Woolgatherer
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,787
I'm not sure where to put this except in the Stundies pile. I cut and pasted info that I got from the "Ground Zero cleanup, Fires in piles, Molten metals, Fresh Kills operations, Steel ID & scrap issues" link in the Gravysites area.
What I linked:
When it comes to steel, looks can be deceiving:
"A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures. With respect to steel, looks can be deceiving. What appears to be melted may be merely oxidized. Interpret melted metals, particularly steel, with caution, and interpret the temperatures you infer from these melted metals with extreme caution." http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf
"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."http://tinyurl.com/pqrxt
"It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.
Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said." With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire
Response I got from Mark Gaffney
Tom,
You must be kidding? Obviously you didn't major in physics -- or even study science in college.
The color of the molten metal in the photos above is not in the least bit deceiving. It is straightforward. This bright incandescent color indicates a temperature of at least 1800 F -- and above. I will post the temperature chart so you can see for yourself.
The statements I have bolded in your post are well known -- no surprise. The NIST posted this nonsense as an afterthought to their report -- which BTW completely ignored the evidence of molten steel. Some of the early evidence had even appeared as an appendix to the previous FEMA study.
These statements by NIST are an insult to our intelligence -- since it is obvious that "the condition of the steel in the wreckage" was absolutely and totally relevant to the collapse. Of course it was! An honest forensic study would have scrutinized the steel in the pile to determine what caused the collapse! This is a no brainer. Ground Zero was a crime scene. In cases of fires it is also standard procedure to test for residues -- especially given the many reports of explosions.
Was this done? Of course not! Instead, the evidence was destroyed. The debris was carted away and sold ASAP. Even the FEMA experts were prevented from studying the site -- except for one scheduled and chaperoned walk through. Destruction of evidence is itself a crime. For Chris sake -- this is sophomoric -- not rocket science. Any moderately intelligent high school kid could figure this out.
The other statement is also an insult. "Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel to have melted..." This is total hogwash. It might happen in the world of fantasy -- but not on planet earth. Not in the physical world we inhabit. Does anyone here speak the language of science?
Bronco Bob continues to rave on with looney ideas about rust melting steel, which is more hogwash. Come on, people. Oxygen is required for rust -- yet there was very little oxygen under the pile. This is why the fires flared up many times as they removed debris -- which allowed oxygen to reach the smoldering fires.
Yes there were fuels in the pile -- but nothing capable of reaching temperatures of 2700 F. Not even close. This is basic science -- nothing fancy.
Whatever caused the fires happened before and during the collapse -- not after.
Tom and many others on this board are simply in denial -- end of story. You won't or can't face the truth because it's uncomfortable. Golly Gee -- how lame can you get?! MHG
What I linked:
When it comes to steel, looks can be deceiving:
"A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures. With respect to steel, looks can be deceiving. What appears to be melted may be merely oxidized. Interpret melted metals, particularly steel, with caution, and interpret the temperatures you infer from these melted metals with extreme caution." http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf
"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."http://tinyurl.com/pqrxt
"It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.
Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said." With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire
Response I got from Mark Gaffney
Tom,
You must be kidding? Obviously you didn't major in physics -- or even study science in college.
The color of the molten metal in the photos above is not in the least bit deceiving. It is straightforward. This bright incandescent color indicates a temperature of at least 1800 F -- and above. I will post the temperature chart so you can see for yourself.
The statements I have bolded in your post are well known -- no surprise. The NIST posted this nonsense as an afterthought to their report -- which BTW completely ignored the evidence of molten steel. Some of the early evidence had even appeared as an appendix to the previous FEMA study.
These statements by NIST are an insult to our intelligence -- since it is obvious that "the condition of the steel in the wreckage" was absolutely and totally relevant to the collapse. Of course it was! An honest forensic study would have scrutinized the steel in the pile to determine what caused the collapse! This is a no brainer. Ground Zero was a crime scene. In cases of fires it is also standard procedure to test for residues -- especially given the many reports of explosions.
Was this done? Of course not! Instead, the evidence was destroyed. The debris was carted away and sold ASAP. Even the FEMA experts were prevented from studying the site -- except for one scheduled and chaperoned walk through. Destruction of evidence is itself a crime. For Chris sake -- this is sophomoric -- not rocket science. Any moderately intelligent high school kid could figure this out.
The other statement is also an insult. "Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel to have melted..." This is total hogwash. It might happen in the world of fantasy -- but not on planet earth. Not in the physical world we inhabit. Does anyone here speak the language of science?
Bronco Bob continues to rave on with looney ideas about rust melting steel, which is more hogwash. Come on, people. Oxygen is required for rust -- yet there was very little oxygen under the pile. This is why the fires flared up many times as they removed debris -- which allowed oxygen to reach the smoldering fires.
Yes there were fuels in the pile -- but nothing capable of reaching temperatures of 2700 F. Not even close. This is basic science -- nothing fancy.
Whatever caused the fires happened before and during the collapse -- not after.
Tom and many others on this board are simply in denial -- end of story. You won't or can't face the truth because it's uncomfortable. Golly Gee -- how lame can you get?! MHG
