Molten Steel

[Sunstealer]

Unless you can give samples of steel that metallurgical analysis show to have been molten steel which was present either prior to or in the fires after collapse then you haven't got a leg to stand on. The "meteorite" could be anything given the low res of the video and until samples from it are examined one can only concluded that it's debri that has been squeezed together due to the collapse, no melting required. Eyewitness testimonies are meaningless because they cannot show that what they saw was molten steel. Show me the samples and the analysis and I'll take it from there.

Hell the moon was out last night, I should know I saw it and it looked like cheese to me.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And it's usually best if the sample of molten steel has actually melted. Call me crazy, but it makes for a much better case.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And it's usually best if the sample of molten steel has actually melted. Call me crazy, but it makes for a much better case.

So far I've seen 3 photographic representations of 'molten metal'.

• The first was the tractor lifting what 'appears' to be a glowing mass. However, even ignoring the potential for photo-manipulation, the plastic properties of the apparent material is nothing near liquid
  
• The other was photoshopped, apparently somebody decided to smudge a few burning embers of paper to look like molten metal
  
• The picture I brought up a couple of pages ago which was actually a picture of firefighters using spot lights to proceed with rescue efforts that was altered to look like they were peering into a gap in the debris at a river of 'molten steel'. Except when you're standing that close to a 2,000+ degree flow or object it becomes very obvious that those firefighters would be burned to kingdom come.
  
• They show un-dated cut steel.
  
• The only testimony if anything that even mentions steel is the firefighters, in the videos, in which in light of the photographic material, how do we assert the validity of taking those claims out of context. We don't know what they said after those lines either

After that, I don't see any credibility any more in molten 'steell claims

 

[gumboot]

I'd interpret it as you being wrong. It's a false color image, they didn't see red spots from space, they used red to represent the hottest parts of the image. That doesn't mean they were literally red hot.

They were actually almost certainly hotter than that. Steel is only red when it's between about 600 and 800 degrees C, and I've personally seen video footage of steel being removed from the debris pile that was at least 1000 degrees C.

 

[gumboot]

[*] The first was the tractor lifting what 'appears' to be a glowing mass. However, even ignoring the potential for photo-manipulation, the plastic

This footage is genuine and the steel is at about 1000 to 1200 degrees C. Steel melts at about 1500 degrees C.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This footage is genuine and the steel is at about 1000 to 1200 degrees C. Steel melts at about 1500 degrees C.

Thanks for clarifying, I was still looking at the image and was trying to get a grasp for what is the apparent commonly accepted range for 'molten' in the standard of the argument. The fire fighter accounts are either intended or do, described molten metal but the implication is that it's in a non-solid state. If it's still retaining a plastic range of behavior it would seem to me that it still wouldn't be considered molten yet

 

[thewholesoul]

I'm surprised at your thinking on this. Certainly there is more reason to believe the gentleman since he is there looking at it and touching it as compared to debunkers and truthers looking a low-res video and saying it is or is not molten steel. It is more likely that he is one of the volunteer engineers investigating the steel than "some random guy in a suit". Did they permit random indviduals to examine the debris?

your right. his name is Bart voorsanger, an archetect hired to save “relics from the rubble”.

 

[thewholesoul]

I cant understand how people can question the fire in the debris pile. Here in Sweden we celebrate First May every year with a huge bonfire. And that pile of ashes and dust can smoulder days after first may.

does it reach temperaturs hot enough to melt steel?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

I doubt that there is much disagreement between GregoryUrich and you on this. See this thread in case you missed it:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3810517#post3810517

And this post in the same thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3811470#post3811470

Anyway thewholesoul should definitely read that letter, if he hasn't done it yet. Though I have the feeling that he is going to ignore it, despite the fact that he otherwise loves to quote the papers by some other prominent members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice".

hey norseman you have been chipping away for a while. when are you going to put together a robust argument and take on the three premises?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

This is an add- on to post#90



Bolded portion: Indeed it seems that the picture I referenced here (1 minute and 23 seconds into the video) is not in any way, shape or form, molten metal. It is an altered picture of the rescue efforts that were under way at the time. In which they used spot lights, flash lights... etc. Here is the original picture:
[qimg]http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/371/ligtscj8.jpg[/qimg]


And it seems I over looked this before... I apologize, allow me to answer what I can:



And I've noticed your ongoing habit of using unreliable sources of information in your efforts to support your evidence...


