Molten Steel

[T.A.M.]

Yes T.A.M.:
But once formed they continue to exist in many everyday places. To NOT find them in a urban environment would be odd. Jones has made no attempt to eliminate the obvious (or background) sources. His "independent verification" that he claimed over a year ago was supposed to do this. Strangely we have never heard to results from these tests

I 100% agree. But you can see, that this is the stumbling block that THEY are having a hard time getting around. In addition to alternative sources outside of the collapse, the collapse itself may have produced the iron spherules, without thermite (see a thread from the past here with thoughts from Crazy Chainsaw, myself, and Dr. Greening on the matter).

TAM

 

[DGM]

Interesting place to find iron "spherules" is in the brake dust on the wheels of your car (if you have "semi-metallic pads,most do) or after you "flick your bic" lighter. The damn things are everywhere in common life. I have a welding shop, I can give you bags full of them.

Jones really shouldn't ignore the "background" problem, unless he doesn't expect people to check his work

 

[alexi_drago]

I 100% agree. But you can see, that this is the stumbling block that THEY are having a hard time getting around. In addition to alternative sources outside of the collapse, the collapse itself may have produced the iron spherules, without thermite (see a thread from the past here with thoughts from Crazy Chainsaw, myself, and Dr. Greening on the matter).

TAM

Red Iron oxide paint is made with spherical Iron oxide particles, could that be the source?

 

[Senenmut]

i dont know if u guys went over this or not. correct me if im wrong. this just goes into the physics of what is known as "black bodies" and the corresponding visual colors / wavelength. ill post the pic of the claw and relate that to the corresponding color. someone said it looked like glass a few pages back. well, if glass had this appearance, then it would still be the same temp as steel that looked like that. basically, black bodies look the same when heated to the same color. when someone says that is aluminum pouring out of the side of the wtc, then that alluminum still needs to be the same temp that corresponds to that color.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_spectrum

"The wavelength at which the radiation is strongest is given by Wien's displacement law, and the overall power emitted per unit area is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. So, as temperature increases, the glow color changes from red to yellow to white to blue."

"At room temperature, black bodies emit mostly infrared light, but as the temperature increases past a few hundred degrees Celsius, black bodies start to emit visible wavelengths, from red, through orange, yellow, and white before ending up at blue, beyond which the emission includes increasing amounts of ultraviolet."

so steel starts to melt at 1370C. the temp corresponds to the top yellow color on the chart. looks to me that both pics have color resembling that.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

i dont know if u guys went over this or not. correct me if im wrong. this just goes into the physics of what is known as "black bodies" and the corresponding visual colors / wavelength. ill post the pic of the claw and relate that to the corresponding color. someone said it looked like glass a few pages back. well, if glass had this appearance, then it would still be the same temp as steel that looked like that. basically, black bodies look the same when heated to the same color. when someone says that is aluminum pouring out of the side of the wtc, then that alluminum still needs to be the same temp that corresponds to that color.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_spectrum

"The wavelength at which the radiation is strongest is given by Wien's displacement law, and the overall power emitted per unit area is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. So, as temperature increases, the glow color changes from red to yellow to white to blue."

"At room temperature, black bodies emit mostly infrared light, but as the temperature increases past a few hundred degrees Celsius, black bodies start to emit visible wavelengths, from red, through orange, yellow, and white before ending up at blue, beyond which the emission includes increasing amounts of ultraviolet."

so steel starts to melt at 1370C. the temp corresponds to the top yellow color on the chart. looks to me that both pics have color resembling that.[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854449ab0fee05b93.jpg[/qimg]

I thought instead of replying like I did in an earlier contention I made to C7 I would illustrate it dead on:

What is the temperature of this according to the blackbody measurement properties in this version?

 

[MikeW]

so when NIST said the molten flow from south tower was aluminium mixed with organics you believed them right?

Let's not dodge the point, which is that I don't see how Jones has established this isn't structural steel. You may trust him, I certainly don't.

can you link to NIST's comments. thanks

Try Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications, for instance (it's tiny for a NIST file). There are lots of references but Chapter 3 is probably best, tables 3-3 and 3-4 - very little chromium in most, more manganese. Pages 45 and 46 (PDF reader) or 19 and 20 (as labeled in the file).

