Molten Steel

[Christopher7]

Would you stop with this please. NFPA is a private organization (That I belong to) that has no power what so ever.

Why do you feel the need to make it sound like NIST ignored some sort of "code"? (please respond in under 100 words )

You betcha!

Although not law, the NFPA guidelines are followed because they are respected as being essential to a proper through investigation.

It is indeed strange that FEMA should choose to ignore these standards in the investigation of the most catastrophic building collapses in history.

 

[DGM]

Good point.

Thanks, every once in a while I "get some wood on the ball"

Mark Loizeaux said there were pictures and videos of excavator buckets dipping out molten metal. That means there was a lot of molten metal.

How so? Did he say "whole bucket loads"?

Two witnesses said there was molten metal dripping from the ends of steel beams as they were pulled out of the pile.

And how much was that? An "abundance"?

The molten steel in this photo is about 2100°F to off the scale. Any other metal would be liquid at those temperatures. The metal dripping off the bottom is about the temp where steel becomes a liquid.

Please stop with this. You don't even know what that material was.

The evidence of molten steel in the debris pile is enough to qualify as "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Your problem is you claim it's steel with no justification. I suggest you start working on that.

 

[thewholesoul]

I am hoping these will be my final comments on this:

There is no final comment in the JREF forum

The AVIRIS data conclusively proves that no such temperatures (high enough to create molten steel) were recorded for the dates that such data was taken (thanks Mackey).

Agreed, its the best data we have between 16th and 23rd of September.

There is no proof for or against, best I have seen, to prove such temperatures existed (or not) within the rubble, prior to the AVIRIS start date.

The earliest tesimony of molten steel is by Ron Burger on the 12th of September but of course this evidence is not proof.

However chunks, small fragments, and mircosphericules of solidified iron from the WTC event were collected and analysed by Dr. Jones. To melt iron requires temperatures of 1500c. So this is hard proof that extreme temperatures existed prior to the 16th. Further evidence is the meteorite, if tested, it may reveal that some of the steel or iron was once molten. This would be further proof of extreme temperatures prior to the 16th, specifically during the collapse. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf p80 + 89 of 204 for photos of the once molten iron.

Fusion could have occurred as a result of heat generated by the friction of the collapses. No evidence has been presented here or elsewhere, that I have seen, to contradict this possibility.

According to this paper there was not enough gravtional energy to melt steel or iron http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

Friction between a falling object and a stationary one will not generate enough energy to melt steel or iron. Your the one making the claim so the burden of proof is on you to provide some evidence to support it. I cannot prove a negative.

The chunk of molten iron tested by Dr.Jones was not structural steel.
•So what was the source of this molten iron?
•What was the source of the temperature that produced it?
•How could friction generate sufficient energy to liquify iron?

Fused steel does not mean that the steel had to be melted (except perhaps at the touching points).

True but the chunk and fragments and microsphericules of iron were molten at some point in time. Analyse of the meteorite would confirm whether it was subjected to temperatures sufficient to melt steel or iron. So what was the source of this extreme temperature TAM?
peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Would you stop with this please. NFPA is a private organization (That I belong to) that has no power what so ever.

Why do you feel the need to make it sound like NIST ignored some sort of "code"? (please respond in under 100 words )

though not obligated to follow the code they did ignore some of its guidelines. you should know this being a member and all.

peace

 

[DGM]

You betcha!

Although not law, the NFPA guidelines are followed because they are respected as being essential to a proper through investigation.

It is indeed strange that FEMA should choose to ignore these standards in the investigation of the most catastrophic building collapses in history.

These "recommendations" are for an arson investigation where the cause is unknown. Millions of people watched what caused these fires .

What does this have to do with what FEMA or NIST was investigating? This line of argument is pointless and irrelevant.

 

[bill smith]

Good point.

Mark Loizeaux said there were pictures and videos of excavator buckets dipping out molten metal. That means there was a lot of molten metal.

Two witnesses said there was molten metal dripping from the ends of steel beams as they were pulled out of the pile.

The molten steel in this photo is about 2100°F to off the scale. Any other metal would be liquid at those temperatures. The metal dripping off the bottom is about the temp where steel becomes a liquid.

[qimg]http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2349/colorheatchartcrabclawevq3.jpg[/qimg]

Like a lawyer for the defense, you will nit-pick at each piece of evidence rather than viewing it as a whole.

