Molten Steel

[Jonnyclueless]

The fact of the matter is that while an article makes a claim of 2800F, the actual readings themselves show otherwise. Hmm, what to go by, a quote, or the actual readings. Well, we know in twooferville the goal is to use only the reports that favor the pre-determined outcome. However in science one goes by the scientific data. It's kinda like a cultural difference where science and nonsense just don't see eye to eye.

 

[Kent1]

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.

I would also like to see the "thermal imaging" to support the claim.

I do strongly suspect there was some molten steel. But not to the degree to which many have claimed. That's why I tracked down people like Leslie Robertson and asked them myself.
Another note, molten steel claims during a fire are not uncommon. You can find many claims searching through house fires on google. During the Oakland hills fires, molten steel claims were reported in over 90% of the homes. But more often its just oxidized.

 

[T.A.M.]

I do not know why we even have a debate on this anymore...oh my.

1. The PRESENCE of molten steel, if there was any, proves nothing, as it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell if it was made molten PRIOR TO, or AFTER the collapse.

2. I have provided earlier in this thread, links to photos of MOLTEN aluminum, copper, tin, and even glass, and I am telling you, to an untrained (or perhaps even a trained) eye, you cannot tell them apart. Therefore, visual observation of molten substances, PERIOD, means diddly squat in terms of the presence of MOLTEN STEEL.

TAM

 

[Sunstealer]

Do you know what I think this all comes down to? Laymen (firefghters and others) using specific terms to describe what they are seeing without realising that those specific terms actually mean something completely different.

eg: "Wow, look at that molten steel!", whereby what they actually mean is "Wow, look at that (really hot) glowing red/yellow/white solid lump (of steel/metal/stuff)".

I think that molten has been misappropriated and picked up on by the truthers and then used to validate their claims. Until someone can categorically provide a sample that shows a previously melted piece of steel it's neither here nor there and isn't worth discussing. Also see #1 and #2 in T.A.M.'s post above.

 

[thewholesoul]

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.

Thermal images are not poor evidence. It is key evidence which prompted me to open a new thread on molten steel because it is immune to reasonable scepticism. With temperatures of 1500c of course steel exposed to such temperatures would turn molten. Are you seriously willing to argue against this fact?

You make a fair point however – without chemical analysis we cannot say conclusively which molten metal, that we know was observed, was steel. But we can say conclusively that molten steel was present. Testimony of construction workers and firefighters etc who have seen molten steel dripping from the end of steel beams certainly corroborates this fact.

But in light of some of the objections raised against the testimony, the testimony posted will have to be revised and some even ommitted.

Athough i dont agree that the evidence is poor i would concede that it could be stronger. If we had video footage of molten steel actually flowing in the rubble and that substance was sampled and examined that would be fantastic. Unfortunately video cameras were prohibited at GZ and testing of the meteorites is still prohibited.

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.

But did they find evidence that would support the melting of steel eleswhere in the towers prior to collapse? Did they even look for such evidence? Taken literally it would appear as though they were only looking for evidence that supported their pre-determined conlusion. This fact is further confirmed in the final report as we discover their justification for not analysising all the core columns:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf

4.1.3 as none of the remaining columns were within the impact or the fire floors, no further analysis was conducted as damage was assumed to to be the result of the collapse and subsequent handling during the recovery. 4.2.3 due to the unknown location of these columns, and the small overall population of the core columns, no further analysis was conducted.

so if a column was not within the impact zone or if its location was unknown it was not even considered for analysis. Their assumption that any damage to columns outside impact zone was caused by damage during collapse or handling during recovery – could just as well apply – to the columns from the impact zone! Bottom line is they didnt look for evidence outside their pre-determined conclusion. Very poor science indeed.

Furthermore just read their response below given by the NIST spokesman, Neuman to a non-truther journalist: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124760.html “We don’t want to get into a debate,” Neuman said. “Certainly people are entitled to their opinion … [but] we’re staying away from debates with these groups (911 truth groups).” We assured him we didn’t belong to “these groups,” though we admitted some of the groups’ members made points we could not refute. We hoped Neuman could. The first thing we mentioned was [former Brigham Young University physicist Steven] Jones’s claims of finding explosive residue in the debris. “We examined over 200 pieces of steel and found no evidence of explosives,” Neuman said. We know, we said (even more apologetically), but what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives? “Right, because there was no evidence of that.” But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first? “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time … and the taxpayers’ money.”

So the reason why they did not look for evidence of explosives was because there was no evidence for explosives! How can any rational person find sense in such circular reasoning is beyond me.