 

[alexi_drago]

It looks like someone cutting something in the smoke behind the machine.

 

[Senenmut]

I thought instead of replying like I did in an earlier contention I made to C7 I would illustrate it dead on:

[qimg]http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3504/caseinpoint.png[/qimg]

What is the temperature of this according to the blackbody measurement properties in this version?

im still seeing yellow but im guessing your point is that the pick can be altered. the pick i posted, one can make out the steel in the claw, the one u posted is all black and i cant make out the steel. so which one has been altered?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

im still seeing yellow but im guessing your point is that the pick can be altered. the pick i posted, one can make out the steel in the claw, the one u posted is all black and i cant make out the steel. so which one has been altered?

"Altered" isn't quite what I wanted you to get from the version I posted. For the sake of this discussion I took the image and played with the white exposure, the camera equivalent of setting a slower or faster shutter speed to enable the camera to collect more or less light respectively. Issues such as camera settings make it questionable as to whether or not a reliable measure can be derived in the method you and C7 are using to determine the temperature of the items in question. The alteration I posted was strictly related to simulating different ISO settings to give you a direct representation of what I am illustrating. If you prefer, I have some pictures from a recent trip to the Everglades which may illustrate this a little bit better for you whre I personally made errors in the camera settings which resulted in two completely different pictures. PM me if you'd like to have a look if you think it may clarify things a bit better than the quick photoshop illustration.

 

[stateofgrace]

before i answer that, you will answer my question. a dialogue is a two way street you know. so tell me what are you arguing? (a) there were sufficient temp in the rubble pile to create molten steel or (b) there was not?

the point i am making is, if you are aguing the former then you are forced to accept the presence of molten steel in the rubble pile. if the latter then you are forced to argue that an office fire can make holes in a steel beam. either way there is a concession.

peace

I have not made a single claim nor am I arguing anything. I cannot for the life of me understand why you are trying to lure me into saying something, or arguing something that I have not said and simply distract form the points I have put to you. I have not disagreed with you at all; I have simply asked you to expand on statements you said you agreed with.

YOU agreed the temperatures in the rubble were insufficient to produce molten steel. YOU agreed that the temperatures in the rubble were not sufficient to maintain the steel in a molten state.

It is you, Chris and others that claim molten steel observed after the towers collapsed is important, not me. You believe that the observations of molten steel days/weeks afterwards prove that thermite was used to bring these towers down. So what you are offering in a scenario with blanks, I simply want you to fill in he blanks.

1. Thermite is used to destroy the towers and in doing so produces molten steel.
2. BLANK.
3. Molten steel is observed days/weeks later.

Please fill in the blank and tell me how the heat from the rubble that was insufficient to produce molten metal, kept it molten once it was produced.

I am simply asking, if thermite produced your observed molten steel then how was it kept molten in the rubble that you have agreed was unable to sustain steel in a molten state.

Please fill in the blank.

Incidentally,why was molten steel observed under WTC 6 ?

 

[Senenmut]

"Altered" isn't quite what I wanted you to get from the version I posted. For the sake of this discussion I took the image and played with the white exposure, the camera equivalent of setting a slower shutter speed to enable the camera to collect more light. Issues such as camera settings make it questionable as to whether or not a reliable measure can be derived in the method you and C7 are using to determine the temperature of the items in question. The alteration I posted was strictly related to simulating different ISO settings to give you a direct representation of what I am illustrating.

im not following. if u set a slower shutter speed, it would collect more light and overexpose the film. im seeing the opposite with your pic, that is, it looks underexposed. but what we see in both pics is a yellow object that would have a corresponding temp of at least 1260-1370C.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography)
Overexposure and underexposure
A photograph may be described as overexposed when it has a loss of highlight detail, that is, the when the bright parts of an image are effectively all white, known as "blown out highlights" (or "clipped whites"). A photograph may be described as underexposed when it has a loss of shadow detail, that is, the dark areas indistinguishable from black, known as "blocked up shadows" (or sometimes "crushed shadows," "crushed blacks," or "clipped blacks," especially in video).

