Molten Steel

[Kent1]

I am NOT assuming the AREA was 2400°C

Another anonymous expert. I'm so impressed.

Mr. Chastain is mentioned in the Judy Woods piece. "Aluminum glows"
http://drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html

[SIZE=+1]from the book: [/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Build an Oil Fired Tilting Furnace[/SIZE] by: Steve Chastain


[qimg]http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5351/mrccomposit.jpg[/qimg]

Figure #10a,b These images are from a book showing how to melt aluminum and separate it from the slag. It has been discussed that these two pictures may not be aluminum, but no one is absolutely sure.

I'll save those who don't know the time, the photo is not aluminum. I didn't think it was. I e-mailed him a while back just to make sure. I'm not going to post the e-mail. If someone doesn't believe me they can ask him themselves. Aluminum has a low emissivity.

 

[Christopher7]

I'll save those who don't know the time, the photo is not aluminum. I didn't think it was. I e-mailed him a while back just to make sure. I'm not going to post the e-mail. If someone doesn't believe me they can ask him themselves. Aluminum has a low emissivity.

Thank you for the info.

No one has shown the scientific proof that organic material can mix with molten aluminum.

That's because it can't.

NIST tried and failed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

The NIST FAQ is a FARCE


Here's another point:
As soon as the metal liquefied it would flow away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal.
Aluminum melts at about 660 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C.
The metal flowing out of the south tower was in the 2400-2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range.
And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.

 

[Kent1]

For those interested
Here's NIST's homepage. http://qoptics.byu.edu/

 

[bje]

Here's another point:
As soon as the metal liquefied it would flow away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal.
Aluminum melts at about 660 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C.
The metal flowing out of the south tower was in the 2400-2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range.
And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.

So says Chris's imaginary "government scientists."

 

[Dave Rogers]

The metal flowing out of the south tower was in the 2400-2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range.
And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.

Chris, you've either forgotten how to read your own colour chart, or you've forgotten the difference between Celcius and Fahrenheit. Take another look, stop and think, then post a correction, and we'll say no more about it, OK?

Dave

 

[JimBenArm]

I don't understand. I thought the only thing that could melt steel was thermite. If it glows orange, it's steel. Yet here we have photos of an oil-fired foundry with something orange flowing from it. Since it's glowing orange, it's steel, yet there's no thermite.

I'm so confused, Chris! It's obviously impossible!

 

[BigAl]

OK, BTW, who is Mr. Chastain?

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature.[he is ignoring the possibility of thermite] The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.[in a foundary, impurities separate from the aluminum ore as the aluminum liquefies, forming a slag. There is no case or evidence of organic impurities entering molten aluminum]


THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similay [sic] and likey to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow.
[On what does he base this assumption]

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect
the flow to appear to be orange in color.
[There is no precedent or scientific basis for his assumptions or expectations]
​

Link does not work:
http://stephenchastain.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=85

The difference between Stephen Chastain and yourself is that he is speaking from knowledge and experience and respect for the facts and is intellectually honest. You have shown no such tendency.

Chastain has to use words like "assume" because he hasn't handled the material in question, nobody has. He only knows it by what we see on these pictures. He compares the image to what he knows, first-hand, which is the characteristics of molten metal.

You just cherry pick quotes and defend them with no apparent actual knowledge of the topic. Knowledgeable people use words like "assume" and "is consistent with" all the time and do so out of intellectual honesty, not ignorance.

FWIW, my engineering background exposed me to molten metal and my experience is consistent with the claims of NIST and Chastain. Of course, in the Internet, I can't prove that and it carries no weight and my statement isn't proof of anything.

It does, however, make you look foolish for your claims, as it does for others others with even greater relevant expertise than I have.

Chastain didn't say this, but I know first-hand that hobbyist foundry operators melt lots of recycled aluminum and have lots of experience with the appearance of aluminum mixed with crap, which exactly describes whatever it was that flowed out of a WTC tower on 9/11.

The URL is dead. The "Truthers" have been making the same stupid claims for so many years and some of the older links we have are dying. That doesn't make the logic and facts he brings to bear on the question wrong. Very much the contrary. You could print his statement out and show it to any foundryman and you would have it confirmed. His words live.

 

[GlennB]

I'll save those who don't know the time, the photo is not aluminum. I didn't think it was.

What is it then? Oil is a hydrocarbon and we've been told a million times that hydrocarbon fires cannot melt steel (apart from blast furnaces, of course )

Here's some more molten aluminium, by the way :

 

[JimBenArm]

What is it then? Oil is a hydrocarbon and we've been told a million times that hydrocarbon fires cannot melt steel (apart from blast furnaces, of course )

Here's some more molten aluminium, by the way :

It's orange. That's steel. Or orange sherbert. Certainly not aluminum!

You'll need to taste it to be sure.

 

[BigAl]

Thank you for the info.


As soon as the metal liquefied it would flow away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal.
Aluminum melts at about 660 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C.
The metal flowing out of the south tower was in the 2400-2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C range.
And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.

People that claim to be able to discern temperatures from pictures of material with unknown exact composition found on the the internet, taken under unknown lighting and with unknown camera equipment and post-processing are making ◊◊◊◊ up or are parroting the claims of others that make ◊◊◊◊ up.

 

[bje]

People that claim to be able to discern temperatures from pictures off the internet taken under unknown lighting and with unknown camera equipment and post-processing are making ◊◊◊◊ up or are parroting the claims of others that make ◊◊◊◊ up.

It's the nature of the beast.

 

[Sunstealer]

. Steel is the only metal found in abundance in the pile.

Source?

All the aluminum cladding had been blown up to 600 feet in all directions.

Source?

Yes but only in thermate.

Source?

You cannot site another source for this sulfur rich eutectic because there is none.