The evidence of molten steel in the debris pile is enough to qualify as "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Very useful chart Christopher 7.

 

[DGM]

though not obligated to follow the code they did ignore some of its guidelines. you should know this being a member and all.

peace

It's not a code (guide line) for a "collapse" investigation. Why are you so confused about this?

 

[Senenmut]

Now, just look up what makes up portland cement.

since the wtc particle atlas went into what was in the sand, im sure if the portland cement contained fly ash, they would have told us. but if u noticed, it looks as though fly ash is made in the 1200C range, not hot enough to melt iron. rj lee and jones found iron spheres that were once melted.

 

[beachnut]

Why can’t the 911Truth fanatics apologizing for terrorists explain what Molten Steel has to do with 19 terrorists killing 3000 people on 911. Zero rational scenarios, zero scenarios explained. No apologist has a clue how to tie the hearsay molten metal to any intelligent story of what happen, who did it, and how. Why?

No photos of melted steel, no piles of thermite, not a single first hand witness to melted steel. No source usually posted by the terrorist apologists, just some fantasy ideas not tie to a rational story; ask for evidence you get hearsay, ask for the scenario you get delusional questions and more hearsay.


How long with these chemtrail-bigfoot like 911Truth believers in lies, hearsay and fantasy persist in failing to learn materials.

When they are show the truth, when they finally find out they are spewing hearsay and junk science they move on to the next delusion. Slow and painful learning as these non-skeptics from the 911Truth religious foundation spread the gospel.

 

[Senenmut]

Pretty funny to return to this thread and watch people fail to understand plain English.

First, the AVIRIS data is the only reliable temperature measurement done of the Pile. It does not rule out temperatures of 900+^oC prior to when it flew, obviously, but it does put paid to the idiotic argument, made earlier, that some measurements proved there were temperatures high enough to melt steel. It certainly rules out those temperatures at any time after it flew.

Second, as the paper clearly indicates, you do not do a temperature measurement by looking in the ultraviolet. The idea that it might have somehow missed Thermite blazing away at 7500 K or whatever, simply because it isn't that sensitive there, is so intensely stupid that I'll be shortly adding to my Ignore list.

That's all you guys have left: An inability to understand simple logic, and simple English.

im having a hard time understanding your position. from the bpat report (i quote this b/c nist refers us there) states:

"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel."

now from what you have said, do these temps have to occur up to the point of day 5 when aviris fly over?
or is the temp below the surface hotter and no one knows how hot it is.

then u go on to say "900oC is also totally feasible in an ordinary office fire. 1500oC is barely possible, but would be unusual."

are u saying that these temps were possible before aviris fly over and not after?

now remember what dr asl say only 8 days after the towers fell.....steel where "Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."
so from aviris data, this would of had to occur only before aviris fly over on 9-16. that only gives us 5 days to produce steel that resembles this that was on top of the pile.
do you agree?

 

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

Zero rational scenarios, zero scenarios explained. No apologist has a clue how to tie the hearsay molten metal to any intelligent story of what happen, who did it, and how. Why?

Best answer I've seen thus far, re: this very question.

 

[T.A.M.]

There is no final comment in the JREF forum

So true.

Agreed, its the best data we have between 16th and 23rd of September.

Another point of agreement.

The earliest tesimony of molten steel is by Ron Burger on the 12th of September but of course this evidence is not proof.

Correct. If he stated it was "Steel" then the question is "How did he know it was steel, or was he just assuming, or labeling it such". It could have been molten anything really (even glass, in molten state, can pass for molten metal).

However chunks, small fragments, and mircosphericules of solidified iron from the WTC event were collected and analysed by Dr. Jones. To melt iron requires temperatures of 1500c. So this is hard proof that extreme temperatures existed prior to the 16th. Further evidence is the meteorite, if tested, it may reveal that some of the steel or iron was once molten. This would be further proof of extreme temperatures prior to the 16th, specifically during the collapse. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf p80 + 89 of 204 for photos of the once molten iron.

When did Jones collect these samples? What was the chain of custody? (both for chunks and dust samples)? Were there any sources of contamination possible?

Without a documented, CONFIRMED chain of custody, as well as a guarantee that the samples could not have been contaminated with said material, what you have is samples collected by a scientist with an agenda, and nothing more.

