Molten Steel

[Dave Rogers]

When there is this much collaborating testimony and a photograph that is consistent with that testimony, a reasonable person will accept that this is strong evidence or even proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Only a real investigation where these people testify could make it more certain.

There is strong collaborating evidence that a large number of people claim to know something they could not possibly have known. Without further analysis it isn't possible for them to have determined with any certainty that the molten metal they saw was in fact molten steel.

You are calling them liars?

I am pointing out that their accounts cannot possibly be more than opinions.

Get serious. You don't have to be a metallurgist to know molten metal when you see it and when someone sees molten metal dripping from a steel beam, that's a positive identification.

This is, apparently, your irreducible delusion: that two materials in proximity must be the same material. If I see molten metal dripping from a steel beam, that's a positive identification that there is molten metal dripping from a steel beam, not that there's molten steel dripping from a steel beam.

Reporters report what they hear from witnesses.
Are you calling them liars?

Laughable. Reporters routinely simplify, exaggerate and sensationalise, and the truth movement routinely calls them liars.

"It's there in the papers, it must be the truth." - Tom Robinson.

Here is the entire quote:
He is referring to the girders in the bridge when he says "So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders.". He then compares these girders to the girders he saw melting at the WTC.
[FONT=&quot]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html[/FONT]

He says "The word 'melting' should not be used for girders", not "The word 'melting' should not be used for these girders. I'm not saying there's definitely an error here, just that it looks inconsistent. It would be interesting to ask him directly. I know someone here was in touch with him a while back, but I think it might have been Pomeroo. Is anybody else in touch with him?

Dave

 

[DGM]

Chris you really need to develop some consistency.

You:

There were hundreds of miles of copper wire in that building. Do you see any quantity or concentrations in any of the photos?

You:

Copper wire and pipe made up a small percentage of the total debris and were dispersed throughout the debris pile.

Do you see any inconsistency in your arguments? (I hope so)

 

[thewholesoul]

will the denial ever cease?

The magazine "Professional Safety", the May 2002 edition, in an article titled "SH&E At Ground Zero" recorded with thermal imaging temperatures underneath the rubble pile at 2800 F. Steel and any other metal at ground zero in the presence of such temperatures will melt. Unless that is you also wish to deny this fact also?

 

[thewholesoul]

There is strong collaborating evidence that a large number of people claim to know something they could not possibly have known. Without further analysis it isn't possible for them to have determined with any certainty that the molten metal they saw was in fact molten steel.

do you support the truthers pursuit for further analysis Dave?

 

[Dave Rogers]

do you support the truthers pursuit for further analysis Dave?

What "truthers pursuit for further analysis" is that? There is no evidence of any such aim being pursued honestly. Firstly, the truth movement has rejected out of hand every analysis that doesn't support its pre-chosen conclusions - that is to say, every rational analysis. Secondly, what's left to analyse? So if your question can be re-phrased as "Do you support the calls of a bunch of incompetent timewasters, carefully confined to being issued in places where they won't be heeded, for an unnecessary, impractical and wasteful duplication of existing work which they will simply reject summarily as disinformation?", then the only rational answer would be "no".

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

Thermal equilibrium Chris, Learn it

 

[T.A.M.]

The magazine "Professional Safety", the May 2002 edition, in an article titled "SH&E At Ground Zero" recorded with thermal imaging temperatures underneath the rubble pile at 2800 F. Steel and any other metal at ground zero in the presence of such temperatures will melt. Unless that is you also wish to deny this fact also?

there is a difference between evidence of molten steel, and whether there actually was, right??

I have no doubt, that in pockets of GZ debris there was molten steel. What I have not seen is any concrete physical evidence of it...sorry, just not there.

Question.

How long after the collapse did their thermal imaging pick up these temperatures, and how do you explain THERMITE lasting that long????

Edit:

Here is the article,

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/asse_groundzero1.htm

and the quote:

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 (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared “extinguished” on Dec. 19, 2001.

Nowhere does it show in this article where the temp was measured within GZ, or how long after. It merely gives it as a range of temps measured there over time.

Once again, how long would you expect the magical thermite to keep temps like that going????

Also, why do you think it is, that the people, the professionals, that wrote the article, did not find that temp unrealistic to the point of saying so??? no mention is made of how "a skyscraper collapse couldn't cause such a temp" or any such thing.

usual tangential coincidences.

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

Nowhere does it show in this article where the temp was measured within GZ, or how long after. It merely gives it as a range of temps measured there over time.

Correct. Here and here and here you can see the raw AVIRIS data, and it does not show 2800^oF. The highest temperature supported is about 1300^oF. The article -- which lists no source for that claim -- is in error.

This has all been explained before.

And as you correctly note even if such temperatures did exist, they could not be caused by thermite. Some other, slower, high-energy combustion would be required.