...it is irrelevant, however, as there is no way to tell if the steel melted before or after the collapse.

The unique WTC Dust suggests that temperatures were extreme enough to melt steel prior to collapse.

What is relevant is why the towers fell the way they did. It is impossible to rule out any connection between molten steel and why the towers fell as irrelevant until we KNOW exactly what caused the molten steel. with your attitude forensics is a pointless occupation because the effects apparently tell us nothing about the causes.

It would not be unusual to have steel molten while sitting in some of the extreme hot spots post collapse.

This is what bugs me about your position. On one hand you say the evidence for molten steel is poor, then on the other your Tom Jones singing “its not unusual”? so which is it? If you feel you can refute ALL testimony of molten steel then go for it. If you think you can refute an experts firsthand observatons of the composition of the meteorite from your nonexpert stand point behind a computer, then thats your opinion. If you think you can refute the thermal images without personal incredulity and willful disbelieve, then I am all ears. But until you do so – premise one remains.

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

You would concede that its kind of difficult to hear molten steel? in any case since when is visual observation invalid? NIST’s only evidence for buckling is a visual observation! Several individuals saw the molten steel dripping off steel beams. this is not rocket science. There is a limit to reasonable scepticism.

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

If they had done the investigation right the first time we would not be in this sorry position.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again, the thermal imaging most certainly does not show 1500C temperatures.

 

[funk de fino]

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

You need to bring some proof.

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

You are lying again

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

You are lying again. keep it up.

I am calling you a liar and a hypocrite due to your false claims and incoherent psost in this forum.

You were insulting me and attacking me by using my nationality and my supposed religion. There is a difference liar.

Please continue, the lurkers can only be served better by your idiocy, dishonesty, hypocrisy and bigotry than by anything I can post.

10/10

 

[gumboot]

1. The PRESENCE of molten steel, if there was any, proves nothing, as it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell if it was made molten PRIOR TO, or AFTER the collapse.

If I may so bold as to disagree, I think it can prove something, and particularly if we have some eye witness testimony to when it existed.

Specifically, if people claim to have seen molten steel in the debris pile, and it indeed can be shown that molten steel did exist in the debris pile, this indicates that severe fires existed in the debris piled (we know this already, by hey...).

Now for severe fires to exist in the debris pile, there must firstly be sufficient fuel in the debris to produce such fires, and given that this fuel came from the buildings, this means the buildings had sufficient fuel for severe fires before collapse, thus adding another nail in the well-nailed coffin of the hopelessly deceased notion that the fires in the towers were small and insignificant.

Further, it suggests (rather strongly) that these serious fires in the towers survived collapse and continued to burn, further supporting their seriousness prior to collapse.

What I think you mean, and of course what is wholly true, is that the presence of molten steel, at any point in the incident, in no way provides the most remote scrap of evidence in support of a controlled demolition.

But then us sane people already knew that.

2. I have provided earlier in this thread, links to photos of MOLTEN aluminum, copper, tin, and even glass, and I am telling you, to an untrained (or perhaps even a trained) eye, you cannot tell them apart. Therefore, visual observation of molten substances, PERIOD, means diddly squat in terms of the presence of MOLTEN STEEL.

On this point I'd like to briefly disagree also, if I may be so bold... the photos provided are always of the metals under very low light conditions. It is true that all metals give off black body radiation, and that the incandescence can be used to estimate the temperature of the metal, however the intensity of the radiation varies remarkably, and further the colour is consistent. Thus if the molten metal is the right colour to be molten steel, it must be the right temperature to be molten steel also, and again, while in darkness the metals cannot be distinguished this is not true under direct sunlight. Aluminium, for example, gives off much less black body radiation than steel, and thus under direct sunlight aluminium is easily identifiable because it's silver, not a bright cherry red.

The obvious culprit is, of course, glass. And I find it odd that glass is so seldom cited. Glass was in ample supply in the buildings and debris, glass has a low melting point, and glass gives off very bright black body radiation with a different colour range to metals, thus glass can appear to be like molten steel when it is nowhere near the same temperature.

Having said all this, I'm inclined to agree with you; I do not know why we still have a debate on it. Actually that's a lie, I do know why. Conspiracy Theorists are ignorant of the fact that molten metal actually hurts their theory, and have this ridiculous notion that somehow molten metal could only be produced by a Controlled Demolition. In truth the exact opposite is true - a CD would not produce molten metal, or any description. Only a very severe fire would.