Some of it was already there... be it from the time of the buildings' construction when the steel was at the mills or otherwise.




You said:



I was primarily responding to what I bolded in your quote. Your question is an oxymoron... you're trying to establish the premise that the WTC were brought down with therm?te which in turn should account for the hot spots, but you're working without any precedence.

I'm honestly not sure how to word myself to this question of yours... No conventional demolition is ever undertaken whilst a structure is burning, and as of yet you've not pointed out a single example where thermite was used to assist in a full-scale demolition. How exactly do you expect there to even be hot spots under conventional circumstances? The comparison you are trying to establish just doesn't work...



Which is why i asked you if you could find any kind of precedent of a CD that used it, to which you answered:



You stated: "...it follows if thermite were used in a contolled demolition one would expect to find melted steel"

6 weeks later? 2 days after? you're extrapolating without any prior case that would tell us what one could expect. As you are not able to find precedents, how do you know what one should expect from a CD done with thermite?




Better yet, try a steel framed building of any size that iss slated for demolition... the problem of course with your claim thus far is that there is no such example and you're suggesting results which are at this point non-existent in precedence.

Maybe if such an experiment is ever done they can leave the rubble pile there for a few months and see how whether or not thermite can really leave molten metal after a few weeks, although I highly doubt to be possible...



See my response... the 5th quote above this.

i am glad you would not object to experiments with thermite and demolitions of steel frame buildings.

you argument that i need some precedence is starnge given that your argument lacks precedence also.

besides i did not mention thermite in my three premises or conclusion. it was a modest conclusion that merely states we need a new investigation. again if you ahve a problem with any of the premises go post your objections and i will address them.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Its all about making correct claims not incorrect claims. You are making lots of incorrect claims.

Have any proof or experiments to show it was molten steel? This is what you claim NIST should do for everything so you need this also or your claims are junk. You are a hypocrite as well as a liar by the looks of it

Wheres your scientific method this time TWS?

TAM answered your joke claims and you handwaved them. Show us the proof.

it pleases me when you get so emotional. your obviously a glasgow rangers supporter. here go focus that hatred you got and construct and intelligent argument against mine.

Premise #1: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center.

Premise #2: Assuming that NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission represent the official government position then there is no official explanation for the molten steel

Premise #3: Without determing what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed.

Conclusion: A New Independent Investigation Is Needed to determine whether what caused the molten steel had any relation to the question why World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were completely destroyed.

peace

 

[ElMondoHummus]

There's a lot here; I'll have to respond in more than one post.

They most certainly prove the possibility that temepratures were suffcient to melt steel because it is a fact that microsphericules, evaporated aluminosilicates etc can be produced under extreme temperatures. So let us get this straight: you are not arguing against this fact, instead you are trying to establish other possibile explanations for the presence of microspherules, evaporated aluminosilicates etc which compose the “unique WTC Dust signature”.

What I'm doing is raising more probable sources for the phenomena in question. I'm presenting sources that do not require any complex conspiracy or the presence of materials (such as thermite) that are not only not indicated by present observations, but are actually contraindicated by them. Sources which flow naturally from known details of the towers (for example, the fact that welding was most definitely used during construction).

And: You need to actually read Jones's work.

It is not clear to us that boiling of aluminosilicate is needed to produce the observed porous structure; melting and evaporation of some minor component may suffice. But if the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is indeed a result of “boiling and evaporation” of the material as the report suggests [1], we note the boiling temperature for aluminosilicate is approximately 2,760 °C.

Key word: If. Jones isn't establishing that the characteristics of the particle indicate temperatures, he's saying if the appearance is the result of high temps, then that indicates high temperatures. Why he then goes on to treat the matter as a settled issue rather than a hypothetical is unclear, but he comes out and admits it's a supposition, not a conclusion. So before you use aluminosilicate particles to prove high temperatures, establish first that the particles' appearances were indeed caused by such high temperatures. Jones isn't doing that. He comes out and says it in his paper.

Furthermore, didn't Dr. Frank Greening note a possible mechanism for aluminosilicate formation at temperatures lower than the, what, 2700+ degree C claim Jones makes?

