Merged So there was melted steel

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
Yes in this thread I won't even contend there was no molten steel. I will do this so that I can finally get some answers as to how the presence of it means anything malicious.

As such I would like to know:

Is this supposed to mean thermite was used?

If so how much thermite (a self oxidizing agent) is needed to still be reacting six weeks after initiation?

Why are other avenues of steel melting (such as in a rare natural furnace effect) dismissed?

Since liquids follow the path of least resistance they will pool at the bottom of the bathtub. How was the steel that solidified there removed and where did it go?
 
Travis said:
Yes in this thread I won't even contend there was no molten steel. I will do this so that I can finally get some answers as to how the presence of it means anything malicious.

As such I would like to know:

Is this supposed to mean thermite was used?

If so how much thermite (a self oxidizing agent) is needed to still be reacting six weeks after initiation?

Why are other avenues of steel melting (such as in a rare natural furnace effect) dismissed?

Since liquids follow the path of least resistance they will pool at the bottom of the bathtub. How was the steel that solidified there removed and where did it go?
Click to expand...

Because steel melts at about 2700F, the hottest jet fuel burns at is about 1800F, there is nothing that would burn hotter than this 1800F in a normal office environment. Given this there is nothing that should have been naturally occurring that was hot enough to melt steel. So if there was melted steel, game over for the official story. It doesn't matter whether it was thermite or some other agent. If there was molten steel, it's game over for the official story.
 
tmd2_1: Where do you get the idea that things have a maximum combustion temperature? What do you think would happen if you preheated fuel and oxygen to that temperature before mixing them?
 
phunk said:
tmd2_1: Where do you get the idea that things have a maximum combustion temperature? What do you think would happen if you preheated fuel and oxygen to that temperature before mixing them?
Click to expand...

Why I got it from NIST themselves.


7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

Forgot the link http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
Why I got it from NIST themselves.


7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

Forgot the link http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm
Click to expand...

You do understand the difference bewteen the standing buildings and the pile, don't you Truther?

/I am well aware that you don't understand the difference
 
tmd2_1 said:
Because steel melts at about 2700F, the hottest jet fuel burns at is about 1800F, there is nothing that would burn hotter than this 1800F in a normal office environment. Given this there is nothing that should have been naturally occurring that was hot enough to melt steel. So if there was melted steel, game over for the official story. It doesn't matter whether it was thermite or some other agent. If there was molten steel, it's game over for the official story.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about fires in the well ventilated towers. We are talking about fires in the insulated debris pile that had a constant, though restricted, amount of air feeding it from below.
 
The key word here is "normal". Conditions in the rubble pile were very different to those in a normal building fire. We know that some types of hydrocarbon fire are capable of melting steel. Why, then, would molten steel at Ground Zero be evidence, not of the type of hydrocarbon fire that can melt steel - which could possibly occur - but of something that could not possibly occur? You see, those of us who are not irrationally obsessed with proving reality to be wrong would simply say that molten steel indicated that the conditions in the rubble pile formed, as Travis suggested, a natural furnace effect, with a forced draught through a well-insulated region of combustion creating temperatures much higher than the normally expected 1000ºC, yet below the adiabatic flame temperature of 1980ºC of wood in air - easily high enough to melt iron.

Dave
 
Travis said:
We're not talking about fires in the well ventilated towers. We are talking about fires in the insulated debris pile that had a constant, though restricted, amount of air feeding it from below.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how it makes the slightest bit of difference. Does something magical happen when the building is now in debris, as opposed to standing up? It now contains material hot enough to burn steel? Did you read what I posted about what NIST said above? Also as has been pointed out to me numerous times, the debris could be considered to resemble a landfill fire. I've looked for many many hours this was the absolute hottest I found a landfill fire got to. "Maximum temperature exceeded 960oF (516oC) at the core of the hot spot, nearly four meters below the pile surface." http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0002589/Moqbel_Shadi_Y_200905_PhD.pdf
Here is some other good information it seems 170F is a cut off point of sorts. http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/fa-225.pdf
 
I might point out that coal is a hydrocarbon fuel but for many centuries man has had no problem using coal to melt iron and make steel.