 

[beachnut]

Dr.Jones recovered chunks, fragments, and microsphericules of once molten iron. it was tested and determined to have the same chemicals as observed from a commercial thermite reaction. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf

this iron was determined not to originate from of the structural steel
molten iron is a biproduct of a thermite reaction.

what was the source of this iron?
what was the source of the temperature to produce this molten iron?
when was the iron molten, prior to or during the rubble pile?
what process could have produced this molten iron?

peace

This is a lie if you are saying thermite was used to bring down the WTC. And your web site delusion presentation is pure junk science.

You spread lies. Why?

A lame presentation of pure woo. And you are unable to see it. That is sad.

The ironic part is Jones attacks the no plane guys! This is classic stupidity, Jones proposes delusions and shoots down other 911Truth delusions. He uses science to debunk the no plane idiots but then uses hearsay, lies, and fantasy to form his insane ideas. Good job Jones; fired from his university job to spread woo to those who lack knowledge.

But he does not have any proof of thermite used to bring down the towers, just some doltish rant on 204 slides.

Molten Steel. Oops, no, not even the metal or glass in the jaws of a machine are melted. OOPS>

 

[Gravy]

Dr.Jones recovered chunks, fragments, and microsphericules of once molten iron. it was tested and determined to have the same chemicals as observed from a commercial thermite reaction. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf

this iron was determined not to originate from of the structural steel
molten iron is a biproduct of a thermite reaction.

Wrong again. This is what comes of putting your trust in utter incompetents and liars. You should read my site some time. You could keep from making gross errors in every post. From my Steven Jones section:

Bad science: comments on Steven Jones' January, 2008 paper on iron microspheres found in WTC dust.

Dr. Frank Greening's summary of Jones' January, 2008 paper on iron microspheres. More here.

Dr. Frank Greening lectures Steven Jones about the content of his iron microspheres

Flaws with Jones' X-ray analysis of dust

On the quantification of EDS spectra (related to Steven Jones' "microspheres" claims)

The "mysterious" iron spheres in WTC dust that are cited by Jones as possible evidence of thermite or thermate use, were in fact expected to be produced by the WTC fires:

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

...In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event. Source (PDF)​

Jones is the same guy who announced that he'd discovered the "smoking gun" of 9/11: pink eggshell-like chips containing exploding nanothermite. Funny that he didn't reveal what the gray side was. He also neglected to test his samples against, you know, paint, which is what it is. He could have found the formula for the Tower primer paint in the NIST report, but why read the report when you can make a public ass of yourself instead? He's been mighty quiet about that "smoking gun" ever since.

Jones is the same guy who dropped a piece of concrete on another from 12 feet and claimed that as proof that the 4" concrete floors in the quarter-mile high Twin Towers could not pulverize in a collapse. Read my site for many more examples of his lying and incompetence. What a despicable fraud.

Yep, you hitched your wagon to a real intellectual star, thewholesoul.

 

[thewholesoul]

I have not made a single claim nor am I arguing anything. I cannot for the life of me understand why you are trying to lure me into saying something,

because a dialogue is a two way process. i entered this discussion in hope you had changed but apparently its all you asking questions and not answering any of mine just like past encounters. so before i answer any more questions from you, you will answer mine. is your position that (a) there were sufficient temp in the rubble pile to create molten steel or (b) there was not?

peace

 

[stateofgrace]

because a dialogue is a two way process. i entered this discussion in hope you had changed but apparently its all you asking questions and not answering any of mine just like past encounters. so before i answer any more questions from you, you will answer mine. is your position that (a) there were sufficient temp in the rubble pile to create molten steel or (b) there was not?

peace

Please stop appealing to my emotions; I really could not care less. Answer my post, fully or stop wasting my time.