The formation of iron-rich microspheres below the m.p. of pure iron at ~ 1537 deg C is a complex process but is possible in an environment containing HCl/Cl2 and SO2/SO3 in the presence of O2 and H2O. Iron is transported as a volatile di or tri-chloride. FeCl2 has a m.p. of 677 deg C and allows "active" corrosion to occur with iron wastage rates as high as 100 g/m^2 per hour. The iron chloride is relatively unstable and decomposes but the iron does not wind up as a pure iron microsphere. As the very least it will be oxide (probably Fe3O4) coated and alloyed with other metals such as Al. Fly ash usually contains mullite, Al6Si2O13. This readily combines with iron oxide at ~ 1000 deg C to form an iron-rich aluminosilicate microsphere on cooling. Other elements such as K and Ca are also readily incorporated into these melts. This is the chemistry of CLAY minerals! As long as Jones' microspheres contain Si and/or K and Ca, they are NOT derived from thermite.

Bolding is for emphasis. At any rate, NCSTAR1-5 does note that "simulations and the visual evidence suggests" that there were temperatures "in the neighborhood" of 1000 degrees C.

On top of that, I thought a poster here in this forum noted that aluminosilicate microspheres - not merely their precursors (i.e. mullite), but actual aluminosilicate spherules themselves - were also a component of fly ash, which in turn is a component of concrete. I'll try to locate that reference. Anyway, my point in rasing this is to note that there are already alternate explanations for the presence of the aluminosilicate spherules that do not need higher temperatures or explanations based on unproven materials like thermite, but instead flow naturally from the composition of known components of the towers.

He did better than that he ruled out to my mind what was the main source of possible contamination of the WTC dust namely, the thousands of tons of pulverised concrete.

some time ago, we crushed a concrete sample obtained from the WTC rubble, used magnetic concentration, and looked for iron-rich spheres. There were NONE found

(For those who don't click through to Dr. Greening's (Apollo20's) post: The above statement is Dr. Greening quoting Steven Jones's response to an email. So that's actually Steven Jones's response.).

As Greening pointed out in that same exchange, the fly-ash constituent of concrete is a known source of these iron rich microspheres. And now Jones is trying to claim that there were none found in another sampling, which is a contradiction to this known fact about the constitution of concrete. Jones needs to provide more information before I consider his claim credible. Simply making the claim as he does is insufficient argumentation to sway me, especially in the light of other misrepresentations he's indulged in before.

To be continued...

 

[Grizzly Bear]

you argument that i need some precedence is starnge given that your argument lacks precedence also.

There are precedents of steel structures that have collapsed solely from fire, and a few examples have been floated around here and through the WTC 7 thread. What is 'lacking' is a separate incident which involved the same variables as seen that day:

• Steel structures that have catastrophically failed at the same magnitude as the trade centers
• Uses Steel framed 'tube-on-tube design method
• That was struck by a plane which reduced load bearing capacity of perimeter and core sections
• fire started immediately on multiple floors
• There were no sprinkler-based inhibitors to prevent further spread of the fires beyond the impact regions

However, the towers were built with materials with known vulnerabilities to fires. As I've stated countless times this is why they're protected with fireproofing in every building code. Regardless of how uncommon fires are they know full well the sort of vulnerabilities that exist, which in essence adds precedence to the argument.

All of this however would have to be discussed in-depth in another existing thread.

 

[pomeroo]

it pleases me when you get so emotional. your obviously a glasgow rangers supporter. here go focus that hatred you got and construct and intelligent argument against mine.

Premise #1: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center.

The "evidence" for molten steel has been denied, therefore it cannot
be undeniable.

Premise #2: Assuming that NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission represent the official government position then there is no official explanation for the molten steel

Anecdotal claims provide no compelling reason to believe that the molten metal was steel.

Premise #3: Without determing what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed.

There is no reason to suppose that the presence of molten steel in the rubble pile relates to the cause of the collapses.

Conclusion: A New Independent Investigation Is Needed to determine whether what caused the molten steel had any relation to the question why World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were completely destroyed.

peace

Any investigation that includes serious researchers would replicate the findings of the original investigation. An investigation that excludes serious researchers and substitutes agenda-driven cranks would be worthless.

 

[funk de fino]

it pleases me when you get so emotional. your obviously a glasgow rangers supporter. here go focus that hatred you got and construct and intelligent argument against mine.

I already have. Try to keep up. I have no hatred. You obviously do that as you can accuse innocent people of murder with zero proof. I do not like liars but I do not hate them.

Same junk already answered in earlier posts

 

[thewholesoul]

Premise #1: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center.