However, should we accept that these samples are as he has said, and from where he has said, then,

We have evidence or iron spherules, we have evidence of high temperatures, we have a mechanism that would have produced enormous amounts of friction and pressure, so I am going to assume, until proven otherwise, that the iron spherules were produced from the collapse itself, with possible chemical acceleration from the building contents, rather than some exotic accelerant with no evidence in its favor.

According to this paper there was not enough gravtional energy to melt steel or iron http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

Can you be a little more specific, ie. point to the section where he provides calculations that prove not enough friction could be produced to cause temperatures, AT ANY POINT, for ANY AMOUNT OF SURFACE AREA, to reach 1500C. I really couldn't be bothered to read that entire paper for this particularly small amount of proof I am asking for.

Friction between a falling object and a stationary one will not generate enough energy to melt steel or iron. Your the one making the claim so the burden of proof is on you to provide some evidence to support it. I cannot prove a negative.

No, you can not prove a negative. I do not have the physics knowledge, off the top of my head, to do the calculations myself. I would assume it would be a complex, multi computation problem involving the mass of the material, the acceleration of the material, etc... Beyond my ability without a Physics refresher, for sure.

Like I said before, given I know that Huge amounts of heat can be generated from the fall and subequent stop (building hits earth) of the building, and given there is evidence of molten iron, at least in spherule form, I am guessing it was a combination of ORGANIC MATERIAL and EXTREME HEAT. That extreme heat could be the result of (A) FRICTION, and/or (B) Chemical accelerants from the materials within the building (Dr. Greening had an interesting theory on some possibilities IIRC).

The chunk of molten iron tested by Dr.Jones was not structural steel.
•So what was the source of this molten iron?
•What was the source of the temperature that produced it?
•How could friction generate sufficient energy to liquify iron?

Good question. Where indeed was the iron from? What was the chain of custody. Where is the proof of the day it was collected, where is the proof of the time it was formed? Many questions that an independent, unbias investigation might help clear up. So find some non-truther, non-NIST scientists to do it.

True but the chunk and fragments and microsphericules of iron were molten at some point in time. Analyse of the meteorite would confirm whether it was subjected to temperatures sufficient to melt steel or iron. So what was the source of this extreme temperature TAM?
peace

Lets start with proof that a chain of custody guarantees that the chunk came from the pile, and when, and where (within the pile). Once that is all confirmed, independently, then you can start with a detailed analysis, or a debate on what caused it to melt.

TAM

 

[Christopher7]

Thanks, every once in a while I "get some wood on the ball"

Mark Loizeaux said there were pictures and videos of excavator buckets dipping out molten metal. That means there was a lot of molten metal.

How so? Did he say "whole bucket loads"?

Common man, you know what he said.

Two witnesses said there was molten metal dripping from the ends of steel beams as they were pulled out of the pile.

And how much was that? An "abundance"?

No, but it was steel.

The molten steel in this photo is about 2100°F to off the scale. Any other metal would be liquid at those temperatures. The metal dripping off the bottom is about the temp where steel becomes a liquid.

Please stop with this. You don't even know what that material was.

At those temperatures it could only be steel.

 

[thewholesoul]

You're apparently familiar with a branch of logic that I've never heard of. I ask again: what science supports such an assertion about any steel used in the WTC?

That sright, its called empirical logic.

Forensic science would either confirm or reject the claim made by the iron worker that the horseshoe I-beam was exposed to extreme temperatures.

Why? There were tens of thousands of bent pieces of steel at the site. That piece could be from a parking garage, for all you know.

Because we could determine whether or not it was exposed to extreme temperature. I thought that much was obvious.

You have yet to explain why the location of the I-beam is sigificant? If it was exposed to extreme temperatures greater than the WTC fire then what on earth was the source of these temperatures?

you've made no case that the steel should be tested for any reason.

Reasons to test the steel I-beam for extreme temperature include:

1.to satisfy the requirement of total evidence
2.it is relevant to the truth or falsity of the official collapse hypothesis
3.to obtain empirical truth and end speculation
4.there is video evidence of the steel beam indicating it was exposed to extreme temperature
5.there is testimony indicating extreme temperatures during collapse
6.there is other artifacts indicating extreme temperatures during collapse
7.there is scientific papers indicating extreme temperatures during collapse
8.it will satisfy some of the victims family members’ calls for further investigation

If you find one or all of these reasons invalid please state why, that is how rational debate works. If not, please dont repeat the above claim that no case has been made.