I have not made a single claim nor am I arguing anything. I cannot for the life of me understand why you are trying to lure me into saying something, or arguing something that I have not said and simply distract form the points I have put to you. I have not disagreed with you at all; I have simply asked you to expand on statements you said you agreed with.

YOU agreed the temperatures in the rubble were insufficient to produce molten steel. YOU agreed that the temperatures in the rubble were not sufficient to maintain the steel in a molten state.

It is you, Chris and others that claim molten steel observed after the towers collapsed is important, not me. You believe that the observations of molten steel days/weeks afterwards prove that thermite was used to bring these towers down. So what you are offering in a scenario with blanks, I simply want you to fill in he blanks.

1. Thermite is used to destroy the towers and in doing so produces molten steel.
2. BLANK.
3. Molten steel is observed days/weeks later.

Please fill in the blank and tell me how the heat from the rubble that was insufficient to produce molten metal, kept it molten once it was produced.

I am simply asking, if thermite produced your observed molten steel then how was it kept molten in the rubble that you have agreed was unable to sustain steel in a molten state.

Please fill in the blank.

Incidentally,why was molten steel observed under WTC 6 ?

When you are ready.

 

[thewholesoul]

You should read my site some time.

will do Mark,

are you going to respond to post 674 and 676?

i'll respond to your latest mail in time.

peace

 

[beachnut]

because a dialogue is a two way process. i entered this discussion in hope you had changed but apparently its all you asking questions and not answering any of mine just like past encounters. so before i answer any more questions from you, you will answer mine. is your position that (a) there were sufficient temp in the rubble pile to create molten steel or (b) there was not?

peace

What does it matter, there were no explosives or thermite used to bring the WTC complex down; that is the made up story of a few nut bats in 911Truth why does this matter? Can you tie this hearsay molten steel to something to do with 911?

The morons post this in their slide presentation, 166 http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf .

The question of what hit the Pentagon on 9/11 continues to be studied by the Scholars for 9/11 Truth

The flight data recorder (FDR) was found in the Pentagon from Flight 77 as was DNA from each passenger. OOPS, Scholars lack some deductive skill of a moron!

Then you use this tripe for support of thermite? My goodness, the aluminum and rusted steel of the WTC have become the Scholars evidence for thermite. What a bunch of dolts.


That slide show had political tripe in to support your molten steel with no scenario. What is the political tripe for? Looks like they don’t like Bush like most Americans and many here at JREF. What is your motel steel mean? That slide show you posted is pure tripe and will set back your search for molten steel years. How does the slide show support your delusions?

as big as an elephant

How serious are you? You can’t even answer simple questions on topic you use as evidence. Your research is very shallow and you I have not seen you tie this molten steel to a rational scenario on 911. Do you have a story to go with the molten steel and how it fits in to 911? Any clue yet?

 

[thewholesoul]

Please stop appealing to my emotions; I really could not care less. Answer my post, fully.

no.

every person i debate in JREF forum asks me questions and answer some of mine - except you. what makes you so special - nothing.

peace

 

[NutCracker]

because a dialogue is a two way process. i entered this discussion in hope you had changed but apparently its all you asking questions and not answering any of mine just like past encounters.

Your theory has a hole one could fly a jetliner through. stateofgrace is rightly asking you for an explanation that fills that hole. Until the time you done so I will stick to the position that your theory is fantasy detached from reality.

 

[stateofgrace]

no.

every person i debate in JREF forum asks me questions and answer some of mine - except you. what makes you so special - nothing.

peace

Unlike you, who is so special he cannot answer a simple question that brings his silly theory about death squads planting thermite inside fully occupied buildings before planes were slammed into them, crashing down, right?

Are you a special type of special that accuses his fellow countrymen of mass murder and excuses Al Qaeda?

Answer my questions and show me how special you are.

And you are correct I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to enter into dialogue with you. You have stated your position, quite clearly. You clearly believe that thermite was used to bring these buildings down and the reports of molten metal afterwards proves this. Therefore, based on your position,I am quite entitled to question it. If you find my questions difficult and your position untenable, then simply change your position. But for goodness sake stop whining because I or anybody questions your already predetermined conclusions.