Molten Steel

[Gravy]

While we're at it, thewholesoul, what can you tell us about this horseshoe-shaped column?

 

[Gravy]

so are u saying the concrete is blackish in color??

That's unpossible!

​

 

[Senenmut]

RJLee Report is from nine months after the collapse, and after the cleanup. Melted metals are spume from cutting torches used in cleanup.

We've been over this five hundred times.

i doubt they would go to a spot where they were using torches to cut steel to collect samples.

"The RJ Lee report also provides a micrograph and XEDS data for iron-rich spheres observed in the WTC
dust; for example, their figure 21 (below, left) shows an “SEM image and EDS of spherical iron particle [1].”
We likewise observe high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres (e.g., below right and Fig. 4), which we find are
unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

 

[Senenmut]

That's unpossible!

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3451/3302342486_7b590cf24a_o.jpg[/qimg]


​

u got me man....i guess we can have melted concrete (1800-2500 degrees C). does steel melt at that temp?? this came from wtc 6, i think they had reports or molten metal there as well.
The label in the case above says:

"Gun Encased in Concrete and Gun-Casing Remains
The U.S. Customs House stored a large arsenal of firearms at its Six World Trade Center office. During recovery efforts, several handguns were found at Ground Zero, including these two cylindrical gun-casing remains and a revolver embedded in concrete. Fire temperatures were so intense that concrete melted like lava around anything in its path."

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/6107/dsc7411we0.jpg

 

[Senenmut]

Hate to burst your bubble
Here ya go

i watched that vid. look at the people in this pic (for some reason it will not upload) and your vid. they are different. thats not to say that this pic is also a light though....

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm

 

[Gravy]

i doubt they would go to a spot where they were using torches to cut steel to collect samples.

"The RJ Lee report also provides a micrograph and XEDS data for iron-rich spheres observed in the WTCdust; for example, their figure 21 (below, left) shows an “SEM image and EDS of spherical iron particle [1].”We likewise observe high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres (e.g., below right and Fig. 4), which we find are unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

Because you didn't bother to read it, you missed the parts in the RJ Lee report that say the iron-rich spheres were expected to be produced by the fires, which is why they sought them out as markers of WTC dust, which is why they are mentioned in the report to begin with.

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

...In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event. Source (PDF)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

i watched that vid. look at the people in this pic (for some reason it will not upload) and your vid. they are different. thats not to say that this pic is also a light though....

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm

Original can be seen 16 minutes and 10 seconds into this video... if you feel like just skipping to it...

 

[Senenmut]

Because you didn't bother to read it, you missed the parts in the RJ Lee report that say the iron-rich spheres were expected to be produced by the fires, which is why they sought them out as markers of WTC dust, which is why they are mentioned in the report to begin with.

​

ok so u are saying that they are expected to be produced by the fire. then u will also have to agree with what they also say in the same report:
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."

dosent iron have a higher melting point than steel?

 

[Senenmut]

Original can be seen 16 minutes and 10 seconds into this video... if you feel like just skipping to it...

i looked at the vid at the requested timeframe. still, the guys are different.

 

[Gravy]

ok so u are saying that they are expected to be produced by the fire. then u will also have to agree with what they also say in the same report:
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."

dosent iron have a higher melting point than steel?

Sounds good! Now what are you missing? Think.

 

[T.A.M.]

It is amazing what the friction of a 110 Storey building collapse can produce.

TAM

 

[Senenmut]

Sounds good! Now what are you missing? Think.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...ignature.Composition and Morphology.Final.pdf

page 21 of 34

 

[Gravy]

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...ignature.Composition and Morphology.Final.pdf

page 21 of 34

I know this is all new to you, but I've read the report. I'm asking you to think about what's really big that you're missing. I'll give you a day to think about it.

 

[ihaunter]

This second "meteorite" has been brought up and dealt with earlier in this thread. Norseman posted a link to a longer and clearer clip of the same video that thewholesoul is posting again as well as some pictures in earlier posts, but the pictures don't seem to be available anymore. It is a different artifact then the main object commonly referred to as "the meteorite", but it is also similar in composition. Thewholesoul is rehashing stuff that has already been debunked in this very thread on pages 3-4.
Unlike thewholesoul, I remember my mistakes. I, too, thought they were the same thing, because he keeps posting low quality video and pictures that are difficult to make out details in.

