10 story hole in WTC 7

[Grizzly Bear]

Wrong, I have said the Thermite would have been activated before the collapse.

And you are arguing that it caused molten metal to be found DAYS AND WEEKS LATER. Do you not see where this is headed? Thermite doesn't react for several days, let alone months.

Wrong again, I said the several stories of debris would have insulated the molten metal.

Apparently not during our current discussion.

Then you believe some of them.
Were the contractors who told Mark Loizeaux there was molten metal lying?

Did I say they were lying? I repeat my last post in context:

"Besides the point, I don't think many of the witnesses are lying, but the context in which 'molten' is used implies that the definition of 'molten' isn't the same as what you or me place on it.

How many of these witnesses are in metallurgy? Do you expects all of them to use the term in proper terminology, when they only describe it once in the entire article?

'moplten' ?

On this planet that would be called a typo.

 

[Christopher7]

There was aluminium in the debris, and temperatures above the melting point of aluminium were measured in the debris pile. I strongly suspect that there was molten aluminium present in the debris pile.

I strongly suspect is shy of there was.

Do you believe the witnesses or not?

Meanwhile, is there anything in the shape of your "glob" of metal that shows, or even suggests, that it was previously molten?

Dave

The fact that it was a glob and it appears to be dripping metal off the bottom. This is consistent with several reports of beams dripping metal.
The photograph is described by Mark Loizeaux:
"[FONT=&quot]There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]He has no doubt that there was molten metal in the debris pile, why do you?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Dave Rogers]

I strongly suspect is shy of there was.

It's all you're getting. There are witness statements, which could be mistaken. This is always the case with witness statements.

The fact that it was a glob and it appears to be dripping metal off the bottom.

"The fact that it was a glob" is meaningless. You have chosen to describe the shape of the piece of metal by using the word "glob". What is it about the shape, specifically, that indicates that it must have previously been molten? Explain, preferably using measurements from the photograph, or you have nothing.

As for "appears to be dripping metal off the bottom", all that can be seen in the photograph is orange-yellow glowing material falling from the bottom edge. It's impossible to tell from the photo whether it's solid fragments or liquid drops. Again, there's no clear indication from the photograph that anything is liquid. And, since this is clearly the photo Loizeaux is referring to, his own testimony, given that he clearly states that he did not witness molten metal himself, is of very little value on this specific point.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

Some people here are dodging the question, including you. "not having a problem with" is not-quite "there was molten metal".

Do you believe the witnesses were correct and there was molten metal ?

One step at a time.

Yes, one step at a time.

A while back you were vigorously claiming molten steel. Now you're claiming molten metal and demanding a simple answer while already linking that answer to your original statements. For some reason I strongly suspect that an unequivoval "yes" to your question above will see you claiming that this would support the molten steel claim, which of course it wouldn't.

So, Chris, your question has changed. And this is why I and others are qualifying our answers. Until you clarify all I can do is repeat - I'd find molten aluminium at GZ perfectly feasible, but not molten steel.

p.s. if an incendiary had been used to bring down WTC1+2 then the resultant molten steel would be scattered to the four winds during the collapse. It wouldn't be lying around in "pools" any more than water from a ruptured water cooler or storage tank would lying in a pool at the end.

 

[Dave_46]

<snip. Until you clarify all I can do is repeat - I'd find molten aluminium at GZ perfectly feasible, but not molten steel.

<snip>

My bolding. Agreed. When testing fire doors the aluminium handles would melt and pool at the bottom of the test furnace. In a half hour test the temperarure reaches just under 850°C

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

just for kicks I did a simple experiment with my wood stove at the cottage yesterday(cold rainy day for this time of year)
The stove has two swinging doors on the front that latch together in the center. Each door contains a damper that can be closed right off. There is also a screen that can be fitted to the opening while both doors are wide open. This is so that one can use the stove as a fireplace and watch the flames.

I started a fire and watched it burn with both doors open, no screen. It burned cheerily and well. I then closed only ONE door With its damper closed all the way) thus cutting off 1/2 of the available air supply. Did the fire suffer at all? NO, in fact the fire burned hotter as the air coming in simply sped up. I futher started to close the second door until only a 1 inch wide crack was supplying air and the air entering the fire box continued to speed up and the fire roared. I then closed both doors and opened the dampers slightly. The dampers are designed to slow the air as well as limit it and the fire slowed down.

 

[GlennB]

My bolding. Agreed. When testing fire doors the aluminium handles would melt and pool at the bottom of the test furnace. In a half hour test the temperarure reaches just under 850°C

Dave

Here's another example .. a car that was caught in an intense forest fire. The alloy wheels have melted, the steel body is merely singed. Looks like "rivers of molten steel" to me <sigh> .