There are plenty if you care to read. This document goes into it in depth. http://www.scribd.com/doc/11542599/911-Sulfur-and-World-Trade-Center

I have given my sources can you give yours? No "Jones Fallacy" please.

 

[Sunstealer]

THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel

Oh the irony.

 

[Sunstealer]

Like?

Any aluminium alloy, lead, glass, infact anything that has a lower melting point than steel. You see if temperatures were hot enough to melt steel then they would be hot enough to melt all other substances with a lower melting point. See it's easy when you know these things.

The temperature of the falling metal was far above what office fires can attain much less maintain long enough to heat any metal to around 2400 [FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]C.

Then you must conclude that the material you saw was not metal, but something else. However, what you don't seem to understand is that different metals and their alloys have different liquidus temperatures. http://www.muggyweld.com/melting.html See? Using that chart why do you think that a lead/tin alloy is used for solder?

http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/lessons.html - notice the low temperature eutectic

C7 - What is the difference between eutectic and eutectoid? Why and how would thermite/mate produce a solidified Fe-O-S eutectic rather than not?

The other problem you have is the chicken and egg scenario - you cannot put a colour chart up against an unknown material in order to gauge it's temperature. Therefore you cannot use a steel temperature chart to claim it's steel or gauge temperature. I can claim it's if I put a plasticine temperature chart You have been shown this several times.

The only known explanation for molten metal at that temperature is thermite.

Source?

 

[Kent1]

The difference between Stephen Chastain and yourself is that he is speaking from knowledge and experience and respect for the facts and is intellectually honest. You have shown no such tendency.

Chastain has to use words like "assume" because he hasn't handled the material in question, nobody has. He only knows it by what we see on these pictures. He compares the image to what he knows, first-hand, which is the characteristics of molten metal.

You just cherry pick quotes and defend them with no apparent actual knowledge of the topic. Knowledgeable people use words like "assume" and "is consistent with" all the time and do so out of intellectual honesty, not ignorance.

FWIW, my engineering background exposed me to molten metal and my experience is consistent with the claims of NIST and Chastain. Of course, in the Internet, I can't prove that and it carries no weight and my statement isn't proof of anything.

It does, however, make you look foolish for your claims, as it does for others others with even greater relevant expertise than I have.

Chastain didn't say this, but I know first-hand that hobbyist foundry operators melt lots of recycled aluminum and have lots of experience with the appearance of aluminum mixed with crap, which exactly describes whatever it was that flowed out of a WTC tower on 9/11.

The URL is dead. The "Truthers" have been making the same stupid claims for so many years and some of the older links we have are dying. That doesn't make the logic and facts he brings to bear on the question wrong. Very much the contrary. You could print his statement out and show it to any foundryman and you would have it confirmed. His words live.

He posted that when I interviewed him. Its also here.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 

[BigAl]

OK, BTW, who is Mr. Chastain?

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the metling temperature.[he is ignoring the possibility of thermite] The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.[in a foundary, impurities separate from the aluminum ore as the aluminum liquefies, forming a slag. There is no case or evidence of organic impurities entering molten aluminum]


THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel
​

You and Mr. Chastain use "assume" differently.

Mr. Chastain, NIST and anyone that is intellectually honest uses "assume" and words like them as a conclusion and and in the context of an opinion illuminated by facts and investigation and thought. They can, if asked, explain why they assume what they assume and why they have ruled out alternative hypotheses and explain why. They can answer questions and provide clarification.

You and Bill Smith and the rest of the "Truth Movement" think that "assume" means someone is making ◊◊◊◊ up. That's what the "Truth Movement" does.​

 

[Senenmut]

mr chaistain's assumption might be correct-
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
"If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner."

dr asl-
"To support his theory, he cites the way the steel has been bent at several connection points that once joined the floors to the vertical columns. If the internal supporting columns had collapsed upon impact, he says, the connection points would show cracks, because the damage would have been done while the steel was cold. Instead, he describes the connections as being smoothly warped: "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."

dr asl is describing the steel that had been deformed and possibly contributed to the collapse before the building fell.


and remember he also saw melted girders.

 

[Christopher7]

The metal flowing out of the south tower was in the 2400-2700[FONT="]°[/FONT][/COLOR]C[/B] range.
And therefore, it was molten iron from steel. [/quote]
[QUOTE="Dave Rogers, post: 4498581, member: 14764"]Chris, you've either forgotten how to read your own colour chart, or you've forgotten the difference between Celcius and Fahrenheit. Take another look, stop and think, then post a correction, and we'll say no more about it, OK?

Dave

My bad.
The metal flowing out of the south tower was in the 2400-2700[FONT="]°[/FONT]F range.

 

[GlennB]

My bad.
The metal flowing out of the south tower was in the 2400-2700[FONT="]°[/FONT]F range.

Why did it turn silver/grey as it fell and cooled? This is not what one would expect of molten iron solidifying.

 

[Christopher7]

I don't understand. I thought the only thing that could melt steel was thermite. If it glows orange, it's steel. Yet here we have photos of an oil-fired foundry with something orange flowing from it. Since it's glowing orange, it's steel, yet there's no thermite.

I'm so confused, Chris! It's obviously impossible!

The only thing outside a foundry, other than a cutting or welding torch. I guess you missed that part.

Do you understand this part?

As soon as the metal liquefied it would flow away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal.
Aluminum melts at about 1220[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F
The metal flowing out of the south tower was in the 2400-2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F range.
And therefore, it was molten iron from steel.

The other possibilities are:
Melting point
2240[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F manganese
2590[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F silicone
2650[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F nickel
2700[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F cobalt
2750[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F chromium

These metals or silicone would not be found in enough quantity to be the molten metal in the video.