Molten Steel

[Seymour Butz]

Wow, so theoretically, it's possible if they had samples of carpet, all the plastics (sounds like a huge inventory right there), generator diesel, etc.

Too bad they didn't do just that, but I suppose they would need to whip out the crystal ball in order to see in what direction troofer madness would take the demands of knowing where the sulfur for the eutectic melting came from.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wow, so theoretically, it's possible if they had samples of carpet, all the plastics (sounds like a huge inventory right there), generator diesel, etc.

All of which were wholly or partially destroyed in the fire, so there may have been nothing left to sample. Also, the isotope ratio might not vary significantly between sources to distinguish one from another; and, the sulphur in the steel might have come from a combination of different sources, and effective deconvolution might be impossible. There's a big difference here between possible in principle and possible in practice.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wrong meteorite. This is a common misconception of many people here on JREF. See the video in the OT.

There are two videos in the OP, and the second is clearly of the object at JFK; the video even shows the unburned paper embedded in it. The first does appear to be a different object. It doesn't look, to me, even remotely like puddled molten steel that's re-solidified; it looks a lot like a large chunk of concrete with broken edges. Even if it is molten steel, it wouldn't be evidence of high temperatures before or during the collapse.

Dave

 

[ihaunter]

Wrong meteorite. This is a common misconception of many people here on JREF. See the video in the OT.

ETA: Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think the object ihaunter is describing was saved and stored in the hangar at JFK. The object in the video was never seen again after that and presumably lies somewhere in the Fresh Kills landfill.

The two objects are one in the same. It can be difficult to see that, due to different lighting and video compression. The gentleman in the first video is in error when he said that it was the result of heat. He even said that it was steel and concrete. I hope your not claiming thee concrete was molten as well. The second video shows the paper embedded in it.

 

[Norseman]

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

There are two videos in the OP, and the second is clearly of the object at JFK; the video even shows the unburned paper embedded in it. The first does appear to be a different object. It doesn't look, to me, even remotely like puddled molten steel that's re-solidified; it looks a lot like a large chunk of concrete with broken edges. Even if it is molten steel, it wouldn't be evidence of high temperatures before or during the collapse.

Dave

Yes the first one is a different object. And both objects appears to have been preserved at JFK. As one can see at about 2:15 (remaining time) in this video:
WTC remains
There is short close up of the object in the background at 2:05 before cutting back to the well known "meteorite".

There is a picture of the object in background here that clearly shows that it is concrete with rebars sticking out:
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=31

I am quite certain this is the object shown in the first video thewholesoul linked in the OP. But it looks like it is photographed from the opposite side. The ridge line of the object in the video and the photograph looks similar when I compare them by mirroring the photograph.

While a picture of the well known "meteorite" shown in the second video is here:
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35

There are several more if you click through the pictures from #31 to #40.

 

[Sunstealer]

Its always nice to get the perspective from an expert

I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I do have relative experience and I think it's important to state that experience briefly. There are so many technical questions that it's impossible for anyone to understand everything. I'll answer any questions as best I can.

there was holes in the steel. it was dubbed "the swiss cheese effect". it was the result of evaporation they claim

Corrosion occurs in many different forms and mechanisms. Some are unique to certain materials, mechanisms or environments. Terminology has been used to describe many of these types of corrosion occurrences. It does not surprise me that entire sections were corroded badly enough that the entire through thickness of the material in question was penetrated. Corrosion does not act uniformly due to many factors. As seen in the micro-photographs grain boundaries are susceptible.

Whilst this isn't the best analogy it's the only one I can think of atm. When you burn a big log you'll often find that some parts of it burn better than others and holes and other features evolve which in turn cause other parts of the log to burn at different rates and that will in turn produce other faster burning parts yet the wood is wood is wood all from the same tree. Corrosion acts in a similar fashion and most often you'll find that the area(s) most susceptible in the initial attack will be the points at which the corrosion is worst on examination. (Pitting corrosion is a good example of this).

sunstealer you are aware that the sample you saw in FEMA and the NIST report was found in the rubble pile of building 7 i.e. no plane hit that tower and therefore no jet fuel.

Er no. I've not followed the whole 9/11 conspiracy debate for long and haven't got the greatest understanding of where all the pieces of the jigsaw fit in with regard to the structures, I'm getting there slowly, however. I assumed that it was part of one of the two towers hit and my experience of that type of sulfidation and oxidation just screams jet fuel. In some way I'm glad I didn't know, it means I couldn't prejudge. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll have to re-evaluate.

 

[Norseman]

Er no. I've not followed the whole 9/11 conspiracy debate for long and haven't got the greatest understanding of where all the pieces of the jigsaw fit in with regard to the structures, I'm getting there slowly, however. I assumed that it was part of one of the two towers hit and my experience of that type of sulfidation and oxidation just screams jet fuel. In some way I'm glad I didn't know, it means I couldn't prejudge. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll have to re-evaluate.

But there were large quantities of diesel for emergency generators stored in WTC 7.

 

[Sunstealer]

The K-16 column was identified as coming from roughly the 52nd floor. So the probability of jet fuel being the source of the sulfur is pretty slim. NIST gives some sources that have a higher probability of being the source in a rubble pile -carpet, plastics, etc.....

Yes, I've just alluded to the fact that I didn't know the exact position of the source. Note to self; must investigate further rather than just launch into the science.

Some good info though on the scale involved regarding the sulfur intrusion.

No problem. Language is a very powerful tool and with this type of report it's important to be objective and give as concise and accurate meaning as possible. I've had to do it a lot, however, this doesn't mean that that the level of corrosion can't be so severe as to corrode away the whole "beam". Anyone who has experience of rusting of steel (in an everyday way) will see that left long enough (in the right condition - water and air) steel will corrode away completely. The thing about depth of penetration of sulphur or oxygen into a material is that it is governed by a physical law (Fick's laws of diffusion) and are subject to certain parameters and this means there is a limit to how far an element can penetrate given a temperature, time, gas concentration etc. A good example is carburising, nitriding and carbo-nitriding (hardening surfaces).

I asked Apollo20 a couple of days ago if it would be possible to determine the source of the sulfur. His reply indicated that it COULD in the dust sample (I think), but he's neglected to answer my question if it could be determined what was the specific source of the sulfur that mixed with the steel.

Would you have any idea about the technical feasibility of this?

I've no idea how one sulphur atom differs from the next but I'd certainly be interested. There are many different analytical techniques and so it's really a case of deciding which ones are best to employ. Note the plural. A single testing procedure is unlikely to give the full picture and I'd also expect a decent paper giving the reasoning behind such thinking, how it should be carried out and how any data should be analysed. I'm also not sure what you mean by dust sample. Is this microspheres or something?

 

[Sunstealer]

But there were large quantities of diesel for emergency generators stored in WTC 7.

That's a valid source for SO₂. I'm a bit peeved that I jumped the gun and went for the most obvious (to me) over-riding source (jet fuel), however, there are plenty of combustible materials in office/building fires that can act as the source for sulphur and oils/diesel are a source.

I'd like to look into the metallograpghy a bit more. There were hundreds of samples taken from various parts of ground zero. Unfortunately it's like any investigation; you can't have 800 samples with 20 pictures of each attached to a report.

 

[GregoryUrich]

The two objects are one in the same. It can be difficult to see that, due to different lighting and video compression. The gentleman in the first video is in error when he said that it was the result of heat. He even said that it was steel and concrete. I hope your not claiming thee concrete was molten as well. The second video shows the paper embedded in it.

I'll take another look, they don't seem to be remotely similar to me in size of shape.

ETA: I took another look. Notice the very smooth surface in the first one. I take the gentleman at his word since he was there looking at it and touching it. He describes it as molten steel and concrete.

 

[ihaunter]

I will admit my statement of them being the same was more definitive that it should have been. I don't know for a fact that they are the same, but they seemed very similar to me. The first video looks like it's just from a different angle then we usually see it. The video is pretty compressed so it is hard to make out exact details, but it seemed to be roughly the same size and shape. If anyone has a clearer copy of that video would probably help clear up the confusion.
I admit I could be wrong, but it look like the same to me. I'll look again when I get home.

 

[lapman]

well let me help you out. the Singer building in New York was once the tallest building in the world and it stood at 612 ft. it was brought down by demolition and there was no reports of hotpots or molten steel within its rubble pile.

now i know you just love to harp on about the twin towers, but building 7 was only 610 ft but when it was destroyed hotspots, melted steel, and even evaporated steel were found in its rubble pile.

Notice the HUGE contradictions between the two scenarios. The Singer building is a confirmed demolition by explosives. No hot spots, molten steel, swiss cheese metal, etc. Absolutely nothing like WTC 7. This is absolute proof that WTC 7 was NOT a controlled demolition or it would have the same characteristics of the Singer building. You can't even find one controlled demolition by explosives that has ever produced the molten steel, hot spots, collapse of the roof structures prior to the rest of the building, etc. Why do you keep debunking yourself?

 

[Dog Town]

I'll take another look, they don't seem to be remotely similar to me in size of shape.

ETA: I took another look. Notice the very smooth surface in the first one. I take the gentleman at his word since he was there looking at it and touching it. He describes it as molten steel and concrete.

You guys should take a look, at post #105 by Norseman.

 

[Norseman]

I will admit my statement of them being the same was more definitive that it should have been. I don't know for a fact that they are the same, but they seemed very similar to me. The first video looks like it's just from a different angle then we usually see it. The video is pretty compressed so it is hard to make out exact details, but it seemed to be roughly the same size and shape. If anyone has a clearer copy of that video would probably help clear up the confusion.
I admit I could be wrong, but it look like the same to me. I'll look again when I get home.

Take look at my post #105, if you have not seen it. That might clear things up.

ETA
Dog Town were quicker.

 

[ihaunter]

I'll look more closely when I get home, but it would appear that I was wrong. Thanks for the info.
Learned something new, but it's still not evidence of molten steel.

Now I'll just go sit in the corner and let you guys finish the conversation.

 

[Norseman]

-Red hotspots were observed from space just 2 hours after the destruction of WTC 1 + 2 ...

Fixed the link for you. But that page does not contain the of image the "red hotspots" two hours after the collapse.

That image is in this PDF file, that you posted earlier in a different tread:
Engineering and Organizational Issues Related to the World Trade Center Terrorist Attack

It is Figure 3.4 that is a false color infrared image taken by the French satellite SPOT-4 at 11:55 am. Fires give off a of lot of infrared radiation. So they have given those areas the color red. The hotspots matches the locations of the towers. They were burning when they collapsed and they continued to burn. The image shows that it is fire there. It does not show red hot glowing steel if that was what you believed it did. It just indicates elevated temperatures. Off course it will show from space. Given a satellite with enough resolution even thewholesoul can show up as a hotspot from space. It just depends on what color you apply to the different temperature ranges.

Even the grass on the lawn on Governor Island just south of the tip of Manhattan is visible from space, it is what got the color yellow.

On the top this page there are a couple of normal close up photographs of the "hotspots" taken at the same time:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9773403@N02/page2/

 

[pomeroo]

i posted a video of a high ranking member of NIST stating publically that there is no evidence of molten steel in the basement of the rubble piles. this is lie. if you think that there is no evidence of molten steel at teh rubble pile go and address premise one.



it is not a claim it is a fact. dont believe me produce just one example prior to 911 or since when it happened.

Since there is no evidence of molten steel preceding the building collapse,

please read my early posts. i addressed this absurd argument already.




no its not even if - the first premise is a true statement unless you can provide some form of counter. can you do that? and why is it irrelevant? please elaborate?



the question I am raising is whether it is entirely reasonable to consider the "effects" as unrelated or irrelevant to the "cause" of the collapse.

,

not, if indeed - there were in fact temperatures hot enough to melt steel. hot spots were seen and recorded from SPACE only two hours after the collapse.



well show me an academic paper that tells me a slow, low temperature form of combustion can reach temperatures sufficient to melt steel in a mater of hours. i have posted an academic paper in post#2 on smoldering which is a slow, low temperature form of combustion. guess what it cannot reach temperatures to melt steel. unless of course there is an abundance of oxygen which there wasnt.

so people can continue telling me what they think it is in their opinion but they need to back it up. and at the end of the day it needs to be proven.



evidently false. do you even read my posts? i posted a link to the satellite images taken hours after the collapse. there was red hot spots seen from friggin SPACE just two hours after the collapse. hot spots are never seen even after a conventional demolition. so what caused these hot spots so soon?

Since you have no evidence that unexpectedly high temperatures were generated before or during the collapse,

melted steel forming microsphericules and evaporated particles found in the WTC Dust. but this debate is ongoing with crazy chainsaw if he would ever respond.



NIST was asked:

Question: ““Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
Answer: “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”

NIST is remiss in not testing for thermite residues as required by the NFPA 921code.



i have a video to prove it.
peace

You ignored post # 77. You were wise to do so, but you have been exposed anyway.

 

[Travis]

Notice the HUGE contradictions between the two scenarios. The Singer building is a confirmed demolition by explosives. No hot spots, molten steel, swiss cheese metal, etc. Absolutely nothing like WTC 7. This is absolute proof that WTC 7 was NOT a controlled demolition or it would have the same characteristics of the Singer building. You can't even find one controlled demolition by explosives that has ever produced the molten steel, hot spots, collapse of the roof structures prior to the rest of the building, etc. Why do you keep debunking yourself?

Actually, as Gumboot already said, the Singer Building was torn down, deconstructed, not imploded so comparing the two cases is really absurd.



ETA Here's a pic of the demolition.

 

[funk de fino]

Question: ““Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
Answer: “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”

NIST is remiss in not testing for thermite residues as required by the NFPA 921code.

While you are mulling over your tap dance around the false claim about steel frame buildings do not callapse from fire heres another one for you.

Who told you the NFPA 921 code is compulsory or required? It is guidelines and recommendations it is is not mandatory. You are wrong again.

Origin and Development of NFPA 921 NFPA 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, was developed by the Technical Committee on Fire Investigations to assist in improving the fire investigation process and the quality of information on fires resulting from the investigative process. The guide is intended for use by both public sector employees who have statutory responsibility for fire investigation and private sector persons conducting investigations for insurance companies or litigation purposes. The goal of the Committee is to provide guidance to investigators that is based on accepted scientific principles or scientific research.

Were NIST investigating the fire?

Also the steel was forensically tested after being catalogued transiting through the holding areas. What tests were done? I do not know, do you?

You have made quite a few mistakes in this thread and others, it seems to me you should check the info you are borrowing from others before bringing it here.

 

[gumboot]

Looks like a hunk of steel-reinforced concrete to me. Are we just supposed to take the word of some random guy in a suit that it is in fact a product of molten steel?