A reminder that this is a resurrected thread, there was a lot of stuff discussed and since forgotten in the earlier pages.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

i looked at the vid at the requested timeframe. still, the guys are different.

From Here

 

[Sunstealer]

Isn't it amazing how close those workers are getting to 1500°C molten steel? I mean they are all crowding round and one guy is leaning into the hole! Do you think they are going out of their way to get a sample of this molten steel?

Oh no that's right, it is a light used to illuminate the ground they are working on. Silly me, how could I be so stupid to think it was very hot molten steel or a hot meteorite?

Senenmut - we've already been over Jones' metal-spheres paper and there are numerous threads showing what a crock of [rule 10] it is. All Jones is doing is playing to the ignorant with his energy spectra. Anyone with a few hours experience will be able to tell you that his spectra don't match what he says they do.

As far as the slag that you are talking about you are still thinking in too large a term. How thick is the slag layer in this photograph - Fig C7? http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

 

[thewholesoul]

As I, and others haves discussed here, you need heat sufficient to meld the surfaces of the two materials together. This can be created either by heat from an external source (like the heated debris pile), or from friction caused by the pressure exerted on the two from the fall.

Or heat from exotic accelerants.
Without a forensic examination of the meteorite it is impossible to determine with empirical certainty the process that caused its fruition. Do you agree with this statement?

I do not recall Mackey saying that 2800F temps could not have been possible, but rather that he had not seen any empirical data to prove it. There is a difference.

I do not recall Mackey saying it was possible, go ask him.

No, I do not think we can rule it out. I also think that the collapse itself, and the pressure exerted on the floors, concrete, steel, etc, may have been the cause of that compression/fusion of materials you are referring to as the meteorite.

In the rubble pile you may have sufficient heat but no pressure or friction, so you cant have it both ways.

I think that you have yet to prove that such temperatures, for instances upon the surfaces of those two materials, could not be obtained through the pressure and subsequent friction that may have been caused by the collapse.

Forensic analyse of the meteorite would rule in some hypothesis and rule out others by revealing what temperatures it was actually exposed to and for how long.

I think that you have yet to prove that such temperatures, for instances upon the surfaces of those two materials, could not be obtained through the pressure and subsequent friction that may have been caused by the collapse

I cannot prove anything sitting here behind my desktop, a forensic investigation by appropriate experts would rule in some hypothesis and rule out others. All we can do is speculate.

to be continued...

 

[thewholesoul]

We are talking about it because people who hate the USG, and who are looking for any way to blame them for the attacks, think it is a point of interest. Like I said, the presence of sulfur residue, and molten steel, surprise me not.

That characterisation doesnt apply to me i’m afraid.
As for the sulfur, it may not surprise you but it did surprise those at FEMA. “This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.” http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

It is not a state of ambiguity for anyone but the truthers who refuse to believe the truth.

Wrong. We are all in a state of empirical ambiguity, or uncertainty, until hypothesis x, y, or z in relation to what caused the "hot corrosion attack on the steel" and swiss-cheese effect has been proven true or false. There are numerous hypothesis: diesel, sulphur in the wallboard, thermate, etc
To answer the question whether it occured during the office fires or within the rubble pile I agree with Richard D. Sisson Jr’s approach.

“From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements.”

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

This argument is similiar to the following. You come upon a man who has a stab wound to the chest. next to him is a knife covered in blood.Now do you assume, unless there is EVIDENCE otherwise, that it was the knife that he was stabbed with, or do you start searching for evidence, that it was a sharp piece of falling meteorite?

Was the sharp piece of falling meteorite in plain view with blood dripping from it? Its an absurd analogy and not remotely similar because the swiss-cheese effect on the wtc 7 steel - is the evidence - is the knife. What has to be investigated is who stabbed him! Was it mr.thermate, mr.diesel tank, or mr.sulphur in the wall board.

you see my point. You have a collapse, where all of the evidence points towards a gravity driven collapse, started from a combination of the crashes, the fires, the removal of fireproofing. It was a collapse of building made of steel, aluminum, wallboard, and hundreds, perhaps thousands of other materials. Then in the debris pile you find sulfur residue and possibly molten steel. The LOGICAL conclusion is the sulfur is from the wallboard, or some other common material from within the building, and the molten steel the result of either (A) the collapse itself, or (B) the superheating fires under the pile afterward.