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Chris is getting pretty desperate now. I guess if we found a guy who believed it was peanut butter, then we could scientifically conclude the towers were made of peanut butter.

 

[Christopher7]

It's all you're getting. There are witness statements, which could be mistaken. This is always the case with witness statements.

Standard denial answer.
That might be true if only one or two people said they saw molten metal but we have over 20 firefighters, contractors and other witnesses.
Do you really think all these people can't recognize molten metal when they see it?
You are insulting the heroes of 9/11 by writing off their statements and effectively calling them either liars or idiots.

"The fact that it was a glob" is meaningless.

IYO

As for "appears to be dripping metal off the bottom", all that can be seen in the photograph is orange-yellow glowing material falling from the bottom edge.

The bottom of the glob is not orange to yellow it's yellow to white.

It's impossible to tell from the photo whether it's solid fragments or liquid drops.

Solid fragments don't fall of a glob of metal.

Again, there's no clear indication from the photograph that anything is liquid. And, since this is clearly the photo Loizeaux is referring to, his own testimony

Do you see the steam and the water being sprayed on the pile in the foreground?
Do you doubt the reports of huge amounts of water being put on the debris pile?
The glob has been cooled enough to become semi solid. This is not difficult to figure out unless one has a mental block and cannot accept anything that proves the "official conspiracy throry" is not true.

given that he clearly states that he did not witness molten metal himself, is of very little value on this specific point.

Mark Loizeaux believes that there was molten metal because he knows the contractors he has worked with can identify molten metal.
Why can't you accept that?

 

[Christopher7]

A while back you were vigorously claiming molten steel. Now you're claiming molten metal and demanding a simple answer while already linking that answer to your original statements.

I'd find molten aluminium at GZ perfectly feasible, but not molten steel.

The glob is orange to white 900-1200ºC.
Aluminum melts at 660ºC, there fore it is not aluminum.

What are the other possibilities?

p.s. if an incendiary had been used to bring down WTC1+2 then the resultant molten steel would be scattered to the four winds during the collapse. It wouldn't be lying around in "pools" any more than water from a ruptured water cooler or storage tank would lying in a pool at the end.

Reverse logic again. "It couldn't be because. . . . ."

 

[GlennB]

The glob has been cooled enough to become semi solid. This is not difficult to figure out unless one has a mental block and cannot accept anything that proves the "official conspiracy throry" is not true.

So are you saying that it melted and then re-solidified with straight edges??

Nice trick. Molten metal would flow into an irregular shape and remain irregular on cooling (see the melted car wheel photo a few posts above).
And why is the material it's in contact with jet black when temperatures in that location were (according to you) > 1500°C ??

Mark Loizeaux believes that there was molten metal because he knows the contractors he has worked with can identify molten metal.
Why can't you accept that?

For about the fifth time - nobody is denying the possibility of molten metal. It's molten steel that's the problem. Are you officially retracting your molten steel claim in favour of mere molten metal? If so, then the molten metal could easily be produced in routine office fires.

Please be clear, because you have confused the entire discussion with all your switching around.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That might be true if only one or two people said they saw molten metal but we have over 20 firefighters, contractors and other witnesses.
Do you really think all these people can't recognize molten metal when they see it?

Like I said, there was probably molten metal in the rubble pile.

IYO

You really don't get this, do you? The use of the word "glob" is a word you've chosen to describe the piece of metal. Your evidence that the metal was previously liquid is therefore the fact that you have chosen this word to represent it. You have chosen the word because, in your opinion, the metal appears to have been solidified from a mass of liquid. The evidence you are advancing to justify your opinion is your opinion itself. That's not a matter of opinon.

Solid fragments don't fall of a glob of metal.

See above. Your entire analysis of this photograph is based on your assignment of the word "glob", with whatever connotations that word holds for you. You haven't advanced either a definition of the word "glob", or any evidence whatsoever that the piece of metal conforms to that definition. The definition, I think I can guess at; the evidence, I'm still waiting for.

Do you see the steam and the water being sprayed on the pile in the foreground?

Yes.

Do you doubt the reports of huge amounts of water being put on the debris pile?

Not at all.

The glob has been cooled enough to become semi solid.

That's pure speculation, since you have no way of knowing whether it was previously hot enough to melt.

Mark Loizeaux believes that there was molten metal because he knows the contractors he has worked with can identify molten metal.

As I said, there was probably molten metal in the rubble pile. Time to move on to your explanation of why all molten metal is necessarily molten steel. I can't wait.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

The glob is orange to white 900-1200ºC.
Aluminum melts at 660ºC, there fore it is not aluminum.

What are the other possibilities?

Care to estimate the temperature of this fire ?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That might be true if only one or two people said they saw molten metal but we have over 20 firefighters, contractors and other witnesses.

And how many of them are involved in metallurgy? How many of them do you expect to identify a molten substance as steel with certainty? In a laymans context, the towers were steel structures so I might associate any kind of metal to steel.

Do you really think all these people can't recognize molten metal when they see it?

absolutely, I think they're perfectly capable of describing molten metal when they see it. Does it necessitate that what they are seeing is steel?

You are insulting the heroes of 9/11 by writing off their statements and effectively calling them either liars or idiots.

Appeal to emotion noted.

Do you doubt the reports of huge amounts of water being put on the debris pile?

Absolutely not

As for the rest, I see no reason to simply repeat what Dave has already posted...

 

[jaydeehess]

Just for more kicks I will point out that although a wood fire would get to about 1000 deg. insulated chimneys now are rated at 2000 deg. The reason for this is that if the creosote deposits in the chimney ignite (which occurs if one is not careful to burn dry wood and does not get the chimney cleaned regularily) that fire can easily get to the point where it will eat through an old steel chimney. So in this case it is not so much the primary fuel that is the problem but the by products of incomplete combustion.

Anyone think that this could possibly be relevent in the debris pile of the towers?

 

[Christopher7]

So are you saying that it melted and then re-solidified with straight edges??

The glob does not have straight edges. It does have white hot metal dripping from the bottom.

Nice trick. Molten metal would flow into an irregular shape and remain irregular on cooling (see the melted car wheel photo a few posts above).
And why is the material it's in contact with jet black when temperatures in that location were (according to you) > 1500°C ??

Something stuck to the glob as it was being pulled out perhaps.

The point here is:
This is one of the pictures Mark Loizeaux was describing.

The glob of metal is 900-1200°C.

These temperatures CANNOT be attained, much less maintained in a debris pile.

For about the fifth time - nobody is denying the possibility of molten metal.

Possibility?
You are still doubting the ability of firefighters, contractors and others to recognize molten metal when they see it.
Your inability to accept the fact that there was molten metal is indicative of your inability to accept anything that goes against the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory.

It's molten steel that's the problem. Are you officially retracting your molten steel claim in favour of mere molten metal?

No
Again, what else could it be?
The glob of metal is 900-1200°C.
[definitely not aluminum which is liquid above 660°C]
Here are the possibilities
[FONT=&quot]Metal . . . melting point [/FONT]°C
[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]gold . . . . . . 1063[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]copper . . . . 1083
cast iron . . . 1100-1300
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]manganese . 1225
[/FONT][FONT=&quot] steel . . . . . . 1400-1500[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] nickel . . . . . 1450
cobalt . . . . . 1480

[/FONT] http://www.weights-and-measures.com/xcommetalsalt.html

If so, then the molten metal could easily be produced in routine office fires.

What metals can office fires melt in large amounts?

 

[Christopher7]

Like I said, there was probably molten metal in the rubble pile.

Probably?
You too are still doubting the ability of firefighters, contractors and others to recognize molten metal when they see it.
Your inability to accept the fact that there was molten metal is indicative of your inability to accept anything that goes against the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory.

Your entire analysis of this photograph is based on your assignment of the word "glob", with whatever connotations that word holds for you. You haven't advanced either a definition of the word "glob", or any evidence whatsoever that the piece of metal conforms to that definition. The definition, I think I can guess at; the evidence, I'm still waiting for.

I define "glob" as an irregular shape. [as if you didn't know]

That's pure speculation, since you have no way of knowing whether it was previously hot enough to melt.

It had to be molten in order to get into the irregular shape.

The bottom is dripping molten metal.
[pieces don't fall of solid metal]

The glob is consistent with the reports of molten metal and the photo Mark Loizeaux described.

As I said, there was probably molten metal in the rubble pile. Time to move on to your explanation of why all molten metal is necessarily molten steel. I can't wait.

Dave

What else could it be?
[see my last post]

 

[Christopher7]

Here is a more accurate color chart.




http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm

I got this one from Judy Woods page on aluminum.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html

She does not give a source.

 

[Christopher7]

 

[GlennB]

Here is a more accurate color chart.


[URL]http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/1502/colorchart3ene8.jpg[/URL]

http://www.blksmth.com/heat_colors.htm

I'm a bit slow Chris, so could you help me out here?

Could you use your colour charts to estimate the temperature of that hearth fire I posted a little way up the page?