Molten Steel

[Toke]

I doubt he will take the bet.
An ordinary boyscout cooking fire has embers hot enough to make iron redhot.

 

[Christopher7]

What part of this is baseless speculation? That burning organic materials can create glowing orange coals? Or that flowing molten aluminum could carry those coals?

Double talk.

NIST says the molten aluminum mixed with organic materials, not that organic materials were carried by the molten aluminum.

"[FONT=&quot]Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials[/FONT]"

This is baseless speculation.

 

[Christopher7]

Either you believe them or not. Which is it?

False choice fallacy I believe. I believe Loizeaux when he says he cannot personally confirm it and when he says CD is a joke.

We are talking about all the witnesses.
Do you believe them or not?

Are you trying to claim that there was no aluminium in the building? The very desk I sit at now is an aluminium alloy desk with a laminate top. Its not steel.

That's BS. I have moved many office desks and I have never seen an aluminum desk. They are made of steel.

The steel was forensically inspected at the sorting site and this was witnessed and verified and documented. No-one says they saw any molten steel.

The sorting site was not the WTC. Abolhassan Astaneh said he saw melted [turned into liquid] girders at the sorting site.

Source that the steel was forensically examined for DNA at this time? Source to say it was not any other type of forensic examination.

"NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily been conclusive."
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

ETA: DNA tests at WTC
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/newsfromnist_DNAinterview.htm

There were demo contractors examining the steel also and none of them mention any molten steel.

Double talk.
[FONT=&quot]Peter Tully: President of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.
[/FONT]
He told Mark Loizeaux about the molten steel. Mark knows that Peter is competent to determine that it was steel.
You are in denial.

As you have claimed, it is not difficult to know what it is. No molten steel or strange solidified blobs were reported from the inspection process. Only the beams mentioned by Al Astaneh.

They inspected the beams, girders and columns at the inspection site. It is not known what was done with the molten steel except for the "meteorite".

 

[Sunstealer]

show me where in the NIST report they found any steel subjected to more than 250c.............you said i was wrong above, show me where i was, kindly cite the passage in the NIST report..........

Based on microstructural analysis of the recovered structural steel, there was no evidence indicating that the pre-collapse fires were severe enough to affect the steel microstructure of these pieces. Based upon this evidence, it is believed that no steel was recovered which experienced temperature excursions above 600°C for any length of time as a result of the pre-collapse fires.

Paragraph 3, section 6.8.5, Page 101, http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05130.pdf

I hope truthers will not misinterpret this due to lack of understanding. I can explain if anyone needs any help with that paragraph.

 

[Mercutio]

Abolhassan Astaneh said there were melted girders.

Thank you for disproving yourself.

If he knew they were girders, they were not melted into pools. The fact that he calls them girders shows that they were softened, perhaps plasticized, perhaps glowing red, but absolutely not liquid. There are no liquid girders.

They could be melted, and of unknown origin, or they could be unmelted girders. They can't be melted girders, if "melted" is taken literally to mean liquified.

Of course, there is a much simpler explanation. Astaneh could be speaking more casually, meaning "melted" as in plasticized. It is certainly among the dictionary-approved uses. And since this has been pointed out to you roughly six billion times, we must assume that you are choosing instead to lie using his words, as you lie using other people's words.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for Civility.

 

[Sunstealer]

Poor dumb old truthers they really are confused and can't work it out.

They really need to get those people that they claim witnessed "liquid steel" to actually clarify their statements. Why won't they try? If they could get those people to clarify they might actually have a case, but instead they think hearsay is proof. They don't want to contact those people through fear of having their fantasy ruined. Much better to keep obscure parts of the internet busy than do 5 minutes of actual research.

Poor dumb old truthers will automatically think that the word molten means liquid when someone says "molten metal/steel", rather than understand that people will use a word as a different meaning to the one the truther wants to hear. (I've never seen the word molten in a metallurgical report unless there is a temperature attributed - the word molten is too ambiguous to be used when you need clarity).

Poor dumb old truthers will automatically claim that qualified engineers are able to identify liquid steel yet very, very few are. You don't get to see quantities of liquid steel or other metals unless you work with them daily. Most metallurgists including myself will be lucky to see liquid steel once a year, infact I'm not sure when the last time was! I've seen solidified steel that was once liquid due to failure in the last few months, but no liquid steel. Unless you work in a foundry, steel mill etc you just won't get that experience let alone first hand experience of the range of metals and alloys that melt below the liquidus of steel and were present at ground zero.

Poor dumb old truthers won't understand that metal ≠ steel.

Poor dumb old truthers don't understand that metals and alloys melt at different temperatures and that if temperatures were high enough to melt steel they'd melt all alloys below that temperature.

Poor dumb old truthers don't understand that, just because there is a disproportionate amount of steel to other materials doesn't mean that other materials couldn't melt.

Poor dumb old truthers don't understand the thermite reaction. They don't realise that thermite will burn itself out in roughly 2 minutes and very quickly after that (roughly another 2 minutes) the liquid Iron (Fe) produced from the thermite reaction will have cooled enough to become solid (on the outside and hence not flow).

