Molten Steel

[Travis]

How many times do I have to repeat this? The existence/nonexistence of molten metals of whatever type is irrelevant to any collapse mechanism, and thus irrelevant to the NIST investigation, that exists in the real world. It would also be irrelevant to the 9/11 Commission which was charged with examining policy failures and was not an engineering or scientific investigation.

 

[thewholesoul]

There are precedents of steel structures that have collapsed solely from fire

and of those examples how many had rubble piles of molten steel?

there are many more precedents of steel structures been demolished with explosives. no molten metal under them either

 

[thewholesoul]

How many times do I have to repeat this? The existence/nonexistence of molten metals of whatever type is irrelevant to any collapse mechanism, and thus irrelevant to the NIST investigation, that exists in the real world.

yes you keep repeating that part. but what is lacking is your reasons why it would be irrelevant to any collapse mechanism? how can you know it is irrelevant if you have not determined the cause (premise three)?

 

[thewholesoul]

Were they? Where?

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

yes, go read post#1

 

[GeeMack]

There are precedents of steel structures that have collapsed solely from fire

and of those examples how many had rubble piles of molten steel?

there are many more precedents of steel structures been demolished with explosives. no molten metal under them either

Okay, so the WTC towers didn't collapse due to fire or explosives. Now we're getting somewhere!

 

[GlennB]

yes, go read post#1

The link to Dr Greening's post is broken.

Meanwhile the exact phrase "Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400" only appears to exist within the JRef forum.

So, the only "measurement" of 1500°C + seems to have vanished.
I'd be very interested to read of any actual measurement of such temperatures at GZ. So far you haven't provided one.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The link to Dr Greening's post is broken.

Meanwhile the exact phrase "Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400" only appears to exist within the JRef forum.

So, the only "measurement" of 1500°C + seems to have vanished.
I'd be very interested to read of any actual measurement of such temperatures at GZ. So far you haven't provided one.

Folks, that figure comes from a magazine called "Professional Safety", the May 2002 edition, in an article titled "SH&E At Ground Zero". T.A.M found a link to it here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm

The exact quote is this paragraph:

The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties...

Yes, those measurements were made. However, it bears noting that this was in the rubble piles post collapse. Bechtel's SH&E did not make it to Ground Zero until the morning of Sept. 13th, and it's not mentioned in the article exactly when those helicopter measurements were taken. As I've noted in other threads before, the fact that the fires in the rubble piles were exceptionally hot is no surprise given the insulative nature of the debris, and the fact that the areas on fire were reduced from multiple stories tall and acres wide to be concentrated in whatever size those particular areas of the rubble pile were. And also as I've noted before, in this thread and others, the fact that areas in the piles reached these temperatures indicates nothing about the state of the towers prior to collapse.

 

[T.A.M.]

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



correct and i will continue to make mistakes on the minor details. thankfully there is people like you who spend there time combing through my posts for those little mistakes. shame you dont address the main argument i am making however. so take a pot shot and debunk my premises.

peace

The above may have been addressed. If so, I apologize.

1. Your evidence is poor, as we have shown. Unqualified witness testimony of the chemical make up of a molten substance, without proper chemical analysis of that product, is not evidence...at all.

2. NIST:

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

As for the steel found after the collapses,

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.

...it is irrelevant, however, as there is no way to tell if the steel melted before or after the collapse. It would not be unusual to have steel molten while sitting in some of the extreme hot spots post collapse.

As well, all reports that have been provided were based on visual observation only.

3. If you want to fund an independent investigation, go for it, but there is not even close to sufficient evidence, molten steel and all other CTs included, to warrant the tax payers in the USA funding such an investigation for the 3rd time.

TAM

 

[thewholesoul]

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?

Yes, the thermal images are proof that temperatures reached 1500c and it is a fact that steel melts when exposed to such temperatures thus it is not surprising that we have other forms of evidence such as testimony, and relics from the rubble. A better question would ask do you have any evidence to the contrary aside from incredulity and willful denial?

The truth is the evidence I provided establish the fact that molten steel was present at GZ. If you had any arguments to refute that fact you would have said so already. You didnt. So instead you have opted for a plan B involving nothingmore than procrastination and name calling. So allow me to address that. The objective of my argument was that the scientific method needs to applied to the question: by what mechanism could temperatures sufficient to melt steel in the rubble pile be generated? I do not need to apply the scientfic method to the thermal images Funk, nor could it be applied to the individuals who gave testimony, the relics could however be tested for further information. What needs to be tested therefore is the CAUSE of the molten steel not the evidence that PROVE it was there!