Show me the proof and tests done to confirm this.

Your questions only serve to support premise two and my conclusion. Good job. As for proof we have testimony , relics, and thermal images. Steel melts at 1500c. Temperatures of 1500c were recorded. Steel was exposed to these temperatures in the rubble pile therefore steel must have melted and it is therefore unsurprising to hear testimony sighting molten steel and relics an expert claims was molten steel fused with concrete.
Originally Posted by TWS
Premise #2: Assuming that NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission represent the official government position then there is no official explanation for the molten steel

Not government position. Seperate investigations. There is no proof of molten steel.

Strong semantical argument but on the whole toothless. Good job.
Originally Posted by TWS
Premise #3: Without determing what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed.

You need to prove the molten steel was there in the first place. Then you have to show us what it means. Get going.

See premise #1 for proof of molten steel. dont you think we need to determine its causes to know what that means (see premise #3)? Thus samples such as the relics need to be tested. and experiments could be conducted to rule in or out certain hypothesis.
Originally Posted by TWS
Conclusion: A New Independent Investigation Is Needed to determine whether what caused the molten steel had any relation to the question why World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were completely destroyed

Get going then. It should not take too much to set up and independant investigation into molten steel. Heck you could do a lot of the legwork with a phone and email. Actually ask people. I know you will not though.

Given you failed to refute premise one, two or three your above comment is rather pointless. Good job.

This thread is full of your junk incorrect claims. Lurkers will see this and see that if you make all these mistakes then what is it you could ever actually get correct?

They will see me admiting when i am wrong. They will see you nitpicking as usual. And they will see your abject failure when it comes to taken me on in a real argument with premises and conclusions.

Same junk already answered in earlier posts

answered? but i do enjoy your fighting spirit. sure your not a glasgow rangers supporter?

peace

 

[Grizzly Bear]

They will see me admiting when i am wrong. They will see you nitpicking as usual. And they will see your abject failure when it comes to taken me on in a real argument with premises and conclusions.

peace

What I am more genuinely concerned about is you use of terrible information sources. I picked apart one of the youtube videos you posted with that expressed purpose in mind. I suggest you clarify that matter... I addressed this in post # 135 and #90

Using sources which are so easily taken apart isn't the wisest of ideas.... #135, shows an original picture which was shown in an altered state in one of your vids. If you're using videos with such deceiving intent, it doesn't add to your credibility if anything I'm much less convinced in your capability of ensuring that your sources are accurate on the materials they present... Either clarify it or try again from square one.

 

[funk de fino]

Premise #1: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center.

Your questions only serve to support premise two and my conclusion. Good job. As for proof we have testimony , relics, and thermal images. Steel melts at 1500c. Temperatures of 1500c were recorded. Steel was exposed to these temperatures in the rubble pile therefore steel must have melted and it is therefore unsurprising to hear testimony sighting molten steel and relics an expert claims was molten steel fused with concrete.

You have no proof then? You would show it if you did. You want NIST to follow the scientific methoid yet refuse to follow it yourself. Hypocritical in the extreme. Some of your evidence was a video yet you do not aloow NIST to use this?

Originally Posted by TWS
Premise #2: Assuming that NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission represent the official government position then there is no official explanation for the molten steel

Strong semantical argument but on the whole toothless. Good job.
Originally Posted by TWS
Premise #3: Without determing what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed.

See premise #1 for proof of molten steel. dont you think we need to determine its causes to know what that means (see premise #3)? Thus samples such as the relics need to be tested. and experiments could be conducted to rule in or out certain hypothesis.

You have no proof. Do the investigation yourself and get proof.

Originally Posted by TWS
Conclusion: A New Independent Investigation Is Needed to determine whether what caused the molten steel had any relation to the question why World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were completely destroyed

Given you failed to refute premise one, two or three your above comment is rather pointless. Good job.

Liar. I addressed your joke premises.

They will see me admiting when i am wrong. They will see you nitpicking as usual. And they will see your abject failure when it comes to taken me on in a real argument with premises and conclusions.

Liar. You have tap danced and moved goalposts and refused to admit mistakes many times. They can see this too well

answered? but i do enjoy your fighting spirit. sure your not a glasgow rangers supporter?

If you continue with the personal attacks the lurkers are also seeing the failure of your premises and posts. You will also be reported.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Premise #1: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center.

Your questions only serve to support premise two and my conclusion. Good job. As for proof we have testimony , relics, and thermal images. Steel melts at 1500c. Temperatures of 1500c were recorded. Steel was exposed to these temperatures in the rubble pile therefore steel must have melted and it is therefore unsurprising to hear testimony sighting molten steel and relics an expert claims was molten steel fused with concrete.
Originally Posted by TWS

WRONG as always. The testimony is unusable because no one giving testimony has any way of knowing that what they thought and ASSUMED was steel was actually steel. Your reclics are not evidence of molten steel, they are simply evidence of the building. The Thermal images do not conclude molten steel. Temperatures of 1500C were not recorded. Steel may or may not have been exposed to such temperatures. While it's possible, the important issue here is that you do not know for certain and are being utterly dishonest and deceitful about your claims.

Premise #2: Assuming that NIST, FEMA, and the 911 Commission represent the official government position then there is no official explanation for the molten steel

Strong semantical argument but on the whole toothless. Good job.
Originally Posted by TWS

Premise 2 does not exist because it is not a premise at all. it's simply a conclusion made on a completely false premise (#1). The 911 commission would have no business with dealing with such a matter. And had NIST actually found any evidence of such a thing they may have investigated it as well. But being they didn't and that the presence of molten steel is possible under such conditions anyways, there would be no point. Because even if you were to prove there absolutely was molten steel, it is not indicitive of anything unusual and would have no effect on the investigation.

Premise #3: Without determing what caused the molten steel it is impossible to rule it out as unrelated and nonrelevant to why three skyscrapers totally collapsed.

WRONG. What can I say, it's just a flat out wrong statement. There is nothing true about it. It's simply the result of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. This is not a premise, it's simply a bad and uneducated assumption. There's nothing to prove wrong since it's not even a premise and there is nothing to show any merit of truth to it.

See premise #1 for proof of molten steel. dont you think we need to determine its causes to know what that means (see premise #3)? Thus samples such as the relics need to be tested. and experiments could be conducted to rule in or out certain hypothesis.

The causes of the molten steel that no one is able to prove even exists? No. Even if it was determined that there was molten steel there would be no reason to investigate it since the conditions did make such an event possible. There's no need to test because it has no effect on the actual collapse or events of the day.

Originally Posted by TWS
Conclusion: A New Independent Investigation Is Needed to determine whether what caused the molten steel had any relation to the question why World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were completely destroyed

An additional investigation is only needed to fullfill your little conspiracy fantasies and thus it is YOUR responsibility to investigate. NIST did what it was supposed to do and it conducted a real investigation. A fantasy investigation such as the one you call for which has no basis in science or the collapse of the building is on you. Don't sit here and complain to us, go do your little investigation. You simply want someone who you claim is not trustable to do it for you and pay for it for you. Of course that's an oxy moron. The truth is that you could care less about an investigation but simply use the childish argument so you can pretend that the investigation done by the grown ups is somehow not valid. And since none of your arguments or requests will ever be taken seriously it gives you the ability to indefinitely complain.

Given you failed to refute premise one, two or three your above comment is rather pointless. Good job.

Your premises have been refuted by pretty much everyone on the forum. And they aren't even premises. They are childish idiotic remarks that hold no validity what so ever. And you wouldn't understand something being pointless or not because in your small brain anything that doesn't tell you NWO is taking over the world has no point.

They will see me admiting when i am wrong. They will see you nitpicking as usual. And they will see your abject failure when it comes to taken me on in a real argument with premises and conclusions.

We don't expect to see you ever admit you are wrong. We already know you are wrong. Everyone knows you are wrong and it has been proven 100s of times. This is why we laugh at you. Because you pretend otherwise. When you actually do manage to come up with some actual premises, then come talk to the adults. Oh wait, that's not going to happen. Who are we kidding.

answered? but i do enjoy your fighting spirit. sure your not a glasgow rangers supporter?

peace

And your continued fantasies and delusions are again noted kiddo. Keep on using that imagination of yours. Just remember that when you grow up you may regret all that wasted time.

 

[GlennB]

Premise #1: there is undeniable evidence for molten steel at the World Trade Center.
....
Steel melts at 1500c. Temperatures of 1500c were recorded.
<snip>

Were they? Where?

Thermal imaging ('hotspots') analysis detect a peak of about 1000°K, which is approx 730°C. See here