And remember, a forensic investigation is just that…an investigation. We do not need overwhelming undisputable evidence to test for extreme temperatures. It is the role of the investigation itself to determine whether the evidence for extreme temperatures is undisputable or conclusive. To expect that the evidence be bullet proof before an investigation takes place is a logical fallacy, or as I like to say, putting the cart before the horse.

To remind you not to make claims for which you have no evidence, or demands for which you have no rational reason. Clear enough?

I did not make any claim? The ironworker made the claim so why dont you ask him for his figures? From his testimony he thought it would take “thousands of degrees” to bend an 8 ton I-beam without cracking or buckling it. And the fact that it bend into a horseshoe without cracking or buckling is evidence supporting possible exposure to extreme heat.

Neither am I making a “demand”, rather I am making an argument for the forensic examination of certain relics from the rubble. It is my conviction that those opposed to such an examination have no valid reason. And I could easily demonstrate this if you could simply outline your reasons why, in principle, such action should not be taken.
Your reasons...?

To be continued...

 

[alexi_drago]

What size were Jones' mircosphericules?

 

[thewholesoul]

Repeating false statements will never make them true.

NIST firestation burn tests to determine the temperatures and heat release profile the wtc buildings might have experienced due to the buidings combustibles found that peak temperatures reached in 20-30 minutes were below 600c shortly thereafter. [NCSTAR 1-5 p78 fig 4-8] So it is true to say that wtc fires did not reach 2000 F (1,100c).

I agree, “repeating false statements will never make them true” but my point is that if you’re going to accuse the ironworkers’ statement as being false you’re going to have to prove it. How do you prove it, you got it, through a forensic examination for temperature exposure which you oppose for reasons yet to be known.

Here's an analogy for you. I used to be a NYC tour guide, guide instructor, and tour company operator. I'm an expert on things NYC. If I say on video that the Empire State Building is 38 feet shorter than the published records say, someone should be obligated to re-measure it to test my assertion, right?

Its not a bad analogy but it fails on several points of comparison

•It is of little to no significance whether the Empire State Building is 38ft shorter than published; it is of great significance whether extreme temperatures were present during the collapse.
•Your assertion is not relevant to any investigation, official or otherwise; the ironworkers assertion is relevant to an official investigation
•No evidence do you have, other than your statement, that the Empire State Building its 38ft shorter? In contrast, the horseshoe I-beam is on video and you can see with your eyeballs, especially yours , that the beam has no cracking or buckling just like the iron worker and the other gentleman say.

I suggest you read the FEMA report, which contains that photo. That column, and others, buckled due to fire. Numerous internal collapses were believed to have happened due to steel failing because of the fire.

No need, I take your word for it. So they buckled due to fire, but the horseshoe I-beam at issue, did not buckle. This suggests that it was bent through extreme heat.

It is only at issue to you. With whom are you going to consult to get your questions answered, thewholesoul?

It is an issue for you too becuase it is a subject of our exchanges.

I am not going to consult with anyone, I am arguing for futher investigation of certain relics in the rubble. An electron microscope will answer the questions that many have.

I made no such argument. It is your strawman fallacy that is weak.

Ok then, if it wasnt the pressure during collapse that bent the I-beam then was it the WTC fire? Perhaps the WTC fire in combination with pressure from collapse? Could you please specify what you speculate caused the I-beam to form into a horseshoe shape without cracking or buckling so as I can avoid future strawmen?

You have yet to explain how the beam can have been heated to "thousands of degrees" while retaining its cross-sectional shape. Have at it.

Why do I have to explain technical questions? Such questions are best directed at those in the know – say the ironworker standing right next to the object claiming that it takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this. Or sunstealer?

But notice how I dont ask you technical questions Mark? Thats because I know you’re not an expert in such matters so such questions would serve little to no purpose other than trying to make you feel ignorant.

Why in the world are you arguing that case here? We cannot make your wish come true. Where will you present your case next, thewholesoul?

This is a forum for rational debate. Present your reason(s) why you oppose further investigation of certain objects and let us all see if they can stand up to scrutiny.

I am not gong to press you for an apology, i know thats not your style. But i would appreciate if you could explain to me why the following statement is nonsense. I changed a few words but its pretty much the same.