Likewise NIST have video footage, for example, of outer-columns buckling. They do not need to apply the scientific method to the video footage – they need to apply the scientific method to the explanation or supposed CAUSE of that buckling. Comprende amigo mio? So again we have just another example of you shooting your mouth off for no good reason - hypocritical in the extreme! – give me a break...and of course I want NIST to follow the scientific method. The question is why dont you?

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

We have irrefutable evidence that molten steel was present at GZ – if you could have refuted it you would have done so already. You appear to be confused, the cause of the molten is what needs to be explained and tested not the evidence for that molten steel. The above quotes you mined only stress the fact that the CAUSES of the molten steel, present at GZ, have not been determined. So if your point is that the mechanism from which the molten steel resulted has not been proven, then we are in agreement.
From reading the “do it yourself” comment above I can see that you are fast running out of intelligent things to say. And that pleases me.

Liar. I addressed your joke premises.

Anyone can accuse another of being a liar. Its a cheap insult that reflects poorly on you my friend. Likewise anyone can address an envelope, but the question is will it reach its desitination? Yours did not. So the joke is on you buddy.

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

You need to relax a little more my friend and take a long hike towards those beautiful highlands.

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

Attack? That was a compliment, i love Glasgow rangers and their supporters! Go report that.

But in truth the only one making insults is yours truly – you insult my honesty and intelligence on a continual basis. But i am not going to lower myself to your standards neither am i going to run to the moderator for protection against you pety remarks and accusations. I am above such insults and so should you be and being offended by them only gives them credence.

peace

 

[tsig]

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

How do you know the footage is genuine. Since steel melts at 1500 degrees and you say the temp was 1200 degrees max it could not be molten steel we are seeing.

Where did the energy to melt the steel come from? I would like to know as it seems the steel industry is doing it wrong if all you have to do is drop the steel in a great big pile and set it alight then they are wasting a lot of money on fuel.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Actually, if we're going to address Soul's premises, the rebuttal to #3 is something I've been repeatedly trying to get across to him:

When you determine that conditions exist post collapse that can easily form molten steel - and don't forget, Soul himself provided a cite saying that exact thing - how can you insist that there's something about the pre-collapse condition of the towers that needs to be investigated? If the sightings were indeed molten steel, then given that just about all the sightings have been attributed to post-collapse timeframes, the obvious answer is that the components melted in the rubble piles.

And no, anyone else who's reading this and wants to resurrect supposed pre-collapse sightings, like the cascading molten metals video from a few years ago: Don't. They've all been discussed ad-naseum here and have other, far more likely explanations; use the search feature to see for yourselves. As an example of the rebuttal of one of these hypotheses: The flow seen in the "falling molten steel" video was never tested as steel, didn't behave like steel, and could either be aluminum (that's NIST's theory) or lead (that's Paolo Attivissimo's idea, found here, with a followup here). The point is that there's an alternate explanation that again flows naturally from given details about the towers and doesn't require extraordinary additions like thermite to make it work; all you need are enough heat for those metals (given) and their presence (also given; the facade of the towers was aluminum, and so was the body of the jet. And, exterprise class uninterruptible power supplies were known to be near the area of the supposed molten "steel" waterfall, and would have contained enough lead to account for the sighting). Again, read the links I've provided.

Anyway, to return to the topic: Soul's premise is as ridiculous as wanting to investigate the freezer because the ice cube melted in the glass. Of course it would have done so in the different conditions; that melting doesn't support any assertions about the conditions in the freezer. Ditto the steel in the rubble piles.

 

[~enigma~]

At first I thought you were just mistaken now I see you are just stupid take a piece of steel and drop it you will see it does not melt.

If you want to melt steel you need something like an open hearth furnace why else do you think they use them?

Maybe you have invented the drop furnace all you have to do is drop the ore 1000 feet and it will combust.

Last time I am ever responding to you before I put you on ignore. I never said steel will melt from the pressure alone and to idiotically assume I said that just means you are stupider than you claim I am.

 

[GlennB]

Folks, that figure comes from a magazine called "Professional Safety", the May 2002 edition, in an article titled "SH&E At Ground Zero". T.A.M found a link to it here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm

Thank you for that.

However, photographic thermal imaging from helicopters cannot detect underground temperatures. I strongly suspect something wrong here. Still we only have a report of some thermal imaging reporting certain temperatures, not the study itself.

If the surface temperatures were anything like 1500°C then the firemen and rescue dogs would not be concerned about their boots or paws. They would not even be able to get close enough to experience the discomfort that 1500°C would generate. Any steel on the surface would be glowing in broad daylight.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

and of those examples how many had rubble piles of molten steel?

Are they supposed to? Buildings aren't usually on fire before their demolished... and there is apparently no precedent available to show that such a phenomenon would persist if therm?te were used. You're trying to establish an argument out of thin air here...

there are many more precedents of steel structures been demolished with explosives. no molten metal under them either

This is the fundamental problem with all of your arguments. When has a controlled demolition EVER been undertaken while the structure is BURNING? You keep missing that point. How many controlled demolitions involved using PASSENGER JETS?

You keep pointing out that 'normal' controlled demolitions do not have molten metal, two problems:

• you posted a youtube video which clearly shows altered pictures, one of which I brought up, the second image could have been taken at any time during clean-up (thermite, was used during cleanup operations), there is apparently no effort to explain its original on the part of the video publisher, and the last though genuine, doesn't display 'molten properties, unless you intend to count 'plastic behavior[/b] as molten. In the grand scheme of things what the video supports becomes irrelevant. YOU have been trying to convince ME, a skeptic who already finds your theories out of character with what was observed, and expect a rational person to find merit in your claims using a video with deceptive content in it. The video relies solely on either anecdotal evidence, dubious photographic representations, or other testimony which does not mention 'molten steel' period, instead making statements which contradict yours.
  
• Your other premise is circular. Of course there are precedents of explosives in controlled demolitions, just what controlled demolition 'doesn't'. This doesn't tell me anything about the twin towers.We know how they were carry out normal controlled demolitions. None of those buildings are occupied, none of those buildings contain office materials inside, none are a raging inferno at the point of collapse. Thermite is not used in normal controlled demolitions. SO I'm not sure what kind of precedence you are trying to produce, you're asserting that the metal would remain molten for an extended period of time requiring a ridiculous amount of fuel to sustain the required temperatures.

Think about the conditions you have to meet to rig a fully occupied building, without pre-weakening the structure. Until you can explain the inconsistencies that I pointed out in your youtube vid, you 1st premise is lagging in credibility

 

[~enigma~]

You never actually answered my question, by near as I can follow the conversation it seems you're claiming that the collapse event exerted pressure on the steel, that this pressure made the steel behaved like liquid, and somehow we get from there to molten steel.

The only clear comment I've pulled from your posts is this:



Firstly, there's no mention of fires here, so I don't know how anyone is to assume you're meaning pressure and fires. Secondly, I don't understand how you got from "acts more or less like a liquid" to "molten metal" since "acts more or less like a liquid" and "molten" are not even remotely the same thing. And thirdly, given that "3 to 9 tons PSI" is (presumably) 6700psi to 20,000psi (46,100kPa to 137,800kPa) - less than a third of the pressure in a Browning .50cal machine gun barrel (made of steel) during firing - I'm highly skeptical of your claim that steel under that pressure "acts more or less like a liquid" (I've personally worked with both aluminium and steel at around 7,000psi and it certainly wasn't even remotely liquid-like, and there are steel ultra-high pressure valves rated to 40,000psi and higher that wouldn't be too effective if these pressures made them behave like liquid)..

Finally, your base contention underneath this is that metals at higher pressures behave "more like liquids". Now for most people that would suggest that they begin to "flow" and that's a measure of viscosity, and as I've stated, and you now seem to agree, viscosity increases at pressure, so in fact metals under pressure behave less like liquids.

Perhaps you could explain this post by you:



Because frankly it doesn't make sense.

I'm very confident saying that steel under 6700psi to 20,000psi doesn't behaved like a liquid, although I won't go as far as to make the same claim for all metals. However what this has to do with metal being molten I don't know because any metal can be molten at any pressure as long as sufficient heat is applied to it to achieve melting point.

And as for "pressure having nothing to do with it" I think most people would agree that high levels of sudden pressure exerted on steel will cause it to bend or fracture without causing it to "behave more or less like liquid", so I don't understand what point you're raising there.

Is viscosity the only property of a liquid? I even spoke of about convection currents as a property of liquids when i spoke about rheids. Viscocity isn't nor never will be the only property of liquid. Now if most people only think of a liquid as something that flows does that make it true? BTW, yes, the pressure is comparable to the pressure exerted from a bullet and your comparison is not accurate. A gun barrel is open so pressure escapes. Now if you would care to compare a with a barrel closed at both ends then your comparison will be more accurate but you will undoubtedly see a different outcome. Besides since when does your personal incredulity matter in a scientific problem? Now the reason that I didn't mention fires in the debris pile (or before collapse) is because they are something everyone here on both sides of the fence (one side being reality - the other being idiocy) are well aware of.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Thank you for that.

