazant's work then, and how does this relate to the underground fires and supposed molten metal/steel. (which was it again, steel or unknown metal?)

 

[DC]

Exactly what did you have a problem with in Bazant's work then, and how does this relate to the underground fires and supposed molten metal/steel. (which was it again, steel or unknown metal?)

would be derail sorry.

 

[DC]

Congradulations, I also understand that many others here are US taxpayers (I am not among that number) and they would prefer not wasting their taxes on an investigation that would duplicate one that has already been carried out.

So the "I'm a tax payer..." arguement is a wash given that there will be more people opposed to such duplication than in favor of it.

As for melted steel, did I miss it or has DC now conceded that the molten metal reportedly in the underground rubble has never been shown to have been molten steel? If so then we can conclude this line of arguement since the underground fires fed by the building's infrastructure, office and parking garage contents could easily reach the temp at which other metals will melt.
If DC has not conceded that point then why has he made the "I did not make that claim..." statements?

BTW DC, yes, I believe that the underground fires consuming the building infrastructure (cabling, plastic pipes, elevator motor oils, shop oils and greases,,,), office contents (paper, carpets, plastic computer chassis, chairs, desks,,,), and parking garage contents (gasoline, tires, upolstery,,,) provided enough heat to melt metals (aluminum wires and wall studs, copper wiring, piping, tin desks and filing cabinets ,,, ).
No there have not been many instances in which conditions such as this have arisen and certainly not any in which it was the result of a 100+ storey building collapse. Thus few, if any examples of this occuring before.

yes for metals with a low meltingpoint that would be enough i guess.
but i doubt it when it really was steel.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It really was steel? OK, still waiting for that proof. Let's see the testing done to show it was really steel.

And as already mentioned, us tax payers don't want our money wasted on a repeated investigation being called on by a bunch of frauds who are pretending to be architects and engineers when in reality maybe 1 or 2 are actually qualified people.

Once again, i would like to point out the absurdity of a group of people who claim themselves to be these experts demanding that experts do an investigation. If that alone doesn't expose their fraud, I don't know what does. Or are we expected to believe that one of the clowns at AE911.org doesn't have an epiphany "Hey wait a second guys, WE are experts, why don't WE investigate?"

How are we not supposed to laugh at these idiots?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Something really needs to be said here:

1. There was a large amount of flammables contained in the Twin Towers that could act as fuel for the fires. Consider all the flammables in any given office: Drywall, ceiling tiles, cubicle separators, carpeting, paper, furniture, electronics such as computers, fax machines, printers, etc. Add to that flammable elements specific to high-rise buildings,like hydraulic oils for the various mechanical systems, wiring for both electricity and networking, etc. There were tons of flammables available as fuel.
2. Consider that the temperatures ranged "from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF" (Professional Safety, "SH&E at Ground Zero", May 2002). This is a given; these were measured temperatures, so regardless of the debate over what fuel was present, we know that there were at least spots where the fires generated enough energy to melt even steel, as long as it was left there long enough. And given the timeframe we're talking about - "7,8 weeks after 9-11", according to the OP - if steel was indeed among the components of the molten metals sighted, then steel fragments would definitely have been left there long enough.

We know there was abundant fuel in the debris piles, and we know there was enough energy there to melt metals. Why would any hypothesis that the metals were molten prior to the Towers collapse be necessary here? That's not only added unnecessary complexity, but it renders the hypotheses of thermite use unprovable. How do you separate the metals rendered molten by the fires from the steel supposedly molten by thermite? It's all just pools of metal in the end.

My point: The sighting of molten pools in the debris piles weeks after the collapse cannot be used as supporting evidence for the presence of thermite. Not only does another explanation exist, but the conditions of that other explanation are inescapable. Because it's a given that the fires burned hot enough to melt metals in the debris piles, and because it's an obvious given that much of the metal structure of the Twin Towers ended up in the debris piles, it's impossible to avoid some amount of molten metal formation in those debris piles. And that formation would've happened regardless of whether any thermite/thermate might have rendered molten any steel prior to that. This all may not disprove the notion that thermite was used, but it renders these sightings of molten metal unusable as proof that it was.

Now, the challenges to the people presenting the conspiracy hypotheses are as follows:

1. Find supporting evidence that the molten metals sighted in fact did contain steel.
2. Establish that the molten steel was in a molten state prior to exposure to the debris pile fires.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Forgot to add this - Further readings:

Gravy's site: WTC Debris Piles Composition

Excerpt:

– Up to 180,000 gallons of fuel oil, diesel fuel and transformer oil (See varying estimates in links below)

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

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

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

– 5 million square feet of painted surfaces.

– Hundreds of tons of wood and particle board.

– Millions of pounds of paper

– 20,000 viscoelastic tower shock absorbers.

– Tens of thousands of computer terminals covered in plastic...