Poor dumb old truthers don't realise that thermite creates lots and lots of smoke and very, very bright flames which would have been far more noticeable than anything else.

Before you post your claptrap about witnesses/thermite/NIST etc, C7 - go and find one single person who will clarify their statement showing that liquid steel was present (that means you'll have to write to them and ask them). I'll donate £100 to the charity of your choice. Why not write to the firm in roundhead's post?

 

[phunk]

Double talk.

NIST says the molten aluminum mixed with organic materials, not that organic materials were carried by the molten aluminum.

"[FONT=&quot]Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials[/FONT]"

This is baseless speculation.

Please thoroughly define the word mixed, as you understand it to be used in this context.

 

[twinstead]

Mixed must mean something else in trutherese

 

[George 152]

Please thoroughly define the word mixed, as you understand it to be used in this context.

And what action was present that would 'mix' materials of different densities?
The 'molten steel' claims are nothing but claims.

 

[twinstead]

And he lectures US about baseless speculation. Crazy

 

[phunk]

And what action was present that would 'mix' materials of different densities?
The 'molten steel' claims are nothing but claims.

Well, what do you think would happen if molten metal flowed through a pile of hot coals? Would it flow over or around them, or push through and carry them along for the ride?

Also, I didn't say steel.

 

[Christopher7]

Paragraph 3, section 6.8.5, Page 101,
Based on microstructural analysis of the recovered structural steel, there was no evidence indicating that the pre-collapse fires were severe enough to affect the steel microstructure of these pieces. Based upon this evidence, it is believed that no steel was recovered which experienced temperature excursions above 600°C for any length of time as a result of the pre-collapse fires.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05130.pdf

I hope truthers will not misinterpret this due to lack of understanding. I can explain if anyone needs any help with that paragraph.

There is NO evidence of steel temperatures above 250°C to any of the recovered steel.

I wish deniers would stop making deliberately misleading statements.

In the preceding paragraph it says:
"It is difficult or impossible to determine if high-temperature exposure occurred prior to or after the collapse.
. . . the steel may have reached temperatures in excess of 250°C."

 

[Toke]

Sunstealer,
Do you have a curve handy for strenght/temperature of steel?

(I know there are thousands of types, is there a common/average one)

 

[Christopher7]

And what action was present that would 'mix' materials of different densities?
The 'molten steel' claims are nothing but claims.

The molten steel 'claims' as you call them were observations made by the people who saw the molten steel. Your refusal to accept what they said is just denial.

 

[Christopher7]

Please thoroughly define the word mixed, as you understand it to be used in this context.

Calls for speculation which will be argued endlessly.
This is a diversion tactic.

Well, what do you think would happen if molten metal flowed through a pile of hot coals? Would it flow over or around them, or push through and carry them along for the ride?

Molten metal would probably push coals out of the way. The falling molten metal is clearly yellow hot. Molten aluminum could not be completely masked with glowing coals.

You guys are going thru all kinds of contortions trying to deny the obvious.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

Sunstealer,
Do you have a curve handy for strenght/temperature of steel?

(I know there are thousands of types, is there a common/average one)

I'm not sunstealer, so 'cuse me for butting in. You could always use just plain old A36 steel curves. A lot of the WTC was spec'ed for that, though much of it got upgraded (A 242, I think, but I've never seen documentation of that). You can get a lot of material info (actually, waayyyy too much info) from matweb.com

 

[Holler Hoojer]

Calls for speculation which will be argued endlessly.
This is a diversion tactic.

Molten metal would probably push coals out of the way. The falling molten metal is clearly yellow hot. Molten aluminum could not be completely masked with glowing coals.

You guys are going thru all kinds of contortions trying to deny the obvious.

And, we just gotta get you into a steel mill. Let you watch some molten steel. I won't spoil the discovery for you, but there's a very simple way to tell when you're watching molten steel. Short of that, a little shop class will introduce you to "yellow hot" - I call it "straw hot". Tain't molten.

 

[Christopher7]

If he knew they were girders, they were not melted into pools. The fact that he calls them girders shows that they were softened, perhaps plasticized, perhaps glowing red, but absolutely not liquid. There are no liquid girders.

What part of "melted" don't you understand. He was referring to partially melted girders.
melted: change from solid to liquid state.
You are talking in circles to justify your denial.



http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf

 

[Toke]

I'm not sunstealer, so 'cuse me for butting in. You could always use just plain old A36 steel curves. A lot of the WTC was spec'ed for that, though much of it got upgraded (A 242, I think, but I've never seen documentation of that). You can get a lot of material info (actually, waayyyy too much info) from matweb.com

Yes there was alot of material data, just not what I was looking for, well I didn´t find it.

I found a simple curve here.

Googled for "steel strenght temperature" it came up with a NIST page.
There is a rapid drop at 450-500C, I did not know if it was liniar or not.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

What part of "melted" don't you understand. He was referring to partially melted girders.
melted: change from solid to liquid state.
You are talking in circles to justify your denial.

[qimg]http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6533/meltedbeamwtc7.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf

Just gotta get you in a shop class. I see what might be evidence of melting along one edge of the flange, but the rest (i.e., the missing parts) is almost surely sheared.