I grant you it is a logical assumption but its neither logical or scientific to base ones conclusions on unproven assumptions. Jet fuel, diesel fuel and thermate are also logical assumptions because presumably they could all under certain conditions produce the swiss cheese effect as observed on the steel.

The logical conclusion IS NOT, an exotic, never before used (in demolitions) substance that cuts through steel and then stops (like thermite/mate).

I am not making any conclusions i am advocating further investigation so i can reach a conclusion based on which hypothesis has been proven true or false. That is the logical and scientific thing to do.

It is impossible to rule out unicorns and ghosts as well, but I think they were not to blame either.

Unicorns and ghosts do not exist, thermate does. To repeat “the reason these relevant issues remain unresolved is precisely because they have not been sufficiently investigated.” Ruling certain possible causes out – that do exist – before they have been ruled out through further investigation is, like i said, putting the cart before the horse.

As for the rest, well it has been sufficiently investigated in the minds of the majority, and if you think otherwise, well that is your perogative, but I think you are wrong.

How could it possibly be “sufficiently” investigated when the causes behind the swiss cheese effect and the meteorite etc remain inconclusive? Besides just because more people (?) believe it to be sufficiently investigated does not mean it actually was.

Former chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division, Dr. Quintiere, calls for independent review of World Trade Center investigation http://visibility911.com/blog/?cat=34

The New York Times reports that “some of the nation’s leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts” believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC is “inadequate” and “are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.” Experts critical of the investigation include “some of those people who are actually conducting it.” [NEW YORK TIMES, 12/25/2001]

The New York Fire Department calls the investigation into the collapse of the WTC a “half-baked farce.” http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

No they do not indicate it, they leave it in the wide open realm of possibility, with no real evidence to make it anything more that an extremely remote one, with a plethora of evidence pointing toward the obvious cause, the collapse, the fires, and the contents of the buildings.

Sorry, but the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) disagree with you. NFPA 921 19.2.4 “Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable...INDICATORS of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete”.
Source: National Fire Protection Association, “Guide for fire and explosion investigations”, NFPA 921. [Online]. Available: http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=921 [Accessed March 17, 2008].

the NIST investigation WAS NOT A FORENSIC ONE. It was a SAFETY one. If you read their mandate (that by which they guide their investigation) you would know this.

Huh? You have obviously forgotten that NIST conducted very limited FORENSIC examination on wtc steel samples! http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-3C Damage and Failure Modes.pdf

I am merely informing you of the general rules, which is that the burden of proof for any theory rests upon the person who is trying to prove a theory which contradicts the accepted one. wrt 9/11, we all know which theory is the accepted one, so the burden of proof is with those who wish to prove it wrong.

A hypothesis should only be accepted if it has been proven to be true. Unfortunately this is not always the case. For example, you accepted NIST’s hypothesis in relation to the “orange glow” of aluminium mixed with organics eventhough they never proved it. Likewise i used to beleive in santa claus.

Why not. If experts in the fields of demolition, clean up, engineering, did not feel that 2800F temperatures were odd or abnormal enough to investigate, then why should I, as a laymen in those fields, feel they were? Some sense of paranoia???

When did they ever say it was normal? Can you quote someone saying that such temperature were to be expected? Again investigations should not be based on subjective opinion, but rather on evidence.

Your quote is from a truther site. You will have to do better. I am not saying you are wrong with what you have said, but I do not trust the link you have provided as the source.

You wont find it on a debunker site thats for sure. But i sourced it earlier.

Exotic, wrt sulfidation could mean something as simple as indicating the presence of anything not a hydrocarbon. It does not indicate, in this context, an exotic steel cutting product like Thermite. You should stop using the word indicates, if you are talking about Thermite, because that is only one of a hundred or more "exotic" accelerants. Hell, perhaps the wallboard itself, in this regard, can be considered an "exotic" accelerant.