 

[thewholesoul]

so after several exchanges between myself and funk in realtion to my three premises funk has degenerated into the following

You need to bring some proof.
You are lying again
You are lying again. keep it up.
I am calling you a liar and a hypocrite due to your false claims and incoherent psost in this forum.
You were insulting me and attacking me by using my nationality and my supposed religion. There is a difference liar.
Please continue, the lurkers can only be served better by your idiocy, dishonesty, hypocrisy and bigotry than by anything I can post.
10/10

you dont sound like a happy camper funk. i wonder is that because you were unable to intelligently reply to post 228?

take it easy man.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Well what more can he say Soul? There's no point in him simply repeating the same points that show how and why you are incorrect and you keep repeating them while pretending that they haven't been shown to be wrong. Therefore there isn't much left to do but not that you are in fact lying. It's one thing to simply be ignorant, but at the point it's no longer a possibility since you are knowingly repeating incorrect information. I mean we're not even talking about argumentally wrong, but simply flat out incorrect.

 

[funk de fino]

so after several exchanges between myself and funk in realtion to my three premises funk has degenerated into the following



you dont sound like a happy camper funk. i wonder is that because you were unable to intelligently reply to post 228?

take it easy man.

Ok, so you give up then liar? No proof yet?

NFPA 921, you were wrong about it. Sucks doesn't it when a moron like me can make a fool of you.

Steel buildings do not fail in fire, you were wrong about that. Sucks doesn't it when a moron like me can make a fool of you.

NIST do not explain the total collapse, you were wrong about that. Sucks doesn't it when a moron like me can make a fool of you.

Molten steel, you have no proof. Sucks doesn't it that you cannot show something to make a fool of a moron like me.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You forgot to mention that he was completely wrong about the thermal images showing temperatures of 1500C. The truth is actually around 730C.

 

[nicepants]

Testimony of construction workers and firefighters etc who have seen molten steel dripping from the end of steel beams certainly corroborates this fact.

Steel is not the only metallic material that could have dripped from a steel beam. Unless whatever dripped off was collected and analyzed, we're right back where we started with anecdotal evidence only.

 

[CurtC]

As a matter of fact, I would not expect steel to drip from the end of a steel beam that's being lifted by a tractor. If it's solid enough to be picked up without bending like a wet noodle, it's unlikely that one end would be a runny liquid. If a liquid metal was dripping off the end (and not just flakes of hot stuff falling off), that metal was probably something besides steel.

 

[~enigma~]

Besides the fact that there is no scientific reason whatsoever to deny molten metal at the WTC, how many types of metal were there at the WTC? For starters...there was solder, wiring, brass and aluminum plumbing fixtures, computer parts, etc.....anybody want to add to the list?

Now explain why the moronic truthers think molten metal is significant. Personally I would be surprised if there wasn't any molten metal.

 

[Alt+F4]

Now explain why the moronic truthers think molten metal is significant. Personally I would be surprised if there wasn't any molten metal.

That's what I'd like to know. Conventional explosives don't produce molten metal and a thermite reaction is very fast. The fires at the WTC lasted until December. Molten metal doesn't seem to fit into any type of conspiracy theory.

 

[~enigma~]

Molten metal doesn't seem to fit into any type of conspiracy theory.

No it doesn't and neither does the "thermite signature" that Jones claims so I don't understand their insistence. Maybe they would be better off doing as they did in 2003 and focus on non-physical evidence but that would be an admission of their futility.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Besides the fact that there is no scientific reason whatsoever to deny molten metal at the WTC, how many types of metal were there at the WTC? For starters...there was solder, wiring, brass and aluminum plumbing fixtures, computer parts, etc.....anybody want to add to the list?

The structural steel would have included significant amounts of other metals. Paint contains a lot of the same elements as Jones claims are present in thermate (and, of course, can form red chips). Mike W has covered the subject admirably, as usual, at:

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

Dave

 

[~enigma~]

The structural steel would have included significant amounts of other metals. Paint contains a lot of the same elements as Jones claims are present in thermate (and, of course, can form red chips). Mike W has covered the subject admirably, as usual, at:

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

Dave

Yes he did but that is not really what bothers me. My problem is not the numerous analysis done on the dust but the fact that there was so much in the towers prior to collapse it really isn't surprising that whatever you look for can be found...sort of like numerology.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes he did but that is not really what bothers me. My problem is not the numerous analysis done on the dust but the fact that there was so much in the towers prior to collapse it really isn't surprising that whatever you look for can be found...sort of like numerology.

That's exactly the point Mike is making. He lists a number of elements that would be expected to be found in post-collapse chemical analysis because they were components of compounds and materials to be found in the Twin Towers, or any other steel-framed office building, in normal daily life. These cover just about everything Jones ever found.

Dave