ETA: This article suggests the "helicopter thermal imaging" mentioned in the Professional Safety piece were, in fact, DEA helicopters. There is no DEA helicopter in service carrying a thermal imager calibrated anywhere near 2800^oF. That requires a specialty instrument, viz. AVIRIS, which flew the same mission on a fixed-wing aircraft. The original article is simply not credible, and its conclusion is refuted by superior data.

 

[thewholesoul]

What "truthers pursuit for further analysis" is that?

the pursuit for a new investigation that would presumably include further analysis on certain relics from the rubble.

Secondly, what's left to analyse?

to give an example, the meteorite i posted a video link to in my initial post, to determine whether or not its composition does contain molten steel would you agree to it being analysed for confirmation?

peace

 

[BigAl]

the pursuit for a new investigation that would presumably include further analysis on certain relics from the rubble.

to give an example, the meteorite i posted a video link to in my initial post, to determine whether or not its composition does contain molten steel would you agree to it being analysed for confirmation?

peace

How can something that has scraps of paper embedded in it have been exposed to molten steel"?

 

[GStan]

the pursuit for a new investigation that would presumably include further analysis on certain relics from the rubble.

to give an example, the meteorite i posted a video link to in my initial post, to determine whether or not its composition does contain molten steel would you agree to it being analysed for confirmation?

peace

Why? This meteorite was created by compression, not molten-ization, if you'll forgive the GWBism.

ETA: plus what BigAl said.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

ETA: This article suggests the "helicopter thermal imaging" mentioned in the Professional Safety piece were, in fact, DEA helicopters. There is no DEA helicopter in service carrying a thermal imager calibrated anywhere near 2800^oF. That requires a specialty instrument, viz. AVIRIS, which flew the same mission on a fixed-wing aircraft. The original article is simply not credible, and its conclusion is refuted by superior data.

Wow. Assuming those are indeed the helicopters mentioned, that's a nice find! When Frank Greening first pointed out that article, I tried to run down who did the measurements, and I never suceeded. It sort of aggravated me at the time, but I ultimately discarded it as unimportant.

Going broader: I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Wholesoul isn't establishing anything other than high temperatures with that citation, and it's certainly a point subject to the sort of critique you give it. One of the art students working on my team says they can get their ceramics kiln up to that temp rather easily by just burning wood, and the picture I saw of it was a plain, simple brick structure. Nothing elaborate, just enclosed. Thermite fails for a whole lot of converging reasons, and even if the 2800^oF temperature were proven to anybody's satisfaction, it still doesn't indicate thermite. Not with the amount of flammable office contents available, and not under tons of masonry and concrete.

 

[Sunstealer]

Some of the above posters echo my beef with the stupidity posted about "molten" liquid metal, but above all my main beef is that thermite cannot possibly explain the presence of liquid steel 1 day, 10 days, let alone 100 days, after collapse. It is just not physically possible. It is up to those people who claim that it is to show through calculation that this is even remotely possible. No-one has done this.

I can well entertain that heat from the rubble pile, caused by the burning of all sorts of combustible material within the rubble pile, could produce temperatures high enough to, not only melt localised quantities of steel ~1500°C/2800°F, but maintain liquid steel for a period of time, even weeks, however, there is no direct evidence to show that any significant quantity of steel was indeed liquid at any time. There would be physical evidence in the form of solidified steel, photographs of such and documentation of how this material was removed from the site. None is forthcoming and therefore I have to remain skeptical.

As for the "meteor", this is the biggest joke I've seen in a long while. It's so obviously the compaction of material such as concrete and steel rebar from several floors. Any suggestion of melting or molten metal connected with this object is just astoundingly laughable. It really does make me cry. There is no way in hell that I'd expect for people outside of the field of metallurgy to understand some of the more complex explanations for phenomenon occurring during and after 9/11, just as I cannot understand the complexities of structural engineering, however, the main points can be explained in laymen's terms. It does not take a layman to observe, with his/her own two/one eye(s) that the meteorite is NOT composed of any steel that has previously been liquid. This "meteorite", which is a stupid name for the object anyway, should just be dropped with regard to the "argument of liquid metal", it clearly shows sandwiched floors and has no evidence of liquid metal.

 

[thewholesoul]

there is a difference between evidence of molten steel, and whether there actually was, right??

A very fine difference but yes. However would you be for or against the analyze of the meteorite said to be an element of fused steel and concrete to empirically settle this issue?

I have no doubt, that in pockets of GZ debris there was molten steel. What I have not seen is any concrete physical evidence of it...sorry, just not there.

So i take you would be for the analyze of the meteorite then?

and by the way conceding that there was molten steel means you [not you personally] will have to explain and ultimately prove how a smoldering hydrocarbon fire can generate such temperatures.