NIST's FAQ addressing "molten steel" (scroll down to number 13)

Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

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

The 9/11 Myths site's pages with links on this topic:
http://911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
http://911myths.com/html/wtc__other_.html

Debunking 9/11's "Rethinking thermite":
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

The rest of the Gravysite dealing with Ground Zero cleanup, Fires in piles, Molten metals, Fresh Kills operations, Steel ID & scrap issues

... particular attention should be paid to:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb

http://multimedia.belointeractive.com/attack/news/0918firesburn.html

and: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims

 

[DC]

Something really needs to be said here:

1. There was a large amount of flammables contained in the Twin Towers that could act as fuel for the fires. Consider all the flammables in any given office: Drywall, ceiling tiles, cubicle separators, carpeting, paper, furniture, electronics such as computers, fax machines, printers, etc. Add to that flammable elements specific to high-rise buildings,like hydraulic oils for the various mechanical systems, wiring for both electricity and networking, etc. There were tons of flammables available as fuel.
2. Consider that the temperatures ranged "from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF" (Professional Safety, "SH&E at Ground Zero", May 2002). This is a given; these were measured temperatures, so regardless of the debate over what fuel was present, we know that there were at least spots where the fires generated enough energy to melt even steel, as long as it was left there long enough. And given the timeframe we're talking about - "7,8 weeks after 9-11", according to the OP - if steel was indeed among the components of the molten metals sighted, then steel fragments would definitely have been left there long enough.

We know there was abundant fuel in the debris piles, and we know there was enough energy there to melt metals. Why would any hypothesis that the metals were molten prior to the Towers collapse be necessary here? That's not only added unnecessary complexity, but it renders the hypotheses of thermite use unprovable. How do you separate the metals rendered molten by the fires from the steel supposedly molten by thermite? It's all just pools of metal in the end.

My point: The sighting of molten pools in the debris piles weeks after the collapse cannot be used as supporting evidence for the presence of thermite. Not only does another explanation exist, but the conditions of that other explanation are inescapable. Because it's a given that the fires burned hot enough to melt metals in the debris piles, and because it's an obvious given that much of the metal structure of the Twin Towers ended up in the debris piles, it's impossible to avoid some amount of molten metal formation in those debris piles. And that formation would've happened regardless of whether any thermite/thermate might have rendered molten any steel prior to that. This all may not disprove the notion that thermite was used, but it renders these sightings of molten metal unusable as proof that it was.

Now, the challenges to the people presenting the conspiracy hypotheses are as follows:

1. Find supporting evidence that the molten metals sighted in fact did contain steel.
2. Establish that the molten steel was in a molten state prior to exposure to the debris pile fires.

i have no evidence
only that first hand witness that belives it is steel.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

i have no evidence
only that first hand witness that belives it is steel.

Okay. That's fine. Anyone here can provisionally accept that for argument's sake. Now, the question is whether that steel was indeed rendered molten before exposure to the debris piles or not. Because if it was not, then the mundane explanation of debris pile fires is the only possible explanation.

And even if there was some indication that the steel was molten prior to ending up in the piles, there's still the burden of overcoming all the other contraindications of thermite use: Lack of opportunity for emplacement, for example, and lack of characteristic effects left on the non-molten steel as a second example.

 

[DC]

Okay. That's fine. Anyone here can provisionally accept that for argument's sake. Now, the question is whether that steel was indeed rendered molten before exposure to the debris piles or not. Because if it was not, then the mundane explanation of debris pile fires is the only possible explanation.

And even if there was some indication that the steel was molten prior to ending up in the piles, there's still the burden of overcoming all the other contraindications of thermite use: Lack of opportunity for emplacement, for example, and lack of characteristic effects left on the non-molten steel as a second example.

Lack of opportunity for emplacement, isnt that speculative? we cannot know.

and what characteristic effects do you mean?

 

[Evilgiraffe]

... Lack of opportunity for emplacement, isnt that speculative? we cannot know.

Oh for the love of the FSM! Not this AGAIN.

DC. Exactly how, in the name of all that's flying and noodly, do you think any alleged perpetrators could have placed thermite cutting charges in some of the world's largest office buildings without being noticed

It's nonsense.

But then again, you're not claiming that the towers were brought down by therm*te are you?
You have no claims. That way you can't get called on them.

 

[DGM]

Oh for the love of the FSM! Not this AGAIN.

DC. Exactly how, in the name of all that's flying and noodly, do you think any alleged perpetrators could have placed thermite cutting charges in some of the world's largest office buildings without being noticed

It's nonsense.

But then again, you're not claiming that the towers were brought down by therm*te are you?
You have no claims. That way you can't get called on them.

What the hell is a "thermite cutting charge"?
I've never seen one of those and I know for a fact that they don't exist in the demolition business.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm a US citizen and tax payer, so yes, I'm paying for it. Additionally, I'm not the only one asking for a new investigation - there are hundreds of architects, engineers, and scientists asking as well

I've seen you using this particular phrasing before, and I request that you refrain and perhaps use the more accurate phrase "hundreds of people including some architects, engineers, and scientists". Otherwise, you might be accused of being dishonest for implying something that everyone here knows to be untrue.

and last but not least, family members of the victims are asking.

Again, for the sake of clarity, it behooves you to point out that by "family members" you mean maybe a couple of dozen people out of thousands. By simply stating "family members of the victims are asking" it makes it seem as if you are referring to all or at least a majority of the family members. An implication, of course, we all know to be patently false.

Who are you to question their right to find out the truth about what happened to their loved ones?

I am one of the several hundred million other taxpayers not making this request. Included in my numbers are the several thousand other family members also not making this request. And since we have a little something called "democracy" here in America, me and my far greater numbers win.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Lack of opportunity for emplacement, isnt that speculative? we cannot know.

and what characteristic effects do you mean?

It's far more speculative to presume that whomever would've emplanted explosives would have been able to do so without anyone noticing. You must remember that the WTC was a very busy building, and a very big one.

As far as effects: That's dealt with at the sites I linked above.