Without forensic examination of the “meteorite” it is impossible to say with empirical certainty whether extreme temperatures (2000+ F) were present and involved during its formation. Do you agree with this statement?

Peace.

 

[bje]

what is wrong about that statement. he said "apparently"? that is not a definite statement.

By your own admission, Jones did not test the meteorite. Obviously, he is in no position to say "apparently."

not just jones, Bart Voorsanger claims a meteorite was a fused element of molten steel and concrete.

I'll quote you:

"lets not put the cart before the horse. first a sample must be tested to determine if the metal was indeed melted at one point."

"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?"

"your eyeballs are no substitute for an x-ray dispersive spectrometer."

You agree then that by your own claims, Voorsanger cannot make that claim.

claiming that "apparently" molten steel solidified around the meteorite is perfectly fine.

No, it's not perfectly fine since "apparently" is a preliminary conclusion based on visual inspection only. You admitted Jones has not tested it, yet you're content to accept Jones's statement: "...evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material." In the meantime you insist that nothing can be stated because:

The meteorite is a relevant peice of evidence because it was an effect of the WTC collapse. If examined it would reveal information pertaining to its chemical composition, the process of its formation, and what temperature it was exposed to and for how long. All such information is relevant because it can either verify or falsify the official collapse hypothesis. can you please counter directly my above statement pertaining to the relevance of the meteorite.

In standard investigation evidence of molten steel and concrete indicate the presence of exotic accelerants. Until the presence of exotic accelerants has been ruled in or out by forensic examination logically no conclusion is drawn since the outcome of such forensic examination will directly affect the conclusion one way or the other.

You claim, "lets not put the cart before the horse. first a sample must be tested to determine if the metal was indeed melted at one point." Yet you are perfectly willing for Jones to do just that. You are not willing to explain how it is possible for molten metal to solidy around steel rebar without melting the rebar but you are perfectly willing to accept that Jones's assumption that it is possible without explanation.

please its a petty argument we are having to say the least. i only wish you could more specific so i can end it.

I know you wish it were but it goes to the heart of the invalidity and contradictions of your own claims. I am sure you understand that perfectly well.

please refrain from insults, they are unnecessary and i have not insulted you.

I have stated the facts and I am asking you to be intellectually honest and to stop insulting our intelligence. So far, you have been completely unwilling to engage in an honest and rational discussion concerning your contradictory claims.

Either provide support for Jones's claim and demonstrate how molten metal can solidify around steel rebar without melting or burning the entrained paper, or admit that Jones's is wrong, that he should retract his three-year old claim, and should be subject to the same standards you have imposed on all others. And do so in here in clear unambiguous language.

Are you going to finally do that or continue to engage in evasive tactics, TWS?

 

[beachnut]

As pointed out to me (above), this could be the problem with this small tangential hearsay no idea what to do with the molten steel when they prove it stuff.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_p2.html
Liars? Retarded? They're probably both right. Just as the crooked televangelist steals from old widows who themselves have an honest faith in God, Dylan Avery and the Loose Change guys have made a nice name for themselves (and a nice profit) from a large group of true believers who have always lived at the fringes of society. These are the type who think the moon landing was a hoax, that Area 51 houses alien spacecraft.

This molten steel claim comes from a movement which the leaders (hucksters of woo) line their pockets with the quick conspiracy profits and leave the poor gullible followers alone to spew hearsay, lies and fantasy with no idea how to tie the molten steel to any credible scenario. They can’t understand what a simile is, why do I expect a logical scenario to go with the hearsay rivers of molten steel flowing under the WTC like the Hudson river? Even if there was molten steel they can’t even try to make up a good story to put their deadened molten steel chapter into.

 

[thewholesoul]

What size were Jones' mircosphericules?

as big as an elephant

 

[DGM]

Common man, you know what he said.

Yes I do, That's why I said what I did.

No, but it was steel.

And you (they) knew this how? Chris, This is getting monotonous.

At those temperatures it could only be steel.

Why is that? Are there no other compounds that could get that hot? Would you mind explaining to the "lurkers" how you verified the temps and made sure that the picture represented an accurate color?

Yes Chris this is how a "lawyer" (that I'm not) would defend his/her position. What's your point? That's what you would have to "combat" if you think you could convince the world your "theory" is right. Your "evidence" is weak/non-existent at best. If you want to move on you better step up your "game".