No the wall board is not consider an exotic accelerant. This is why i feel experiments to test the hypothesis that the swiss-cheese effect resulted from gypsum wallboard would fail. The NFPA use the word indicate, so please dont shoot the messenger! But i want to make a correction: sulfidation of steel is not mentioned as an indication of exotic accelerants in NFPA 921, my mistake.

The presence of some substance, within the contents of the building, that might have contributed to increased temperatures at some point before or after the collapse, does not, IN ANY WAY, make the official collapse hypothesis any less likely.

It really depends on the substance. if it is an exotic accelerant then yes it would REFUTE the official collapse hypothesis.

My agreement, was that I would have no problem with it. I did not say I was advocating it.
There is a big difference between studying the one area of interest you are describing, and a "Brand new investigation" which would cost a lot of money, on the backs of people who do not need it or likely want it.

Fine, but i still respect your passive willingness to investigate the meteorite. How about the swiss-cheese effect, would you object to the testing of certain hypothesis?

to be continued...

 

[thewholesoul]

As a singular piece of evidence, yes Thermite is in a huge range of possibilities, but there a simpler explanations with more evidence to back it up, as we have been discussing.

Reality isnt always that simple.

I watched these so called experiments. You can not compare the adding of a handful of woodchips to molten aluminum, to the tonnes of organics, or many different compositions, that may have contaminated molten aluminum in the towers.

The first time he tested NIST’s hypothesis was with plastic shavings, and several kinds of wood chips (pine, oak and compressed fiber board chips). In october 2006 he tried again with with carpet remnants and glass added to wood/paper ash. On both occassions the organics simply dont mix with the molten aluminium. So no “tonnes” of organics actually mixed within the molten metal flow? Perhaps start trying to mix in a gram first and then build up from there.

It was not a claim, so much as a POSSIBLE explanation that NIST gave, in an FAQ, in response to a question about the presence or orange molten material in the towers prior to collapse.

Claim, possible explanation, lets not get too much into semantics here. The point is NIST has not provided to date a PROVEN explanation for that molten metal flowing from the south tower, or the bright flame and white smoke that preceded it. This is yet another example of why their investigation was insufficient to say the least. Of course a thermite reaction fits quite nicely into all three of the observations.

Off the top of my head, no. Are you stating for the record now, that organics added to aluminum, cannot produce an orange molten material?

Yes, but let me choose my words carefully. I am challenging you to produce a bright orange glow, as seen flowing from the south tower, from molten aluminium mixed with organics in daylight using temperatures no greater than expected from a hydrocarbon jet fuel fire.
Here take a look at NIST’s attempt trying to prove their own [im]-“possible explantion”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

Because; (A) they are experts in the relevant fields. (B) there has been no evidence to prove it was anything else. (C) it matches with the circumstances that existed (temps hot enough to melt aluminum, and tonnes of organic material around).

(A) but some experts in the same field disagreed with NIST. So why did you believe NIST’s possible explanation? (B) the bright flame, white smoke, and molten metal all correspond to a thermite reaction, this cannot be proven conclusively of course but it is a far more plausible explanation that one that has been disproven conclusively. (C) this is true.

Let me ask you, why do you believe the earth is round?

Because NIST told me. Because i have seen video from space shuttles.

Why do you believe there is a continent of austrailia?

Because i have seen the video “crocodile dundee”

Like I said, Jones has not demonstrated it false. His experiment was much to simplified. It was poor science in almost every way.

What exactly would it take to prove NIST’s possible explanation false?
peace

 

[thewholesoul]

You're not paying attention. IT. ISN'T. Nor is it a meteorite. It's compacted rubble. Even the photographs clearly show this.

I know IT. IS. NOT a meteorite that IS WHAT THEY HAVE CALLED IT. Not me...

Without forensic examination of the meteorite is impossible to determine with empirical certainty what process caused its fruition. Do you agree with this statement?

In terms of understanding its formation (assuming that would interest you) a photograph is no substitute to x-ray dispersive spectrometry, IS. IT?

Peace and i am working my towards you other posts.