How long after the collapse did their thermal imaging pick up these temperatures,

We know that Bechtel's SH&E did not make it to Ground Zero until the morning of Sept. 13th, but like you i dont know when the actually measurements were taken because it unfortunately was not stated.

and how do you explain THERMITE lasting that long????

Thermite was responsible for the molten iron photographed at ground zero and tested by steven jones but that would have solidified shortly after the reaction. Other energetic chemicals published and discussed in the journal environmentalist http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ may have been responsible for the melting of the steel. again tests or smulations would need to be conducted to prove this.

Nowhere does it show in this article where the temp was measured within GZ, or how long after. It merely gives it as a range of temps measured there over time.

The temperature was recorded over the debris pile at GZ i fail to see why the exact location of the debris pile which emmitted this temperatures is of much or equal relevance. I understood the range as indicating some areas were 400 F and other areas were 2800 F and like you i dont know when their measurements commenced and when they terminated it would be nice to know however.

Also, why do you think it is, that the people, the professionals, that wrote the article, did not find that temp unrealistic to the point of saying so??? no mention is made of how "a skyscraper collapse couldn't cause such a temp" or any such thing

coincidence? lol.

maybe the author was not specialized in analyzing thermal measurements and had no prior experience?

indeed why did the professionals not mention how a skyscraper could cause such temp?

But from this article by NIST http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02074.pdf and from some experimental studies in the following link http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html temperatures of 2800 F are not expected from a hydrocarbon smoldering fire.

peace

 

[T.A.M.]

A very fine difference but yes. However would you be for or against the analyze of the meteorite said to be an element of fused steel and concrete to empirically settle this issue?



So i take you would be for the analyze of the meteorite then?

Yes, sure.

and by the way conceding that there was molten steel means you [not you personally] will have to explain and ultimately prove how a smoldering hydrocarbon fire can generate such temperatures.

No, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the fires and heat generated by the rubble could not have been hot enough to melt steel. Since we know there were smoldering fires, and if accepting the premise, we assume there was molten steel, then you must prove that those particular fires, could not have produced the molten steel.

You see you are simplifying (strawman really) the argument by labeling the fires smoldering hydrocarbon fires. You do not know what mix of chemicals were melting and then adding to the generated heat underneath the pile. You do not know what insulators might have been contributing to the smoldering.

So you prove to me that with all that could have been in that pile, that the fires could not have reached 2800F in that pile.

We know that Bechtel's SH&E did not make it to Ground Zero until the morning of Sept. 13th, but like you i dont know when the actually measurements were taken because it unfortunately was not stated.

exactly, which should make you put this evidence aside as while relevant, not really strong, at this point.

Thermite was responsible for the molten iron photographed at ground zero and tested by steven jones but that would have solidified shortly after the reaction. Other energetic chemicals published and discussed in the journal environmentalist http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ may have been responsible for the melting of the steel. again tests or smulations would need to be conducted to prove this.

There is no proof of Thermite. We have all read Jones so called evidence, and it is not proof. He found, through spectral analysis, chemicals that would be found within the pile anyway. He is speculating, based on his bias towards "inside job" conspiracy, that his analysis is proof of thermite, but it is not.

The temperature was recorded over the debris pile at GZ i fail to see why the exact location of the debris pile which emmitted this temperatures is of much or equal relevance. I understood the range as indicating some areas were 400 F and other areas were 2800 F and like you i dont know when their measurements commenced and when they terminated it would be nice to know however.

It is relevant because if the area was known, and if it could be correlated with the amount of debris in that area. It might have, at the time, allowed for corrisponding testimony from workers working on those particular areas. They might have been able to confirm your molten "steel". Every element is important. The where, the when...

coincidence? lol.

maybe the author was not specialized in analyzing thermal measurements and had no prior experience?

indeed why did the professionals not mention how a skyscraper could cause such temp?

But from this article by NIST http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02074.pdf and from some experimental studies in the following link http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html temperatures of 2800 F are not expected from a hydrocarbon smoldering fire.

peace

They likely made no comment, because it was either expected, or NOT SURPRISING that such temperatures would be seen at the pile.

Once again, who said it was solely a Hydrocarbon fire that was smoldering?

TAM

 

[thewholesoul]

Correct. Here and here and here you can see the raw AVIRIS data, and it does not show 2800oF. The highest temperature supported is about 1300oF. The article -- which lists no source for that claim -- is in error.

I will be the first to admit that the Professional Safety article is not well sourced. I too would like their raw data however until their data is recovered or confirmed I think to claim the article in error, is an error, for reasons i shall explain below.