Given this one wonders how truthers cannot see that NIST is speaking to a specific set of circumstances.
 
They said 'normal building fires and hydrocarbon fires'. Those temperatures aren't the maximum for those types of fuels, they are the typical temperatures for those fuels in those conditions. That FAQ is about pre-collapse conditions, not the rubble pile.

To answer my question that you skipped, if you preheated the fuel and oxygen up to what you consider maximum, then mixed them, they will get even hotter when they burn. Of course this isn't the only way to increase the combustion temp, it's just one example. In the rubble pile, the temperatures could be increased by the fire being buried, which insulates it and slows the escape of heat.

I'm not claiming that there was any molten steel, but if there was, it wasn't thermite. That would burn out in a matter of seconds.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
Why I got it from NIST themselves.


7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

Forgot the link http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm
Click to expand...


What has NIST to do with the fire in the Debris pile?:confused:
 
tmd2_1 said:
I fail to see how it makes the slightest bit of difference. Does something magical happen when the building is now in debris, as opposed to standing up?
Click to expand...

Yes, but it's not magic, it's science!

A buried fire is insulated, which keeps the heat in and increases the temperature.
 
phunk said:
To answer my question that you skipped, if you preheated the fuel and oxygen up to what you consider maximum, then mixed them, they will get even hotter when they burn. Of course this isn't the only way to increase the combustion temp, it's just one example. In the rubble pile, the temperatures could be increased by the fire being buried, which insulates it and slows the escape of heat.
Click to expand...

And, I suppose, the air reaching the fire could have been pre-heated by passing through other regions of the generally heated rubble pile, resulting in localised hot-spots that could be well above normally expected fire temperatures.

Dave
 
phunk said:
To answer my question that you skipped, if you preheated the fuel and oxygen up to what you consider maximum, then mixed them, they will get even hotter when they burn. Of course this isn't the only way to increase the combustion temp, it's just one example. In the rubble pile, the temperatures could be increased by the fire being buried, which insulates it and slows the escape of heat.
Click to expand...
.......and increases the temp of yet unburned fuels around the volume that is burning.

In the truther world this situation should result in the reaction between those materials no longer being exothermic.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I fail to see how it makes the slightest bit of difference. Does something magical happen when the building is now in debris, as opposed to standing up? It now contains material hot enough to burn steel? Did you read what I posted about what NIST said above? Also as has been pointed out to me numerous times, the debris could be considered to resemble a landfill fire. I've looked for many many hours this was the absolute hottest I found a landfill fire got to. "Maximum temperature exceeded 960oF (516oC) at the core of the hot spot, nearly four meters below the pile surface." http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0002589/Moqbel_Shadi_Y_200905_PhD.pdf
Here is some other good information it seems 170F is a cut off point of sorts. http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/fa-225.pdf
Click to expand...

Landfill fires don't have subway tunnels underneath them to feed them an air supply.
 
I see this thread has already provided one Stundie worthy quote!

Insulation and constant, but restricted, air flow is now "magic."
 
Last edited:
You guys are amazing your own beloved NIST says "In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36)." They made no exceptions, no qualifications, (i.e well in the debris..etc). I don't or any "truther" need to say anymore than what NIST has already said.
 
16.5 said:
You do understand the difference bewteen the standing buildings and the pile, don't you Truther?

/I am well aware that you don't understand the difference
Click to expand...



You know the way that you sometimes see magnified droplets of vapourised water in the air on TV ? Usually in slow motion and they are always microspheres. Well ? RJ Lee officially reported that 5.7% of the WTC dust was composed of iron microspheres. These MUST have come from vapourised steel. There is no other source.

And then when you consider that there was at least 50,000 tons of WTC dust spread over the debris field of ground zero and much of lower Manhattan. That alone means that there was almost 3,000 tons of formerly molten iron in the form of billions of iron microspheres present. That's solid proof on it's own. Melting steel is one thing but it takes considerably higher temperatures to vapourise it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom