• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not a truther.... I was shown this article from a pack of them. I was wondering if anyone knew the temps of the fires. :)

(or any other explanation)
 
Last edited:
I'm not a truther.... I was shown this article from a pack of them. I was wondering if anyone knew the temps of the fires. :)
Never said you were a truther. But anyway are explosives or heat from fires the ONLY reasons possible?
 
I guess that's my question. What caused the vaporization of 5/8" of steel? I know it wasn't therm*te,TNT, C-4, etc.
 
Two points:

1. There is a phenomenon called "metal wastage" in which steels several mm thick are eaten through very rapidly. It is usually caused by hot, highly corrosive, gases or in the presence of reducing agents such as H2 or CO and is therefore often seen in the ductwork of incinerators.

2. I suspect that many people are unaware that the NIST Report presents evidence that the architectural aluminum facade appeared to actually burn at some locations on the towers prior to their collapse. This shows that the WTC aluminum was capable of spontaneous ignition. Burning aluminum would generate very high temperatures, perhaps sufficient to melt steel.
 
"It looks like a bomb explosion - there's very bad damage," he said.

"It's like a war scene really. It was like someone had dropped a bomb next to the train," Brian Frichot said.

"I saw a terrific red flash and felt a jolt like an atom bomb,'' he told a reporter.

'It sounded like a bomb,' passenger says ...

"It sounded like a huge bomb explosion," a woman on the express train told Star News TV. ...

"Passengers said the impact sounded and felt like a bomb exploding.

"It's like a scene from a bomb explosion. The carnage is appalling. You can hear mobile phones going off deep inside the mangled wreckage."

He heard "a loud explosion. I thought it was a bomb. The coach was filled with choking black smoke ... then I lost consciousness."

“I saw the train sitting, at a stop, and I saw the other train coming and they were on the same track. It sounded like a bomb and it felt like an earthquake ..."

GREAT TOPIC!! I just proved that every train crash in history was the result of a bomb!

Super Truthers!
 
Last edited:
I did find one interesting article regarding a Horizontal I beam at WTC 7.

How hot did the fires get in order to vaporize 5/8" thick steel?

That's not the most interesting question to pose here. The interesting question is, how did the fires get the steel hot enough to vaporise it, yet not hot enough to melt it? If it was still recognisable as an I-beam, clearly it hadn't melted. Therefore, whatever happened to it, it can't have actually been thermally evaporated. Clearly, then, it must have been attacked chemically in addition to being heated; only that or physical abrasion or cutting could explain the removal of material without the beam having reached its melting point. Hence Apollo20's comment on metal wastage. In other words, the term "vaporise" is being used very loosely here.

Dave
 
That's not the most interesting question to pose here. The interesting question is, how did the fires get the steel hot enough to vaporise it, yet not hot enough to melt it? If it was still recognisable as an I-beam, clearly it hadn't melted. Therefore, whatever happened to it, it can't have actually been thermally evaporated. Clearly, then, it must have been attacked chemically in addition to being heated; only that or physical abrasion or cutting could explain the removal of material without the beam having reached its melting point. Hence Apollo20's comment on metal wastage. In other words, the term "vaporise" is being used very loosely here.

Dave

Eutectic melting, as described by NIST, would account for this, right?

As a side note, many troofers aren't aware that NIST talked about this. One idiot at ATS, who's also a civil engineer, has been crying about how NIST never addresses it and he'd like to know since how do we know whether or not he should be spec'ing drywall for the structures he designs since it could be a source of the sulfur, and blah, blah, blah. So I let him make a fool of himself for a while before I corrected him. True to form, this means nothing to a troofer and he just continues on. Sad....

The biggest gripe I get is that NIST SHOULD have found out the source of the sulfur. Of course this assumes that the technology exists to be able to determine from what source the sulfur came from - carpeting, plastics, rubber, drywall, etc.

Does anyone know if this is technologically feasible?
 
Seymour Butz:

The source of sulfur in samples collected from Ground Zero could be determined (in theory at least!) using stable sulfur isotope ratios determined by SIMS (Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry).
 
I'd guess you're talking about sulfur in general?

I'm asking about specifically determining where the sulfur that interacted with the steel came from.

Still possible?
 
"Fires burned beneath the rubble for the first 4 months of the operation. Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400 to more than 2,800 deg F." [2800F = 1537c and steel melts at 1500c]

Unfortunately there are no thermal footage to accompany this quotation but I am sure its out there and would be eager to see it. It would also be nice to know when the thermal footage was recorded. In any case, such temperatures further confirm that conditions in the rubble pile were consistent with melting steel observed by numerous individuals.
And what do you think that would prove? Any idea?
 