ETA: This article suggests the "helicopter thermal imaging" mentioned in the Professional Safety piece were, in fact, DEA helicopters. There is no DEA helicopter in service carrying a thermal imager calibrated anywhere near 2800oF. That requires a specialty instrument, viz. AVIRIS, which flew the same mission on a fixed-wing aircraft.

Ok let me get this straight Big Mac (you dont mind if i call you big mac?) you are arguing that the “helicopter thermal imaging” mentioned in the Professional Safety magazine was in fact the DEA helicopter mentioned in the Pyroccol article however since there is no DEA helicopter with thermal cameras capable of recording such high temperatures [2800 F] the helicopter mentioned in the Professional Safety magazine that was in fact the DEA helicopter mentioned in the Pyrocool article has somehow morphed into a fixed-wing aircraft from NASA??

Could the DEA helicopters have used a portable infared cameras calibrated to measure such temperature readings? Its a possibility. But two different sources both claiming that a helicopter – not a fixed wing aircraft - took the thermal readings they are refering to, suggests that NASA was not the only group on a mission to record infared images over ground zero.

Moreover if you had read the Pyrocool article in its entirety you would have noticed that thermal images continued to be recorded after the pyrocool was applied to ground zero hot spots (on the 30th september), these thermal images could not have been taken by NASA’s fixed wing aricraft which recorded its last images on the 23rd of september. So you an error to suggest they “flew the same mission”.

Having said all that i would still like to know what infared instrument was used by the helicopters (not the fixed wing aircraft) and the raw data that it recorded (to support the 2800 F claim).

finally, you say

even if such temperatures did exist, they could not be caused by thermite. Some other, slower, high-energy combustion would be required.

could you be more precise and whatever you suggest it would have to be tested in order to prove that it can indeed generate such temperatures.

Peace and i hope your days of asking moderators to remove me from threads is over?

 

[R.Mackey]

[run-on sentence interrupted] the helicopter mentioned in the Professional Safety magazine that was in fact the DEA helicopter mentioned in the Pyrocool article has somehow morphed into a fixed-wing aircraft from NASA??

No. That is the exact opposite of what I intended. I noted that AVIRIS is only a fixed-wing platform to make clear that the DEA imagery is not from the AVIRIS instrument. This is critical.

Could the DEA helicopters have used a portable infared cameras calibrated to measure such temperature readings? Its a possibility.

No, it is not. You cannot achieve an accurate temperature measurement using a typical infrared camera. You need a spectrometer. This is for technical reasons that I won't go into unless there is genuine interest. There are no retrofittable spectrometers available now, and weren't then. If there were, and DEA had that capability, they wouldn't have bothered buying the AVIRIS flights in the first place.

By "flying the same mission" I meant that both the DEA and AVIRIS were conducting reconnaissance of the fire conditions, albeit at different times; DEA being very low resolution but with high reflight, AVIRIS with very high resolution but low reflight. For an accurate temperature estimate, the calibrated instrument wins, and it is AVIRIS. Therefore the "2800^oF" measurement is, at best, sensor artifact, and at worst completely made up.

could you be more precise and whatever you suggest it would have to be tested in order to prove that it can indeed generate such temperatures.

No, this is where you come in. I know of absolutely nothing that would cause that effect. That's one of the many reasons I know it didn't happen. If you can think of one, go right ahead. Your claim, your explanation.

Peace and i hope your days of asking moderators to remove me from threads is over?

You don't derail threads, I don't request thread splits. That's the deal.

 

[Christopher7]

The magazine "Professional Safety", the May 2002 edition, in an article titled "SH&E At Ground Zero" recorded with thermal imaging temperatures underneath the rubble pile at 2800 F. Steel and any other metal at ground zero in the presence of such temperatures will melt. Unless that is you also wish to deny this fact also?

Would you post the article please?

 

[Christopher7]

Do you see any inconsistency in your arguments? (I hope so)

There were hundreds of miles of copper wire in that building. Do you see any quantity or concentrations in any of the photos?

In a gravity collapse, there would be tangles of wire. There were no tangles of wire in the trade towers because everything was pulverized.

Copper wire and pipe made up a small percentage of the total debris and were dispersed throughout the debris pile.

There is no inconsistency. By volume, wires make up a very small percentage of any office building.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Would you post the article please?

T.A.M. already posted a link a few posts up... in post 367

In a gravity collapse, there would be tangles of wire. There were no tangles of wire in the trade towers because everything was pulverized.

Could you please stop making things up as you go? Your contentions get weirder with every goalpost... Just about every furnishing, pipe, computer, whatever... collectively office contents had a building crash down on them... Not much is going to survive intact, much less in any recognizable form.

As far as any collapse is concerned... since the primary mechanism is gravity, I'm not sure I understand why you're attempting to distinguish the type of collapse base solely on a standard you came up with on the fly... It doesn't really demonstrate anything.