However, photographic thermal imaging from helicopters cannot detect underground temperatures. I strongly suspect something wrong here. Still we only have a report of some thermal imaging reporting certain temperatures, not the study itself.

If the surface temperatures were anything like 1500°C then the firemen and rescue dogs would not be concerned about their boots or paws. They would not even be able to get close enough to experience the discomfort that 1500°C would generate. Any steel on the surface would be glowing in broad daylight.

Well, let's recall that the implication was that there were spots that reached that hot, not that the rubble piles were uniformly impossibly hot. If that were the truth, no one could have worked on them.

Regarding thermal measurements from helicopters: Yes, that's true. Perhaps there was some interpolation or non-mathematical interpretation that lead people to cite that temperature range. I don't know. But I don't see the point in disputing the temperatures cited either. As I've been saying over and over to thewholesoul here, nothing about the temperatures in the piles indicates anything about the state of the towers before they collapsed. And since Bechtel was willing to release the data, and other engineers have not chosen to dispute it - indeed, as far as I could tell, workers proceeded as if the information was accurate - I'm willing to take it at face value, despite the lack of primary/original data supporting the claim. It doesn't really matter, since those measurement claims do not support conspiracy fantasies in any way.

But since you raised, the issue, I would be curious to know more about Bechtel's SH&E team's thermal measurements. I unfortunately am in no position to find that out. I guess I can write the article's author...

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I think so long as Soul keeps using false evidence and prancing about his imaginary world pretending to create his own reality that no one else lives in, he is never going to understand why no one takes him seriously. It's just so sad. Perhaps a drug issue, or maybe a mental disorder.

 

[CurtC]

However, photographic thermal imaging from helicopters cannot detect underground temperatures.

Yeah, you'll notice that the quote said "Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures..." This implies that they were taking a surface temp measurement, then applying an additional factor to estimate the underground temps.

I guess we could go on and on trying to figure whether the underground temp might have been hot enough to melt steel (even though surface temps where people reported seeing molten metal were much cooler), but even if we could say that temps were hot enough, so what? Underground fires can get very hot, we already know that. And thermite could NOT be responsible, we already know that.

thewholesoul, why again are we having this discussion?

 

[tsig]

Last time I am ever responding to you before I put you on ignore. I never said steel will melt from the pressure alone and to idiotically assume I said that just means you are stupider than you claim I am.

Then all you have to do is show where the energy comes from to melt the steel.

If I misread what you said then I am sorry but it seemed as though you were using the collapse to explain the molten steel. If you were not please tell me where the fuel came from to melt the steel.

Responding and saying you will not listen to a response, well stick your fingers in your ears.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I guess we could go on and on trying to figure whether the underground temp might have been hot enough to melt steel (even though surface temps where people reported seeing molten metal were much cooler), but even if we could say that temps were hot enough, so what? Underground fires can get very hot, we already know that. And thermite could NOT be responsible, we already know that.

Yes, that's true. Incendiaries, no matter if you're talking thermite or something else, would have consumed themselves in exceedingly small timeframes, on the order of seconds to minutes. Whereas the underground temperatures were noted to be exceptionally high for months (the fires were finally extinguished in December or January, IIRC). Incendiaries could not have been responsible for such long term temperature maintenance, not unless they were being constantly added, and that would have been highly noticible.

Now, others can say that the incendiaries lit flammable contents under the debris piles on fires, but at that point, why are incendiaries being blamed? For starters, there was already a fire to provide such a start; incendiaries would not be needed. And second, I need to be shown how the ignition source that consumes itself in seconds to minutes determines how hot the fuel burns weeks to months later. Whether incendiaries or office contents themselves ignited by the impacts were to blame, the temperature of the rubble pile would be a function of the rubble fires composition, including any insulative properties, and access to oxygen. I don't see at this time how the ignition source determines, say, how hot an office desk or a temporary cubicle partition burns. But I easily see how temperatures would vary depending on the "concentration" of such fuel (i.e. scattered around an office pre-collapse, as opposed to mixed together and piled on top of each other post collapse) as well as on the ability of the surrounding environment to allow or prevent heat to escape.

Any way you cut it, yes, postulating incendiaries like thermite as being responsible for the high temperatures is stretching logic. I'm not convinced.