I think thewholesoul left out the metalergy tests. If he could just add those onto the thread it should prove his case.
 
thewholesoul,

your next step should be to calculate how much thermite would be needed to produce the "molten steel" at GZ (because that's where you're going with this, right?).

So....you need enough thermite to take down the WTC and leave the steel molten for weeks after the attack.
 
thewholesoul,

your next step should be to calculate how much thermite would be needed to produce the "molten steel" at GZ (because that's where you're going with this, right?).

So....you need enough thermite to take down the WTC and leave the steel molten for weeks after the attack.

I did calculate that once... ~ 7000 tons of Thermite would be required to have molten steel weeks later.
 
I did calculate that once... ~ 7000 tons of Thermite would be required to have molten steel weeks later.
Really? I would be really interested to see those calculations Ben since the thermite reaction is a very short duration and I also would like to know how much molten steel you think would remain weeks later.
 
I did calculate that once... ~ 7000 tons of Thermite would be required to have molten steel weeks later.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the on-going thermite reactions be rather bright and obvious?
 
TESTIMONY of MOLTEN STEEL

All the testimony can be found in the following links:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091901astanehfinds
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AE911Truth-NIST-Written-Submission12-18-07.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
http://8real.proboards104.com/index.cgi?board=buildings&action=print&thread=2
http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/molten-steel-found-at-ground-zero-weeks-after-911/

1. Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, “21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running”

2. Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”

3. Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano.

4. According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “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.”

5. New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”

6. As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.”

7. But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying: “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.”

8 A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

9. An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

10. The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

11. 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."

12. An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported 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."

13. Greg Fuchek A witness said “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

14. The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks

15. 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...."

16. An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures". Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 or in rubble pile were (arguably) subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

17. Mark loiseaux president of controlled demoltion, Inc. Who was hired for building 7 clean up, said that “molten steel was found at WTC 7”

18. Bart voorsanger, an archetect hired to save “relics from the rubble” stated about the mult ton “meteorite” that it was a “fused element of molten steel and concrete”

19. Sarah Atlas “nobodies going to be alive. Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins”

20. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero.

21. Richard Riggs on the history channel “the fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel being dug up”

Video footage of testimony
#8 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&q
#21 http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogrupgt4mI&NR=1


RELICS FROM THE RUBBLE

1)The meteorite http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMu2w7fSG8&feature=related http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=swH1WaIMkNc&feature=related

2) FEMA metalurgical examination sample 1 and NIST’s sample K-16 photos (p312 and 317). Both FEMA smaple 1 and NIST sample K-16 are in fact the same steel sample.

Relics from the rubble prove that temperatures were suffucient to melt. There is dispute over wheter K-16 was evaporated by exposure to high temperatures over a long period of time or a short period of time and whether this evaporation occured during or after the collapse. But there can be no dispute over the meteorite since steel must first melt in order to fuse with another element or material.

THERMAL IMAGES
I came across this post #443 by Dr.Greening (Apollo20) here He provides the following quotation from the following source: Spadafora, R. “Firefighter and safety and health issues at the World Trade Center Site.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 42, no.6 (2002): p532

"Fires burned beneath the rubble for the first 4 months of the operation. Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400 to more than 2,800 deg F." [2800F = 1537c and steel melts at 1500c]

Unfortunately there are no thermal footage to accompany this quotation but I am sure its out there and would be eager to see it. It would also be nice to know when the thermal footage was recorded. In any case, such temperatures further confirm that conditions in the rubble pile were consistent with melting steel observed by numerous individuals. I am assuming that surface temperatures of 1537c would mean that temperatures below were even greater.

It should also be noted that although thermal images from USGS did not show such temperatures, molten steel was still found under the somewhat cooler temperature ratings by USGS nonetheless.


As you know, the molten metal cooking in the rubble has never been identified as steel. Your dishonest use of the bogus quote from Mark Loizeaux suggests that you are not making an innocent mistake. We've been through this many times. Loizeaux has explained that he wasn't in a position to see any molten metal and would not have been able to identify it as steel in any case.

Really, it's over. The bell has rung. The buzzer has sounded.
 
Really? I would be really interested to see those calculations Ben since the thermite reaction is a very short duration and I also would like to know how much molten steel you think would remain weeks later.

Didn't keep them.

I assumed you had a spherical shell that would contain the 7000 tons of Thermite and that all of the energy expended would be in that ball from the start. Then I assumed that it would harden only around its surface going inward like a planet does, and cool at the rate heat could leak out of that sphere (which was not that large due to the density) into ambient air and given those assumptions, there was ~ one ton of molten metal at the center in three weeks when I had about 7000 tons of molten metal to start with.

This was a best case; In the real site it would have been scattered and would have cooled a lot quicker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom